Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
040113_ra01
Regular Agenda 10:00am JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Boazd of County Commissioners (BoCC) Philip Morley, County Administrator /~~- FROM: Cazl Smith, Director of Community Development `-"~ Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager David Wayne Johnson, Port Ludlow Lead Pl r DATE: April 1, 2013 SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement MLA12-00260 - Public Hearing and written comments received STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Due to economic conditions that have thwarted the anticipated build-out of the Port Ludlow Resort, the County has received a request from Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) and Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. (OWSI) to extend by amendment the term of their Development Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding with Jefferson County from May 8, 2020 to May 8, 2025. The amendment also includes a provision to extend preliminazy plat approval from the current seven yeazs, to ten years. The Board of County Commissioners must approve all amendments to this agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public heazing. On Mazch 4, 2013, the Board accepted the request and scheduled the required public heazing for April 1, 2013 at loam. The notice of Public Heazing was duly published in the Port Townsend Leader on March 6, 2013, and included a 10 day written public comment period from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: • Staff Report summazizing attached public and agency comments • Amendment No. 2 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement • Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding Regazding the Provision of Sewer Service within the Boundazies of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort ANALYSIS: Staff is providing a summazy report on the public comments received that outline issues of concern. A supplement to the staff report shall be provided to the Board with additional analysis and recommended actions should the Boazd choose to deliberate and take action at a future meeting. The Board must conduct a public hearing to take testimony before taking action. Regular Agenda io:ooam ALTERNATIVES: After taking testimony at the public hearing, the Board may move to either deliberate, accept and sign the proposed amended agreements, decline to sign the proposed amendments, propose alternative amendments, or schedule a future meeting to deliberate and take action. FISCAL IMPACT/COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: All staff time to process the amendments will be billed to PLA by the hour. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Conduct a public hearing to take testimony on MLA12-00260. 2. Schedule a future meeting to deliberate and take action. 3. Instruct staff to conduct further analysis and provide recommendations. REVIEWED BY: r~ ! ( -Z `_' ilip Mor ey, C unty Administrator STAFF REPORT TO JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: David Wavne Johnson, Port Ludlo« Lead Planner DATE: March 26. 2013 SUBJECT: Comments on MLA12-000260 -Port Ludlow Associates 2013 Development Agreement Amendment ISSUE: The Count- has received a request from Port Ludlo«~ Associates to eitend the terms of their development agreement by five years and preliminai~- plat approval by three rears. On March ~, 2013 the BOCC approved the initial request to review the proposed amendment and schedule the required public hearing. A ten (10) day public comment period to eipire on March 18, 2013 was inchided as part of the notice of public hearing scheduled for April 1, 2013. Attached and summarized bolo«- are the public comments received during the ten day comment period, the Applicant's verbatim response to those comments, as well as a comment from the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department. Staff encourages the BoCC to read the public comments in their entirety. Upon instruction by the Board, Staff will provide fiu-ther analysis of issues raise subsequent to the public hearing and before BoCC deliberations and makes a final decision. PUBLIC COMMENTS Port Ludlow Village Council: On March 18, 2013, staff received a timely letter from the Council supporting the extension of the development agreement and outlining the following concei7is: 1. Are there sufficient water rights to meet the needs of the future residents contemplated iii the Development Agreement? Is o~~mership of these rights protected for the Port Ludlow Coimnunity `' 2. During drilling for Well # 17, contamiliation was identified. There is concern among the community that those clean up costs may be passed on to OWSI ratepayers rather than be absorbed by the company's ownership. Anthony Simpson: On March 18, 2013, staff received a timely letter from Dr. Simpson supporting the extension of the development agreement outlining the follo~~-ing concerns: 1. Soil Contamination Remediation and its Costs. 2. Water Capacity for project demographic standards Quentin F. Soper, PhD: On March 18, 2013, staff received a timer- letter fi-om Dr. Soper supporting the proposed amendment on1~- if the follo~~; ing condition is met: '`a complