Emails between Commissioner and landowner
Emails between Commissioner and landowner
Public conversation moves to private device
For the dedicated reader, a dive into eight years of email correspondence between an inconvenienced landowner, and one Clallam County Commissioner, reveals how much influence one individual has over an elected official assigned to represent a district of 25,000 county residents. A petition shielded from public view, taxpayer-funded automatic gates, and the suggestion by an elected official that the discussion move away from his “county device” leave residents wondering if they are fairly represented and will be able to use the road they have paid for and continue to pay for.
[Note: At the February 27th, 2023, Commissioners’ Work Session, the County Engineer announced that grant funding (not County money) had been secured to complete Towne Road and that it could be achieved by September 30th. When Commissioner Ozias spoke for the first time, his focus centered on Pierce County resident Derrick Eberle. “Specifically I’m interested in, for example, the driveway access to the Eberles’ and what their expectations and needs are.”
The County Engineer preferred that the property owner's driveway be accessed by the paved county road, as it had been for a century, even though the owner had gone on record as wanting the road closed to public traffic. Ultimately, Commissioner Ozias halted the completion of Towne Road by citing Eberle’s wishes and the desires of 98 petitioners.
The public meeting mentioned in the following emails was held September 26th, 2023.]
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 3:46 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
I'm a resident in your district. I own property adjacent to the Dungeness River Setback project on Towne Road that the county is currently working on.
Is it possible to meet with you and share some of my concerns for the project? I had a similar meeting with Jim McEntire last year, but since he is no longer my representative I thought I is prudent to meet with you. Please let me know if you are available this Thursday or Friday to meet.
Thank you,
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:16 AM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Mr. Eberle,
Thank you for your note - it would be a pleasure to meet you.
I am completely booked through Thanksgiving; how would Thursday 12/1 or Friday 12/2 work for you? I am open between 9-1 that Thursday and between 1-4 that Friday.
Sincerely,
Mark Ozias
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:10 AM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply. The last few weeks have been busy.
I was waiting to see how my schedule panned out, but unfortunately I won't be able to meet this week. I have a job where I am out of town quite a bit.
I do plan on attending the public meeting tonight at the Dungeness Schoolhouse. Are you going? If so, maybe we can talk there about a time to meet later this month.
Thank you,
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:26 AM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Mr. Eberle, I look forward to seeing you at the Schoolhouse this evening.
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 4:45 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
It was nice meeting you on Tuesday at the Dungeness River meeting.
Per our discussion, if you still have next Friday morning (December 9) available, we'd appreciate being able to meet with you. 10 AM would work well for us.
Please let me know. Have a great weekend.
Regards,
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:34 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Derrick,
This Friday at 10 am works for me, too. Let me know where you'd like to meet and I look forward to being there.
Sincerely,
Mark O
On Dec 8, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Derrick Eberle > wrote:
Hi Mark,
We'll be coming from Tacoma, and with this potential "Snowmegeddon" coming in tonight I'm not sure when we'll be leaving. Can I touch base tomorrow around 8 to see if we're still on time? Do you have any flexibility for later (11 or 12) or are you filled up?
As for meeting location, anywhere downtown would be good. My wife and I will grab a bite afterwards so let me know if you have a recommendation.
Thank you,
Derrick
On Dec 8, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Ozias, Mark > wrote:
Just keep me posted, no problem if you are running late.
Rainshadow Coffee on Cedar St would be a good location.
Drive safe!
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Fri 12/9/2016 9:01 AM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Re: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
We ended up having a lot of snow out where we are. Thought we'd be able to leave by now but I'm not sure we'll even make it to the Peninsula today, therefore we won't make our meeting at 10.
Will you be available the week between Christmas and New Year at all? If not maybe we can just find time to talk over the phone.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience and really appreciate you trying to accommodate our schedule.
Have a great weekend.
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 9:03 AM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Snowed in! Wish I were...
Yes, I will be available the week between Xmas and New Years. Just let me know which day works best for you.
No worries about re-scheduling...
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Eberle Meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 1:37:35 AM
Hi Mark,
Trying again - are you free this Wednesday around noon, or later, to meet briefly? We can try the coffee shop you mentioned or come to you.
Thanks,
Derrick
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:51 AM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
Just checking in regarding the Dungeness River Setback project. After our meeting you had mentioned that you were going to get together with the County and discuss our needs and concerns. Just wanted to know how that went and what’s on the horizon. Last email I received from Cathy in February indicated that they would have a new alignment to show us, but I haven’t seen anything yet.
Thank you, hope all is well,
Derrick Eberle, ASLA | Associate
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 1:38 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Derrick,
Thank you for your patience – I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I’ve been out of the office quite a bit the past few weeks helping my mom who had a stroke and who is rehabbing on the other side of the water.
Here is what I’ve learned from Cathy about the current alignment:
As currently configured, below are the distances from the Eberle’s north property line:
Centerline of road to Eberle property line – 128ft
Edge of road / shoulder to property line – 112ft
Toe of road/levee embankment to property line – 94ft
I am not sure if these numbers are different from the previous iteration. Let me know if you can interpret them, and if so, whether they are better/same/worse than before as far as your property is concerned.
Thanks
Mark Ozias
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 9:59 AM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
I am so sorry to hear about your mother. I hope she is rehabbing well and feeling better.
Those distances are about the same, maybe even a little worse than what we were shown at the last public meeting. I sent the attached comments to Cathy on December 5, 2016, after the public meeting, with a request to meet in person out on the site. That meeting was something that was offered during the public meeting by either the County or the Design Team. Haven’t heard back on that.
This is what I’ve been worried about Mark, the county and design team “listening” to us but not addressing what we request. We’ve been patient with this process but it seems like we aren’t being considered.
Thanks for staying involved with this.
Derrick Eberle, ASLA | Associate
Bruce Dees & Associates, LLC
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:01 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Derrick,
Thanks for your kind words. Mom seems to be doing pretty well, and in fact we get to bring her home on Friday. She will still need a lot of help, but a big step nonetheless.
When I reached out to Cathy Lear, she sent the following response:
“Our design engineer, Dave Cline, and I plan to meet with the Eberle family, and with other landowners, in July. Once Dave sends me his schedule I can set up meetings with everyone. I hope to meet with each landowner individually so that we can walk around the property and see what the plans would look like on the ground. Each property has a unique set of conditions, so I would like to be able to devote attention to each one. I would be thrilled if you attended.
Our schedule backed up when we realized that it was important to change the design of the levee so that a historic channel could be reconnected to the river –the Corps’ design cut right across it, keeping it disconnected from the river.”
Derrick, I have asked Cathy to keep me in the loop as these meetings get set up, and I will specifically plan to attend your “on site” meeting in July.
Thanks,
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 8:05 AM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
We have a tentative meeting set up with Cathy and the design team at our farm this Monday the 10th. Cathy hasn’t been able to confirm the meeting yet and establish a time (thinking morning). I know it is short notice, but I thought it be best to give you a heads up now to see if you are available. I would’ve contacted you sooner had I known it is for sure and the time. I’ll let you know if I get an update soon.
Thank you,
Derrick Derrick Eberle, ASLA | Associate
Bruce Dees & Associates, LLC
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 10:10 AM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Derrick,
Thanks for the note. Monday I will be in work session all morning and then out of the office celebrating my wife’s birthday in the afternoon. Let’s touch base after as I will be keen to hear how the conversation went.
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Cc: Bri Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Hi Mark,
I just wanted to follow up and let you know that we met on our driveway with Cathy and Dave Cline (Shannon Wilson) on the Monday I mentioned below.
The meeting was very positive. Cathy and Dave were both supportive of what we asked. As you know the biggest concern for us has always been proximity of the levee/road to our north property line. We told Cathy and Dave that as a compromise we would be most comfortable with a 300’ setback from our property line. After discussion Cathy mentioned some of the stakeholders may not like this but acknowledged that cooperation and compromise is critical to the success of this project. She sees no reason why they could not fulfill our request. Both Cathy and Dave replied that they would work toward revising the design toward fulfilling our request for this alignment (300’ setback).
We also discussed planting the space in between our property and the road with a variety of both conifer and deciduous plantings, and installing a fence parallel to the road in this area as a part of the project.
It was the meeting we were long hoping to have, and Bri and I are both relieved and excited about the project, which is a great feeling. We haven’t seen the revised design yet, but are assuming the County will follow up with what they promised. I will keep you posted.
Thank you again for your involvement.
Derrick
Bruce Dees & Associates
From: Ozias, Mark
To: "Derrick Eberle"
Cc: Bri Eberle
Subject: RE: Dungeness River Setback Project
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:57:20 PM
Derrick and Bri,
Thank you so much for the note – I’ve been wondering how that went and am glad to hear you are satisfied with the conversation.
Please do keep me posted as things progress, and of course don’t hesitate to reach out right away if any concerns or ideas surface that need some additional and/or immediate attention.
Sincerely,
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:08 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Eberle Update (External Email: USE Caution)
Hi Mark, Just wanted to check in with you about a few things:
1. Haven't heard recently from the County about the River Setback Project, but last I talked to Cathy everything was very positive and the County seems responsive so we are optimistic.
2. Has there been any development on that upper Dungeness River project you spoke to me about a year ago? When we met in person, you mentioned that it could be an opportunity for a landscape architect passionate about the area to help out. Just thought I would follow up.
3. I received notice about an update to the SMP for Clallam County. I looked up our farm on the attached map (top middle) and it looks like there are some designations of "Natural SED" and "Shoreline Residential-Conservancy SED" on some of our farmland. Do you know who I can talk to about what those designations mean, what the restrictions are, and how this has changed from the previous update?
Thanks as always for your interest Mark. I hope you and your family are enjoying the holidays.
Regards, Derrick Eberle
From: Ozias, Mark
To: "Derrick Eberle" Cc: Gray, Steve
Subject: RE: Eberle Update (External Email: USE Caution)
Date: Friday, December 29, 2017 8:37:50 AM
Hello Derrick
Thanks for the note and sorry for the delayed response…tis the season!
If the upper Dungeness project you’re asking about is the off-channel reservoir (I think it is) then there has been no movement to speak of. If the state legislature manages to pass a capital budget it will likely contain enough funding to purchase the parcel; in the meantime we are working to apply for other grant sources to help with design.
The best person to ask your specific questions related to the SMP is Steve Gray, who I have cc’d on this reply. If you prefer to contact Steve by phone his number is 360-417-XXXX. The County Commissioners are currently pouring through five years’ worth of public comment on the SMP update and we expect to have our next formal discussion at a late January work session. I have no projected date for possible adoption of the updated Plan, but hope to get it put to bed by the end of the first quarter.
My best to you in the new year. Let’s grab a cup of coffee next time you’re in town.
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark
Cc: Gray, Steve
Subject: Re: Eberle Update (External Email: USE Caution) (External Email: USE Caution)
Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 9:47:22 AM
Hi Mark,
Thank you for the reply. Yes that is the project I was referring to.
I appreciate the introduction. I'll reach out to Steve with any questions soon.
Thank you again. Happy New Year!
Derrick
From: Derrick Eberle [mailto:deberle@bdassociates.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:52 PM
To: Donatelle, Ben (RCO)
Cc: Thirtyacre, Sarah (RCO)
Subject: Funding for Dungeness River Off-Channel Reservoir
Hi Ben,
I believe we exchanged emails several times while working to complete the Billy Whiteshoes Memorial Park project. The Lower Elwha Tribe and I both really appreciate all RCO did on that great project. I met Sarah Thirtyacre from RCO at the dedication of that project. I emailed her this same email I am sending you, about a new project I am working on. I received an out of office reply, so I thought it may be appropriate to follow up with you.
The project is located in Sequim, WA, which coincidentally is the town I grew up in.
A group of partners (County, City, Tribe, River Groups, Farmers) want to purchase a 320 acre parcel from the DNR to create an off-channel reservoir from the Dungeness River.
Identified advantages of project:
Significant flow restoration for ESA-listed species
Long-term agricultural viability
Improved stormwater management and flood mitigation
Increased Aquifer Recharge
Water Resource Protection
New 320-Acre County Park with River Frontage
Climate Resiliency for Fish, Farms, and People
Here are grants they have applied for already:
Floodplains by Design
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Puget Sound Restoration Acquisition Fund
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant
Are there any grant sources from RCO they can look at for design? I went to the RCO website and perused the grant list, and actually think many apply! ALEA, ESRP, LWCF, NCLI, PSAR, RTP, and possibly BFP depending on other activities on the reservoir?
What do you think – are some of these not applicable? Any other considerations for a project like this? I’ve attached a graphic from the city’s website for reference.
I greatly appreciate your input; this project is very important to me as it is a part of the community I grew up in and I own and operate a farm up there as well..
Thank you,
Derrick Eberle, ASLA | Associate
From: Donatelle, Ben (RCO) [mailto:ben.donatelle@rco.wa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 12:17 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Funding for Dungeness River Off-Channel Reservoir
Hi Derrick – Thanks for the email and your questions, your timing is impeccable. At the time this landed in my In Box, I was actually on my way up to Clallam County to meet with one of their county commissioners and their lead hydrologist about this project.
I’ll tell you what I told them. Unfortunately the grant programs on our side of the shop (Recreation and Conservation) provide limited opportunities for planning assistance. Of those you note below, the Boating Facilities Program is the only one that allows for planning projects. Planning projects in BFP must result in site designs, architectural drawings, and all permits necessary to move forward with construction of a BFP eligible project. In the case of this project, it seems as though there is limited opportunities for motorized boating and therefore not a good fit for BFP funding. The other program that they may look into is the Nonhighway Off-Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) program. NOVA allows for trials and facilities planning projects so long as the project location meets the Nonhighway Road eligibility requirement (detailed in Manual 14). This may provide some opportunity for planning the trail system within the park.
I also suggested that once the property has been acquired and the county is ready to build out the park elements of the project, some of our programs – WWRP, NOVA, and LWCF especially – could potentially assist with construction of the county park. As with all of our development projects, planning, design and permitting are eligible pre-agreement costs, and can be either used as match or reimbursed for up to three years prior to receiving a grant award.
I also spoke with Kat Moore on the Salmon Funding Board side of our shop and she is aware of the project and the Conservation District’s application for PSAR funds. In any event, it sounds like this is an ambitious project but one that is well supported across the county. I’ll look forward to seeing how it progress as time goes on. If there is anything I can help with, or if you have any other questions about our particular funding programs, please don’t hesitate to reach back out.
Thanks Derrick,
Ben
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: FW: Funding for Dungeness River Off-Channel Reservoir (External Email: USE Caution)
Date: Monday, January 22, 2018 5:24:34 PM
Hi Mark,
Since our last email discussion I’ve started looking into some funding opportunities for the planning Off Channel Reservoir project. I reached out to RCO, whom I work with on a lot of projects, but it sounds like funding options for planning are limited. In Ben’s email below he mentioned meeting with a commissioner so I assume he met with you and provided the same information he shared with me below, but I am passing it along just in case.
I’m also looking into some other options for consideration. Sometimes NOAA/NMFS has grants and I’ll check with other agencies I’ve worked with such as EPA, USFWS, Corps, etc.
If any assistance is needed in applying for grants or producing graphics or diagrams that support a grant application, I would be happy to offer my services to see this project continue. As both a landscape architect and a farm owner, I see tremendous value in this for our community. Truly, don’t hesitate to ask if there is something I can do to help.
I’ll let you know what I find. I’ll try to keep correspondence minimal as I’m sure you have a lot of other efforts going on too.
Regards,
Derrick Eberle, ASLA | Associate
From: Ozias, Mark [mailto:mozias@co.clallam.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:51 AM
To: Derrick Eberle Subject:
RE: Funding for Dungeness River Off-Channel Reservoir (External Email: USE Caution)
Thanks Derrick! We did meet with Ben the other day and he counseled us to use the next 18 mos to engage the public in helping to put some shape around the desired recreational aspects of the site; a robust public process coupled with the existing broad support from local and state partners will make for a very strong application (or applications.)
We were expecting $ in the capital budget to fund the purchase of the parcel but that funding was removed; Rep. Tharinger has told me that they expect it to be in the supplemental budget which should be passed in a couple of months.
I will definitely keep you in the loop and I really appreciate your reaching out!
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: RE: Funding for Dungeness River Off-Channel Reservoir (External Email: USE Caution) (External Email: USE Caution)
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 10:52:02 AM
Attachments: 01-25-18 Master Plan Process Diagram.pdf 01-25-18 Master Plan Process Diagram Descriptions.pdf
Hi Mark,
Meant to respond sooner. That is a good plan.
How do you intend to engage the public? I’ve attached a diagram of the public process I follow on many of my designs for both public parks and restoration sites, many of which relied on RCO or federal funding. The process involves identifying key stakeholders (which I think has already been done) at the beginning of the project and forming an advisory committee of individual representatives that can attend the recurring (perhaps monthly or bi-monthly) meetings of this committee. That part is important as you will want the same representatives present throughout the process. They help make decisions while working toward developing a master plan. Concurrently, a public meeting is held at the beginning where the process is explained and all provide their input. This is also a good opportunity to see if anyone was missed in the formation of the advisory committee and add them at that point.
After needs & concerns are gathered, a program is developed and refined by the committee. Then alternative plans are developed which the committee reviews, ultimately selecting one, or preferred elements from several to become one, and that is developed into the preliminary plan. The public is engaged again at this point, showing how their needs & concerns mentioned at the first meeting were addressed in the plan. Representatives from the committee are encouraged to attend this second meeting, and often help to dissuade any contentious unexpected feedback, since it is evident to the public that their interests are represented by the members of this committee. After public comments are taken, the plan is refined into the final plan for the site. I’ve attached a verbal description of the process as well.
The result is a plan that represents the needs of the community, client, and interest groups, and has the political support of the public making adoption, and grant application, very easy. Also with the master plan cost estimates, and phasing plans, are completed.
You may be very familiar with this process already. If you do need any help engaging the public, I am happy to offer my assistance, and lead the process if desired. I could help to outline a schedule as well and make sure we stay on task. Let me know if that would be of interest. I think having all the help you can at this early stage will really make a difference as this project evolves!
Derrick Eberle, ASLA | Associate
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 12:09 PM
To: Ozias, Mark; Johnson, Randy; Peach, Bill
Cc: Lear, Cathy
Subject: Lower Dungeness River Project - Letter (External Email: USE Caution)
Dear Board of Commissioners,
I am a resident of 2488 Towne Road, Sequim, WA, 98382, and a neighbor to the Lower Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration & Levee Realignment project.
I have written the attached letter in support of the project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your interest in the project.
Sincerely,
Derrick Eberle
Cell Phone - (360) 461-XXXX
From: Johnson, Randy
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 12:30 PM
To: Derrick Eberle; Ozias, Mark; Peach, Bill
Cc: Lear, Cathy
Subject: RE: Lower Dungeness River Project - Letter (External Email: USE Caution)
Derrick,
Thank you for your comments. I will also pass this letter on to the DCD Director.
Randy
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 12:09 PM
To: Ozias, Mark; Johnson, Randy; Peach, Bill Cc: Lear, Cathy
Subject: Lower Dungeness River Project - Letter (External Email: USE Caution)
Dear Board of Commissioners,
I am a resident of 2488 Towne Road, Sequim, WA, 98382, and a neighbor to the Lower Dungeness River Floodplain Restoration & Levee Realignment project. I have written the attached letter in support of the project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your interest in the project.
Sincerely, Derrick Eberle
Cell Phone - (360) 461-XXXX
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Lower Dungeness River Project - Letter (External Email: USE Caution)
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:48:10 AM
Hi Derrick, Thanks for the note and for your support! Our recent community meeting was well-attended and positive; my sense is that the project continues to be broadly supported and that planners have been doing a great job of reaching out to, and working with, impacted homeowners to the extent possible. Some of the most significant concerns raised by the public relate to trail access which tells me people are excited to use the space. Give me a jingle the next time you are in town – I’d love to say hello in person.
Sincerely, Mark Ozias
Clallam County Commissioner
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:30 PM
To: Capps, Linda Cc: Craig L. Miller
Subject: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Hi Linda,
I had a chance to speak with an attorney and review the County's proposal. Thank you for giving us the time to do that.
In discussion with the attorney, he expressed to me that he did not see any reason why the property which my driveway remains on, south of the proposed Towne Road alignment, needs to be obtained as County ROW. He advised that I should be able to retain an easement on County owned property as a part of this project. This would eliminate any sort of ambiguity to us retaining the sign, our existing rights etc. at the end of the driveway.
So our preferred agreement would be either of the following:Maintain an easement south of proposed Towne Road through County property Purchase (via a boundary line adjustment or similar) the land for which our driveway currently occupies, from either the current or future landowner (WSDOT or County)
For either of these options, I think it's necessary to agree and finalize as a part of this transaction rather than try to see what is possible after the project is completed.
I wouldn't anticipate the second option is agreeable, but if it is we are interested and hopefully it demonstrates our intent to preserve the privacy of our driveway as we have it now.
I have a separate question on the valuation of easement that will be purchased - but that is minor and I'll address it after we figure this out.
Thank you, Derrick and Bri
From: Capps, Linda
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:06 PM
To: 'Derrick Eberle'
Subject: RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
The property south of the proposed levy is currently owned by Washington State Department of Transportation and the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. They have no desire to own anything with a road on it as the project moves forward. Due to the nature of the levy, your driveway will need to climb around 5 to 8 feet to meet the new road alignment. This is, understandably, an expensive driveway to build. It would be an undue hardship to expect you to build this. We can’t leave you without access to your property. So the county will be acquiring ownership from the state and building your driveway as part of the levy project. This is the way you will retain the ability to get from your existing gate to Towne Road.
In general, county right of way is for public travel. We don’t grant private easements along county right of way because it’s unnecessary. You don’t need an easement to travel along Towne Road or Sequim Dungeness Way and you won’t need one to travel from Towne Road to your property.
To be clear, to transfer ownership of publicly owned land, it needs to be declared surplus. This property isn’t surplus because we need it for this project to build an access road to your property. The state can’t sell it to you and we can’t sell it to you until, at a minimum, this project is complete. We are aware that you would like to own this property but that can’t happen right now.
I hope this explains things for you. Let me know if you have questions.
Linda Capps / Right of Way Agent Clallam County Road Department
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:53 AM
To: Capps, Linda
Subject: Re: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Thanks you for the reply Linda, and thanks for the clarification on the transfer of ownership. You had indicated that before. If that was something to pursue, I figure we could write up the agreement up now (to be executed after project completion).
But that doesn't have to be the solution, an easement would be fine. I understand the point made in your first paragraph. What I questioned below is why the County needs to obtain my driveway as ROW in the first place. Why can't the portion of my driveway just be a county owned property of which I am granted my same easement? The county would still provide us access, but we would retain our easement south of the new Towne road.
I realize you are a Right of Way agent for the county, so if there is someone else I should speak with about easements, please feel free to direct me to them. Again, my attorney said there should be no reason why the county couldn't provide me the same easement over their newly acquired property, instead of converting it to ROW. Let me know if that is incorrect advisement from my attorney.
Thanks again for your help.
Derrick
From: Capps, Linda
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:04 AM
To: 'Derrick Eberle'
Subject: RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Since you have retained an attorney, I need to be having this discussion with them. You can have Mr. Miller contact me or I can contact him. Please let me know if I need to contact Mr. Miller.
Linda Capps / Right of Way Agent
Clallam County Road Department
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:16 PM
To: Capps, Linda
Subject: Re: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Thanks Linda,
Per your suggestion when you gave us the offer paperwork, I had an attorney (Craig Miller) review the offer you provided. He provided his analysis and that concluded our business.
I intend to finalize this agreement on my own from here out. I feel I asked a straightforward question below but let me know if that is not the case.
Thanks, Derrick
From: Capps, Linda
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:21 PM
To: 'Derrick Eberle'
Subject: RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Your attorney is incorrect when he tells you that you have any input on how we take ownership. The land right now is owned by WSDOT & WDFW and is encumbered by a conservation easement as well as your easement for ingress, egress and utilities. We are taking ownership as county right of way. It is not being converted to county right of way, we will be taking ownership of it as county right of way. We will provide you with ingress, egress and utilities along your existing easement.
If you do nothing, you will have an easement for ingress, egress and utilities over county right of way which will be a cloud on the title for this portion of land. As an easement isn’t required over county right of way, it will effectively be an abandoned easement. These aren’t debatable points, they just are facts. One of the ways to extinguish an easement is to provide access along publicly owned right of way. If you sign the quit claims, I can pay you for the easement. If you don’t want to, you don’t have to but I can’t pay you.
You do not have an easement for a sign. The fact that you have a sign that the property owner hasn’t removed does not convey the continuing right to have a sign. As I have said in the past, the county does not allow private signs on county right of way. My best suggestion remains to put a sign above your gate but what you do about a sign is up to you as long as it is not in county right of way.
Linda Capps / Right of Way Agent
Clallam County Road Department
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 3:48 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Fw: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Hi Mark,
Hope life has been treating you well.
Sorry to be reaching out to you with another issue related to the Dungeness River project, but I felt your assistance last time helped us overcome an obstacle and continue to support the project.
I haven't seen anything recently on the design of the project, but I'm assuming it is similar to where it was left last and there are no concerns. The issue that has come up over the past year is the acquisition of our driveway easement by the County for the project.
As I understand it, WSDOT will be transferring the land my driveway sits on to Clallam County as a part of the project, at which point they will acquire it as public ROW. The issue is that by the County converting our driveway easement to ROW, this would prohibit us from putting a sign like we have now for "Eberle Farm" at the end of our driveway (also would impact our ability to have a gate there, etc.). Other concerns that surround ROW include public access on our driveway, public parking, trespassing, etc. We've taken care of this driveway for around a hundred years and now feel that we are being pressured to take a $2,000 payment and lose all rights we've had on our driveway for the past century. My question to the county is why can't they just acquire the easement as county-owned property instead of ROW. The response I continue to get from the County's agent, Linda Capps, is that obtaining it as ROW is what they are doing, period, no further information.
I don't see why they can't keep it as county owned property, or if it is county ROW, make an exception for us to have a sign and possibly gate at the end of the driveway. Linda made a comment about emergency services access in the past, but that is no different than the existing gate already present on our driveway. I consulted an attorney (per Linda's suggestion to have one review the offer) and he agreed that the acquisition did not need to be ROW related and that I should be able to retain my sign on County-owned property.
Linda has been difficult to deal with at times. She often does not directly answer my questions and I've felt that she's threatened us (not trying to use that lightly, she's said several times that if we don't sign the county is going to do this anyway and we just won't get any money). I really would appreciate a complete response to my question and a honest consideration of our request. I should add that during the design phase - we asked about the sign and gate before and it was always acceptable. This restriction is new as a part of the ROW acquisition effort.
The email chain below summarizes the most recent discussion between Linda and I. It also offers another option we proposed, for us to purchase that driveway land from county.
Not sure where to take it from here. Consulting an attorney is expensive and the advisement I've received from one already seems to be disregarded by Linda. The name on the purchase offer from the County to me is Joe Swordmaker, whom I assume is Linda's boss. Since I haven't been receiving answers to what I'm asking I've contemplated going to him, but I also don't want to disrespect Linda. Not sure where to take it from here and wondering what your thoughts are.
Thanks again Mark,
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:05 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Hi Derrick,
Thank you for reaching out. I will look into this in greater detail right away and let you know what I learn.
Mark O
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:27:10 AM
RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Good morning Derrick,Here is what I've learned:You have an existing 16’ easement for ingress egress and utilities upon WSDOT land.
Due to the design of the new dike and accompanying new Towne Road upon it, the elevation of the new Towne Road where your access road is located will be about 10 feet above current elevations. The elevation change requires the County to build an elevated access road to their property that includes retaining walls and guardrails.
Since you do not have an easement for signage or gates on the WSDOT property, and since you do not comport to County policies for having “Traveler Advisory” signs on County R/W like signs for gas, food or lodging, we cannot legally accommodate your signage. This (as well as the gate needing to be moved back) is driven primarily by maintenance and safety responsibilities.
To answer one question directly, it would make no difference if we only acquired an Easement or Fee Deeded title to the WSDOT land. Given that an easement would be buried underneath ten feet of new dike, it is no longer functional and due to the complexity of the structures being built (retaining walls, fill and guardrails) upon the top of this easement it’s not practical, nor safe to allow a private citizen to exert ownership, maintenance or operational duties or rights on this area.
The legal opinion we've got from our Prosecuting Attorney's office (which we are required to follow) indicates that since your ingress, egress and utility function is not being adversely affected your easement will be null due to lack of necessity.
Derrick, while this isn't exactly the answer you were hoping for I do understand how the complexity of the new structure would create a legal and risk management nightmare should the county's ability to control and maintain this roadway be encumbered in any way. I realize this project will have an undue impact on the historic "entrance" to your family property and it is difficult to imagine what it is going to look like when complete, but I imagine driving along the elevated Towne Rd and looking down toward your road and seeing your gate and sign exactly as they exist now, only a bit further up your drive.
I do hope this explanation helps. I apologize for the frustration and hope you can understand the county's position.
Sincerely,
Mark O
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:49 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Derrick,
I have learned a bit more that could help shed additional light on things.
Due to the design of the new dike and accompanying new Towne Road upon it, the elevation of Towne Road where your access road is located will be about 10 feet above current elevations. The elevation change requires the County to build an elevated access road to your property that includes retaining walls and guardrails. This is an Army Corps of Engineers (permitting agency) requirement that the levee footprint be minimized (narrowed) to avoid impacts to the wetlands. The earlier design’s profile was lower and had a larger footprint, which was unacceptable to the Corps.
The specific location of the levee on WSDOT property near your property reflects the county's efforts to adhere to your wishes and concerns; for example, to meet your request the levee will be located farther north than is strictly necessary. The Corps staff was not thrilled (to say the least) with the northward location and we had to strongly advocate for it.
I hope this additional information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:20 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Re: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Thanks for the reply Mark, sincerely.
I am still left with the question of why the county cannot acquire the land as a county owned property instead of ROW? I realize the county will incur a large cost in constructing the infrastructure from what you have described and therefore does not want to be encumbered by any ownership restrictions, but is it possible to be county owned instead of ROW?
Thank you,
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 1:56 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Derrick,
Thank you for your patience, understanding, partnership and good faith. When I try to transport myself to your "shoes" it isn't hard to imagine the responsibility you feel...to the land, to your family, to history and for the future.
As it turns out, there is a good answer to your question. WSDOT acquired the property in question for mitigation for the SR101 widening project critical area impacts. Their Army Corp of Engineers (ACE) permits requires the State to hold this land in perpetuity for environmental mitigation purposes. For them to transfer any portion of it they have to go through a "surplusing" process much as the county does to dispose of any public land. Part of that process is stating that it is no longer necessary for its stated purpose, mitigation. That is one reason the County has to do so much new mitigation on the WSDOT land, we have to replace the mitigation value they are losing. Declaring it surplus (with their mitigation value restored) for R/W is a legitimate purpose as it supports the overall mission of the Dungeness Dike Relocation Project which in large part is salmon habitat restoration.
I hope that helps. Nothing is as easy as it seems!
Sincerely,
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
From: Ozias, Mark
Re: Eberle Driveway Easement Agreement
Sunday, April 11, 2021 10:10:37 PM
Thanks for the reply Mark, and sorry for the slow response. I wasn't sure how best to respond, only because it's hard to be ok with something that is not defined right now. I'm not really sure what the final design looks like, so its hard to tell if our driveway will be a blip on the side of the road or a wide viewshed to our gate. Currently, we have a driveway and a sign that indicates our farm. We have a farm business, selling hay, etc. and that gateway an important landmark for us and our clients. Without seeing design plans, planting plans, etc, there is a lot of uncertainty around what will be happening (and when it will be happening).
To what you mentioned earlier, I do appreciate your involvement and the advocating that the county did on our behalf to the corps. I spoke with someone from the corps long ago and he was none too keen on providing any setback, so I can fully appreciate that it was an effort on your part. I do think it is important to note that the corps design had serious flaws beyond our preference for privacy, with the layout of their original levee and the lack of good habitat design in general with respect to the property edges, something I'm very familiar with. Had they pushed the levee-at-property-edge design, I'm not sure the project would have progressed as successfully as it has.
I'm excited about the river project, as a landscape architect and someone who cares about the planet, this will be great. But this weird, last minute "must be ROW, can't have a sign anymore" development is strange and just seems unnecessary. Maybe it's the only way the county can do it, but its a change from what was discussed in the past and seems like it will be a negative impact for us, especially when we haven't been involved in what the landscape will look like as we drive to our home (at least not involved in the past year). At this point I think it makes sense for us not to sign the agreement, and I guess the County will push ahead on taking the easement and doing what they need to. Seems like an unfortunate end for a family that has provided written support for this project.
If you think it'd help to meet to discuss anything further, I am more than happy to. But I feel you have already put a lot of time in and I'm not sure there is more to explain than you already have. Either way, thanks Mark, sincerely.
Derrick
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 2:06 PM
To: Ozias, MarkCc: Lear, Cathy; Lear, Cathy; Tyler, Ross
Hello Mark,
I wanted to reach out to you today to voice my support to keep the portion of Towne Road located in the area of the river setback project closed permanently. It is currently closed for a “indefinite period” as indicated by the road closure signs.
After speaking with Cathy Lear this past Monday about the river project, I realized I should share my thoughts on this with you. I had asked Cathy about the current road closure, and she explained a little bit more about the situation the county faces: the county is to spending considerable funds on As you know, our family has made several concessions on this project to help see it be completed. We are losing about 350’ of driveway that we have used to access our property for the past hundred years. Also, the new levee is upward of 6’ taller than existing grade, and the potential of new road traffic and noise on top of the levee always brought great concerns to our family. As you are aware from knowledge of the site, our farm character is very peaceful and tranquil currently. Bringing this road several hundred feet closer and elevating it above the surrounding land will permanently change that existing character which makes our farm what it is, and makes us feel safe.
Keeping the road closed is an amazing prospect for us, as it would have the reverse effect of the concern I’ve voiced above. We would now have a larger buffer between us and the public thoroughfare, while still achieving the goal of a vastly increased lower Dungeness River floodplain.
Also, the way that the current project is designed, our driveway ingress/egress is currently proposed to be located at the end of an inside curve. Eliminating a road on this levy would eliminate any intersection safety issues that could arise from this design. It would also eliminate that need for supplemental plantings to screen out the levee, as there would no longer be a vehicular route of travel in this area.
Please consider making the closure of Towne Road permanent. It would have a profound and lasting impact on our family as supporters and neighbors of this river setback project. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to myself or my wife. I would also be happy to sign and submit a letter to this effect if that would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Derrick and Bri Eberle
2488 Towne Road
From: mark.ozias@clallamcountywa.gov
To: Derrick Eberle, cathy.lear@clallamcountywa.gov
Re: Towne Road Closure
Friday, August 19, 2022 12:25:13 PM
Hi Derrick,
Thanks your your outreach and hope all is well with you and yours. I am not sure when we may get back around to discussion about the future (or lack thereof) of that segment of Towne Road but we will definitely keep your preference in mind; your wishes to see this segment remain closed permanently are echoed by many other neighbors I've spoken with over the past year.
Sincerely,
Mark Ozias
On Feb 28, 2023 11:27 AM, "Moore, Kaia" wrote:
Hello,
I am attaching the link for our work session yesterday regarding the future of Towne Road. If you have time, please listen in to the discussion and see what they have to say. Again, we are hoping to get together, and brainstorm ideas and what options we have regarding the Eberle access and the future of Towne Road.
Commissioner's Work Session (granicus.com)
Thank you,
Kaia Moore/Right of Way Agent
Clallam County Road Department
From: Eberle Farm
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:12 PM
To: Moore, Kaia
Subject: Re: Towne Road Discussion
Hello Kaia,
Thank you for your email this morning. Derrick and I wanted to get back to you as soon as possible due to the time sensitivity of this project. We both listened to the audio clip you attached of the commissioners work session.
We also understand how important it is to meet soon about this project and feel It would be best to meet in person. Given the short notice with tomorrow already being Wednesday, we are not able to meet this week with our current schedules. We can however carve out time next week from our schedules to meet you in person and have a meeting. Our preferred meeting date would be Friday the 10th, as this would cause the least disruptiveness to our work schedules and our kids schedules currently as is. Is this a possibility for your office? We are open to all times of the day and could meet on site at the levy easiest, if that is also possible for whomever is wanting to be at our meeting.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Bri Eberle
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark
Fw: Towne Road Discussion
Monday, March 6, 2023 11:06:07 PM
Hello Commissioner Ozias,
Bri and I had the chance to view the Commissioner's Work Session that was held last Tuesday the 28th to listen to the discussion on the future of Towne Road. We appreciate what you and Commissioner Johnson said regarding the future of the road, and feel that it very much represents the concerns that we have brought forth. Our thanks to both of you for that representation.
Per the email below, we are planning to meet with the County Road department this Friday out on-site.
Here are the thoughts we intend to share with them, many of which you have already stated during the work session:
Our driveway is the only hard surfaced route into our farm. All other points of access are through hayfields
Therefore we intend to continue to use the new levee as our point of access to our residence.We've been accessing our farm via the levee at the same time the general public has been using the levee for over the past two months with no issues. We realize that there is a concern permitting vehicular traffic and public access in the same pathway for the long term
A dedicated lane of travel for public access - say around 14' wide - could be demarcated for use by the public The remaining 14' or would the be utilized as a low speed travel lane for us, local farmers, the county, tribe, etc. The two lanes could be demarcated by simple flagging/pickets every 20' or so, and possibly some signage.
We don't think a one-way road would be a solution:Such a road would prevent the bidirectional ingress/egress we have now.I also think it would negate the effect of the wonderful walking/jogging/cylcing opportunity that is our there now.
All remaining funds and/or grants that were going to be spent on the road development can hopefully be redireted for parking areas, signage, ecological enhancement etc. to further enhance the public access amenity.
Please let me know if you have any quetions about my comments below, and I look forward to the meeting this Friday. Thank you for providing the opportunity.
Sincerely,
Derrick and Bri Eberle
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
RE: Towne Road Discussion Tuesday
March 7, 2023 3:38:20 PM
Hi Derrick! Thank you for sharing this. I had encouraged our team to check in with you before bringing any plan or request to the Board, so I’m sorry that did not happen sooner. This is very helpful to understand and I have shared with the other Commissioners as an FYI.
Hope you both are well,
Mark O
On Mar 13, 2023 7:49 AM, "Capps, Linda" wrote:
Thank you for meeting with us to discuss the levy last Friday. It was a very productive meeting. I want to be sure that I have everything we discussed correct before it goes to the commissioners.
Big maintenance issues – potholes, etc. aren’t a big concern but you don’t want to be responsible for major issues like drainage. We believe that would fall under levy maintenance, but we would like the commissioners to affirm that.
Separation of driving area and walking area – we have gone back and forth about this in the road department. You don’t want anything at your driveway so farm equipment will be able to turn in and out but do you want something on the rest of the levy?
Automated gate – at least one automated gate would make your lives easier but having both automated would be good. If you could easily program in a code for visitors and be able to change that code if there were problems, it could resolve issues about farm tours, hay customers, etc.
Gates need a minimum of 14 feet of clearance and 16 feet would be better. Is this wide enough?
You would like to be kept informed specifically about drainage plans, parking lots and when levy issues go to the commissioners. I am happy to email you with this information. If something comes up suddenly, a phone call may be more appropriate.
Does this cover everything?
Linda Capps
Right of Way Agent
Clallam County Road Department
From: Eberle Farm
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Capps, Linda
Subject: Re: Towne Road
Good morning Linda,
Thank you for sending this, this morning.
It will take Derrick and I a few days to look this over properly and get back to you with our thoughts.
Can you let me know the exact date that you plan on meeting with the commissioners next about this so that we can get back to you before then? This is very important.
Thank you!
Bri and Derrick Eberle
From: Capps, Linda
To: Eberle Farm
Cc: Donisi, Joe; Lear, Cathy
Subject: RE: Towne Road
Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 11:57:28 AM
Good morning!
We don’t have a date right now but we certainly won’t be in front of the commissioners before next Monday’s work session. If you can get back to us by 9 am next Monday, we will have your thoughts before we go to the commissioners. When we do have a time to go before the commissioners, I will let you know so you can be there if you choose to. This is very important, especially for you. No one wants to move forward without taking into consideration your wishes.
I will keep you posted on any developments on our side of things.
Linda
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 10:46 PM
To: Capps, Linda
Subject: Re: Towne Road
Hello Linda,
Thanks for sharing the write up below. Also thank you to you and Joe for coming out and speaking with us on-site on March 10th. We appreciated the conversation we had with the two of you and your efforts to help realize the community's desire to turn this area into a trail, and not a road.
The following are our additional comments to your summary. Our comments immediately follow each of your points. Our comments are in red text. In general you captured our discussion accurately, thank you.
From County: Big maintenance issues – potholes, etc. aren’t a big concern but you don’t want to be responsible for major issues like drainage. We believe that would fall under levy maintenance, but we would like the commissioners to affirm that.
- Ok, that sounds good. Please let us know what this will be when that is decided.
From County: Separation of driving area and walking area – we have gone back and forth about this in the road department. You don’t want anything at your driveway so farm equipment will be able to turn in and out but do you want something on the rest of the levy?
- We are flexible in how the county wants to seperate the areas, but we see the value in having some form of demarcation to make both the levee users feel comfortable where they walk, and enhance safety for trail users and ourselves. A solid impermeable divider wouldn't fit the nice character out there, but maybe if there was some sort of simple intermittent divider that reminded people of agricultural access on the levee yet allowed full use of the space when traffic from our farm was not present. We diagrammed an example of this idea:
This diagram is also attached it to the email so you can view it at a higher resolution. The diagram is just a suggestion of dimensions, styles, etc, I'm sure it could be accomplished many different ways. This shows an idea of how this small barrier installation could be low cost for the county yet enhance safety for all.
From County: Automated gate – at least one automated gate would make your lives easier but having both automated would be good. If you could easily program in a code for visitors and be able to change that code if there were problems, it could resolve issues about farm tours, hay customers, etc.
- Yes. Thank you for mentioning this during the meeting. That was very considerate of our regular access and would be a great convenience for us as opposed to the current system. Happy to collaborate with the County on this aspect as needed.
From County: Gates need a minimum of 14 feet of clearance and 16 feet would be better. Is this wide enough?
- Yes, we believe that width (particularly 16') is adequate for our needs. There is no equipment we have or plan to have in excess of this width.
From County: You would like to be kept informed specifically about drainage plans, parking lots and when levy issues go to the commissioners. I am happy to email you with this information. If something comes up suddenly, a phone call may be more appropriate.
- Yes, that is appreciated. After speaking with you and Joe, it was relayed that there are some surface drainage solutions that still need to be worked out as well as final levee elevation, etc. The county mentioned possibly draining all water to the south to avoid draining toward the new river floodplain. We understood the rationale explained to us in the field and would appreciate being kept informed, when possible, what the plan will be.
Thank you,
Derrick and Bri Eberle
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark
Fw: Towne Road
Sunday, March 19, 2023 10:52:40 PM
Hi Mark,
FYI below regarding follow up to the meeting that Bri and I had with Linda Capps and Joe Donisi on-site on March 10, about our access needs in conjunction with the public trail on the new levee.
As I understand, the road department intends to share the results of this meeting with you at your upcoming work session. I don't intend to shortcut the delivery of this information, just wanted to share as an FYI so that you could be apprised of our response to the meeting we had with the county.
Thanks!
Derrick
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Ozias, Mark; Randy.Johnson@ClallamCountyWA.gov; Mike.French@ClallamCountyWA.gov
Subject: Dungness River Levee Trail
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2023 11:53:00 AM
Hello Commissioners Ozias, Johnson, and French,
We would like to make you aware of this local community petition that shows once again how wanted this levee trail is (and not the reconstruction of Towne Road):
https://www.change.org/p/preserve-dungeness-river-walking-trail-keep-towne-road-closed? source_location=search
We reached this number of signatures through minimal outreach, in late winter and spring weather. Imagine how many more people would/will sign this if there were no signs saying the trail is "closed to pedestrian access", and with the weather finally improving.
Thank you,
Derrick Eberle
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 1:28 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: In-Person Meeting
Hi Mark,
Are you available to meet in person again? Been several years since our last coffee chat and thought it would be good to see you again. Wanted to check in on the direction of the river levee and a few related things.
I'm available this coming weekend and Monday on Juneteenth. I wouldn't expect you to be available any of those times, but thought I'd check in case you were. Otherwise I'll let you know the next time I'm free on a week day.
Thanks, Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: In-Person Meeting
Hi Derrick! Of course, I would love to get together.
This upcoming weekend has already filled up with a combination of pride events and campaign obligations so I would love to take a raincheck. Please let me know the next time you plan to be in town and I will make sure to carve out some time to catch up.
Mark O.
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Re: In-Person Meeting
Hi Mark,
I'll be in town all of next week, starting Sunday the 2nd through the evening of Thursday the 6th. Let me know when would work well for you and in general what time. I'm pretty flexible.
Thanks,
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: In-Person Meeting
Would 9:30 on Wednesday July 5 work? We could meet at Rainshadow Coffee if that’s good for you.
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Mark Ozias
Re: In-Person Meeting
Saturday, July 1, 2023 11:15:18 AM
That sounds great. See you then!
Happy 4th.
Derrick
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
RE: In-Person Meeting
Monday, July 3, 2023 10:25:04 AMThanks Derrick, I’m looking forward to it.
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Mark Ozias
RE: In-Person MeetingWednesday, July 5, 2023 9:28:22 AM
Maybe just a few minutes late.
Derrick
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
follow up
Thursday, July 13, 2023 1:13:27 PM
Hello Derrick,
Great to see you last week – thank you for the time.
I checked in on the automatic gate and it sounds like that is on-track. We are researching options and I think this fall is probably a realistic expectation on timing.
I am working on addressing some of the other things we discussed but wanted you to have this update in the meantime.
Lastly, would you mind sharing your mobile? I’d like to connect with you NOT on county time or my county device to follow up.
Much thanks,
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 3:23 PM
To: Ozias, Mark
Subject: Re: follow up
Great to see you as well, Mark.
Sorry for the slow reply, we were out of town.
Sure thing, my cell is (360) 461-XXXX. Call or text anytime is ok! Thanks for the update on the gate. On-track.... Nice pun!
I think the only (slight) reservation I have about the Fall timeframe is that it will have been a year since we started using this locked gate system. And fall can stretch till late December, and I wonder if by that time people in Public Works might be questioning if we really "need" this since we've been living so long without it, etc.. and then decide not to do it. We're inconvenienced daily, and that is a lot more days to keep dealing with things. If it is actually in by Fall we can live with that, we just don't want people to lose site that it is something we need. We know you understand that.
Thanks a lot for all your help with this, sincerely.
Derrick
From: Ozias, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Derrick Eberle
Subject: RE: follow up
I spoke with Joe about the gate again yesterday. We have been researching options and the most likely scenario is that we will be adding this item to the other work we plan to get done on the levy in September. I promise I will stay on top of it and make sure we get the gate done.
Much thanks for your patience and your understanding!
Mark Ozias
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Mark Ozias
Re: follow up - automated gates on Levee
Sunday, August 20, 2023 10:31:47 AM
Hi Mark –
Checking in to see if there is anything the team needs before the automated gates are installed next month. September is just 10 days out - is there a date set for the work that we could plan to be available for in case questions / issues come up?
Am curious about the planned layout & signage? I mentioned this to Cathy long ago that I think the "road closed" sign should be installed next to instead of on the gate. The current issue is that Nash leaves the gate open during the day as he travels past with his tractors. Someone wandered in with their car the other day and didn't see the road closed sign. They ended up getting locked in when the other side was closed and the side they entered was closed behind them.
Size of the opening is also important. I think I mentioned this in person. I think 16' or as large as reasonable would be great.
Thanks,
Derrick
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
RE: follow up - automated gates on Levee
Tuesday, August 22, 2023 5:05:24 PM
We just opened bids today and will be awarding them next week. The plan is still to tag this item on as an additional work item for the winning bidder.
Mark Ozias
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Lear, Cathy; Ozias, Mark; Bri Eberle
Public Comment During the Upcoming Dungeness River Levee Meeting
Monday, September 18, 2023 11:49:26 AM
Hello Cathy,
Thank you for emailing me about the upcoming meeting for the Towne Road levee setback concepts. I'm looking forward to attending.
I was informed that there may not be a formal verbal public comment period during the meeting. I really think that would be a mistake; an opportunity for people to speak I believe is critical I believe for the county to hear about what the community would like to see. Here are the reasons:
The last meeting about this topic 10 or so years ago allowed for public comment, and the comments received have largely been cited by county representatives as rationale for having a road there. Seems like this meeting should be given the same opportunity and carry the same weight.
Three of the four concepts described in the meeting announcement involve having a road connection. If the intent is to solicit discussion only on the concepts, it seems unfair and biased that 75% of the content favors one condition (a road).Written comments are great, but they do not capture as wide and thorough of public opinion as both verbal and written comments. I would say written capture a fraction of that and represent a smaller component of the community.
Allowing for a public comment period during the meeting or as a part of the discussion, even if very brief (a minute or less per), is necessary to receive an accurate account of what the public wants.
Thank you for considering this. Please let me know that you received this message. Sincerely,
Derrick & Bri Eberle
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:10 PM
To: Lear, Cathy Cc: Ozias, Mark; Bri Eberle ; Emery, Bruce
Subject: Re: Public Comment During the Upcoming Dungeness River Levee Meeting
Hi Cathy,
As Bri and I reviewed the four road alternates identified as options about the email notice for the meeting, we have huge concern about the 3rd option listed - the one-way road option.
We were assured by the County at the onset of this project years ago that there would not be a long-term adverse effect to our way of life on this farm. It was always discussed, whether there is a road or no road, we would maintain the ability to drive both ways (from Towne and from Sequim-Dungeness) to our farm. We (as well our neighbors Nash Huber and Sarah McCarthy) need that two-way connection to remain for both private and business uses.
Please confirm that this one-way road concept would still allow us to have access both ways (such as with a traffic signal or something similar) whenever we come and go from our residence. If it would not, please remove it from consideration of alternatives in the presentation to the public.
Thank you,
Derrick & Bri Eberle
From: Cathy Lear
To: Derrick Eberle, Ozias, Mark; Bri Eberle; Emery, Bruce
RE: Public Comment During the Upcoming Dungeness River Levee Meeting
Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:48:46 AM
Hi, Derrick,
I will forward your comment to the Road Department to address and place it in the public comments for the levee surface topic.
Thank you
Cathy Lear
Habitat Biologist
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
RE: Public Comment During the Upcoming Dungeness River Levee Meeting
Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:34:40 AM
Thanks for weighing in – I asked our public works team to try to be creative so this was just one of the options they came up with. I understand your opposition to this option.
I checked in regarding the gate yesterday and it sounds like the team is trying to figure out what to do as there has been pretty regular vandalism (cut locks, etc.) on the existing gates and we are looking to find something with the potential to stand up to some abuse. I will continue to stay on top of this detail until we have some resolution.
Sincerely,
Mark Ozias
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Lear, Cathy, Ozias, Mark; Bri Eberle; Emery, Bruce
Re: Public Comment During the Upcoming Dungeness River Levee Meeting
Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:52:59 AM
Hi Cathy,
Thank you for the reply back. We appreciate your effort to forward this legitimate concern to the road department on behalf of us. In case the road department is not aware of the history of the project, please relay to them what we've discussed in the past: when you and consultant Dave Cline made a visit to our farm during the design phase to discuss the project, we were assured by the two of you that we would still have the same access we do now, both ways, after the conclusion of the project. Road staff was not involved in that conversation, so I want to be sure they are aware if they are going to be in charge of decisions moving forward. Maybe we can have a meeting with all of us in attendance to review the history of the project, as it affects what is happening now.
Thank you,
Derrick
From: Derrick Eberle
To: Mark Ozias
Re: Public Comment During the Upcoming Dungeness River Levee Meeting
Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:09:21 AM
Thanks Mark, your response is appreciated. I had heard PW mention something similar in the past, and we voiced our concern then, so you can see our discomfort that it continues to advance and now is part of the public discussion.
As for the locks, that is unfortunate to hear. I did notice the chain by Sequim-Dungeness shrinking a few links, but I hadn't heard or noticed the lock cutting occuring. Has anyone asked Nash if he just forgot the code and cut his way through? I'm confident there are more robust components for a gate out there, I come across them in the Park work I do.
Thanks,
Derrick
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:25 PM
To: loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov <loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov>Cc: Bri Eberle
Subject: Submission of Eberle Family Comments re: Dungeness Levee Project
Dungeness Levee Project Comments
Date: 10/10/2023
Clallam County Resident?: Yes
1. First Name: Derrick & Bri
2. Last Name: Eberle
3. Email: xxxxxxx@outlook.com
4. Phone: (360) 461-XXXX5.
Subject: Dungeness Levee Project
Dear Board of Commissioners,
We are writing to you today to voice our family’s support for the fourth design option presented by Clallam County: the pedestrian trail with access alongside our farm.
The following are our reasons for supporting this option:
1. Our property has been more affected by this project than any other single private landowner due to our home’s location. We have no plans to ever sell or leave our home and farm, thus what happens here in the long term matters greatly to us. We would prefer to maintain the rural character of the landscape that we enjoyed prior to this project. A road that is closer and above our farm is not the same as the road that was there before.
The levee segment in question has become a successful outdoor walking trail, linkingtwo other trail segments (by the school house and the “Rivers End” trail) to create one great contiguous trail that has views of nature, the river, historical structures and farmland all at the same time.
As mentioned at the public meeting, keeping this segment a trail will be the most cost- effective solution as it would not require the county to seek and spend funding to convert it into a road and all the related improvements and maintenance requires. The trail provides what the community wants at the lowest price.
Everyone in the public can use this trail at various times of day and in varying seasons and weather conditions. We have personally witnessed people safely enjoying the trail on many cold, rainy days as well as on the sunniest days we have.
There is no way putting a road on this segment (as proposed in the other options presented) will allow that trail character to be preserved. The noise, speed, and presence of cars will detract from any route alongside the traffic.
Wildlife will be safer, and move better, along and across a walking trail than a paved two-lane road.
The hardscape created by the paving will create runoff with contaminants, this would not occur with the trail. The impervious area will also contribute to the urban heat island effect.
All farmers in the area either oppose the road or are indifferent to whether it is paved or not. No farmer (our farm, Nash’s, The Dungeness Creamery) wants to see the road reopen.
We are aware of no other neighbor who lives on Towne Road in the immediate vicinity of the project (from the schoolhouse to up the hill that looks over the valley on Towne Road ) that wants to see the road reopen. The people who live closest to this project should have a bigger say in the outcome (as should anyone in a similar situation), as this decision affects their daily lives.
The intersection that a road would create at Anderson & Sequim-Dungeness Way would be dangerous. It was said at the public meeting by Public Works that this would now be a two-way stop sign and not a roundabout. That stop sign would be on the inside of a blind curve and could lead to many vehicular accidents.
We think there will be more equal access for all citizens of the County if this is kept a trail, and not a road. Not everyone has a car, and with trends in the world relating to changing climates and a departure from fossil fuels, we believe that public outdoor open space close to all communities will be more valuable to the public good.
In the event of an emergency on either side of the trail segment, which we understand to be a concern of some community members, we believe the gates can be designed to function in a manner that would permit easy access to Emergency Medical Services or any neighbors attempting to evacuate an area. We believe design team should be able to come up with a simple, economic intervention, such as the locks for the EMS providers or some other method, that could permit quick access through the segment as if it were a road.
I (Derrick) have lived at 2488 Towne Road my entire life, and as such have decades of experience watching people drive on the former road every day. Compared to seeing how many people have used it as a walking trail on a daily basis over the past year, we believe more people are being served by the trail.
We all are now faced with an opportunity that is once in a generation, once in a lifetime, to likely change the effect of a problem (project delays and cost overruns) into something positive for the greater good. What a fortuitous destination this turn of events has brought us to: Future generations from now can only know this levee trail and can appreciate this piece of earth that we so fondly call Dungeness because of it. It will inspire others to take note and do the same, hopefully.
Thank you for considering our wishes. Sincerely,
Derrick and Bri Eberle, and our children Jxxxxx, Bxxx, Hxxxx, and Wxxxxxxxxxx
2488 Towne Road
From: Mark Ozias
To: Derrick Eberle
Submission of Eberle Family Comments re: Dungeness Levee Project
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:49:00 PM
Hi Derrick,
Affirming we received OK.
Thanks,
Mark O
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 5:03 PM
To: Ozias, Mark <mark.ozias@clallamcountywa.gov>; Johnson, Randy
<randy.johnson@clallamcountywa.gov>; French, Mike <Mike.French@clallamcountywa.gov>
Cc: Gores, Loni <loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov>
Subject: Fw: Urgent Response to 12/4 Agenda Item Summary by Bruce Emery
Hello Commissioners,
Below is an email that I just sent to DCD Director Bruce Emery regarding the Dungeness River
levee setback project.
The email is in response to the Agenda Item Summary dated 12/4/23 that I read yesterday
(attached).
As I noted to Director Emery, I did not want to write such a verbose email to a public official. I understand how challenging it can be to both read to and respond to public comments. But with the timing of me reading the summary and your upcoming meetings and decision on the project, I felt compelled to address the myriad of statements made in the recommendation that I felt were questionable or wrong.
I do not seek a response from the Commissioner's office, but would appreciate someone to review my concerns that I shared with how DCD arrived on their recommendation and the rationale for it. I plan to attend the meetings next week.
Thank you for your time.
Derrick Eberle
From: Derrick Eberle
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 4:44 PM
To: Emery, Bruce <Bruce.Emery@clallamcountywa.gov>
Subject: Urgent Response to 12/4 Agenda Item Summary by Bruce Emery
Hello Director Emery,
I am reaching out today because I was disappointed by what I read in the attached Agenda Item Summary dated 12/4/23; which includes your department's recommendation to the County Commissioners regarding the future of the Dungeness River levee trail / former Towne Road connection.
Following below are the issues I think are present in your office's recommendation. I apologize in advance that this is a long list and a long email, but I believe there are quite a number of issues and subjective information pertaining to the Department of Community Development's (DCD) recommendation and the rationale for said recommendation in the Summary.
In general, the summary through Page 3 of the document seemed to provide a factual reporting and a summary of the results of public input. However:
The summary included a breakdown of the public comment categorized according to which design alternate was identified as preferred in each respective comment Your office's summary implies, in the paragraph recommending alternative 2, that this "public sentiment expressed" impacted your decision. Why were alternatives counted and entered into a matrix of "votes" supporting each one?
I had specifically asked a Commissioner at the last public meeting if it would be appropriate to have both my wife Bri and I write our own letters of support in case some sort of "votes were counted" to decide. The Commissioner informed me that certainly not, each letter would be reviewed and considered for its relationships and significance to the project, and that there would be no judgement based off tallies.
I can appreciate that possibly you were unaware of this conversation I had with the Commissioner, and had I asked you the same question you may have advised us each to submit a letter. But even if that is the case, tallying the responses makes no sense. I thought the rationale given to me by the Commissioner made sense.
This is a highly complex project. It involves careful and considerate decision making. It should not be tallied into a matrix where one person who visited once 10 years ago could have the same voice as someone who lived on the segment the past 50 years (hypothetical) The public shouldn't be left here thinking after reading your office's recommendation: "I wish my partner would have written their own copy of the letter" or that, "I could have paid people I found on Craigslist to write a bunch of letters adding to the "Alternative 4" total pot."
Did every one of those 413 comments specify which alternative they supported? Were any of the comments more subjective that may not have specified an alternative? Did some comments specify a preference for more than one alternative? If conditions like these two immediately above were present, how did DCD assign these comments to the respective alternative they are said to support?
After all this, here is how the breakdown in your office's accounting of responses was itemized:
i. Largest single number of votes went to a trail alternative
ii. Equal votes went to road-type corridor compared to trail-type corridor
iii. Adding all votes from the three options that mentioned a road had more votes combined than the single option presented of a trail
So with those considerations, DCD automatically selects to select the third type of voting outcome?? The county is the one that developed and presented three alternates with a road, and only one that was solely a trail. Is this how every public comment is setup, to skew one side or another?
(rhetorical)
We pointed this imbalance of options out to Cathy Lear and the road department as soon as we learned about them. Of course there is a greater chance that votes are spread out over a greater number of options. I am surprised and amazed and thrilled that the highest number of votes went in support of the alternate with no road, despite the way the county presented three out of the four alternatives having a road. It's hard to believe that your office dismissed that leading number of votes for Alternative 4 in your recommendation. That brings us to your office's bulleted lists of reasons supporting your recommendation, which includes more concerning language and wording:
Page 4:
Bullet one:
The phrasing "Deliberately ignoring these concerns" seems like a VERY subjective comment by your office on the intentions of those considering a non-road corridor. No one thinks public safety should be deliberately ignored, I just think your office is wrong in how you summarized the pro-trail perspective in this bullet. I imagine you have had considerable dialogue with Fire District 3, but I have seen correspondence from officials within that fire district online, including a chief, as well. Of course FD would state that more roads equal more response opportunity. That makes sense.
They also went to lengths to say that this segment of Towne Road would be a seldomly used segment in EMS response. They also said they could have access to locks to drive through. Director Emery, if you were to add 10 north/south roads in the Dungeness valley, that would provide much better response times. Where do you find a balance?
I don't' think any fire official would outright state that they "don't need a road". Your office should be viewing this information objectively and not designate counterpoints as people "deliberately ignoring".
Bullet two: Your office's response fails to note that the levee as it exists currently could also provide an escape route. If there were no gates on the levee, the route could function very similar to a gravel surfaced road than it would as an asphalt surfaced road in the event of an emergency. This leads only to an issue for how one could design ways to control access in times of non-emergency. There are so many ways to accommodate this, from physical infrastructure to procedural reinforcement. Your office has made the assumption that it must be a paved road to serve as an evacuation, which I believe is an incorrect statement.
Bullet three: The statement your office makes, that "It would be a missed opportunity not to provide a nexus between these two facilities" is very inappropriate and misleading. The current trail that exists between these two segments is already the nexus that your office speaks of. It is a very subjective statement by your office to indicate that a paved road is the only proper way to connect the other two segments.
I am a licensed landscape architect and I can tell you from years of designing public trails that in my opinion the best way to connect these two segments so very close to each other is not via a vehicular road but instead is via a trail segment that connects them to create a much larger trail amenity.
Bullet four: Your office is subjectively stating what the "right balance" is. What gives your office the authority to determine what is "right" in this circumstance? A key purpose of the meeting that you led at the Guy Cole Convention center a few months ago was to check back in on the sentiment of that meeting. It is alarming that your office is leaning back to an eight-year-old decision (was it an agreement? I don't recall one) on a different type of project as support for what your office is recommending, when the County held a meeting months ago to determine what the current community wants.
Did the County receive the updated information they sought at the 2023? From my seat it appears that out of all four alternatives presented, the public identified one preferred option more than all others. How many community members have moved, died, been born, or changed their mind since that meeting? (rhetorical)
Bullet five: As a resident of this community, this entire statement by your office is unacceptable. If I am to look at this one way, it sounds like your office is saying: There is too much harassment and vandalism so we're going to go ahead and give in to that pressure, and put the road back in." (not an actual quote)
What kind of precedent does that send? Should the trail advocates burn roads and knock over street signs so that DCD instead responds to that pressure? Please don't give in to community hooligans. I've worked with many civil engineers to design public roadways. I would contend that resurfacing, restriping, responding to vehicular accidents, etc. would be much more costly than effectively maintaining two gated points.
I take great umbrage to your statement of "while allowing for private driveway access", as it implies that you are balancing the needs of the few (me) to your perceived needs of the many (the minority as evidenced by your own voting matrix) that wants a road. The county is not "allowing" me access; the county is providing access that my family has held to our home for a hundred years. Per county officials, we are entitled to that access by the County.
Your office makes it sound like it is "unfair" that this trail restricts vehicle access while providing access for one landowner. It is my opinion that is a very skewed perspective. I did not sign any documents for this project, and therefore there is a cloud on the title of the property for the driveway that the County took from me, without compensation, to complete this project.
Bullet six: "Minimal compromise" is again a subjective term. That is your office's opinion. As a person who studies natural systems and designs space, I would say this is maximum compromise.
Page 6 Bullet one: Just because impacts to fish and wildlife (should also consider plants) will be addressed does not automatically mean said impacts will be addressed fully or adequately in a road design project. At this point your office cannot guarantee that there will be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife in this immediate area. As a design professional experienced in the restoration of wetland sites I can tell you there will be impacts.
Bullet two: Does maintaining regional access with a two-lane paved road "makes sense" as your office reports? Is your office the authority on what makes sense in the world, in the County, in our environment? When we think of the future what are we building for? With changing climate and tsunami fears, reconnecting a road seems to encourage greater buildup/development in a vulnerable area near the water. It could appear that your office is proposing to prop up unsustainable future development.
I think that our neighbors to the north have wonderful residences and businesses that they and their future generations should be able to continue to enjoy. But I don't think infrastructure should be expanded (like putting in the new road that your office is recommending) to accommodate development in what could be considered an ecologically perilous region.
I am not pleased to write this very lengthy letter to you; someone I have not really gotten to know or speak with very much about this project. I am aware you are a very busy individual with a tremendous amount of responsibility. However, with the recommendation you provided in this Summary, and the short time (yesterday) from when I came across this letter to the imminent upcoming discussion (Monday?) with the commissioners you mention, I feel I am left with no options but to compose this as best as I can and send to you. I am slightly embarrassed to input so much of my own response to your office's Summary, but I feel that I have not other option.
It is unfortunate that your office's recommendation seemed to echo the sentiment of a very vocal group (led by an individual who has been harrassing my family for months) that has savagely pushed for the development of a road in this segment in question. I am aware that this individual has emailed you on countless occasions repeatedly, because he has claimed to have done so online. I tried to take a more professional tact, to voice my concerns and our neighborhood's wishes through the appropriate channels concisely. But based on your office's recommendation in the Summary, I fear that I was wrong and should have been equally overbearing with my concerns.
Though I suggested it to you, I regret that I did not push for us to have a talk further about this matter in person. Maybe increased continued dialogue would have given the recreational alternative more credence in your office's mind.
With the amount of content that I commented on, I feel it may be unreasonable to ask your office to respond to everything I addressed. However I would appreciate your overall thoughts on what I've pointed out.
More importantly, I ask that you rescind this recommendation and reconsider your office's stance to a more objective and less subjective position to discuss with the Commissioners.
Thank you,
Derrick Eberle
On behalf of the "entitlement generation", I am sorry. I learned the hard way when I walked into the Town Tavern and said, "my cousin Bonnie sat on that stool for years, and I deserve to sit there too." Bonnie, you have just under 4 years to organize your campaign... Ozias ran unopposed and began his 3rd, four-year stint on January 1st this year.
Who would even think up something like this:
The public shouldn't be left here thinking after reading your office's recommendation: "I wish my partner would have written their own copy of the letter" or that, "I could have paid people I found on Craigslist to write a bunch of letters adding to the "Alternative 4" total pot."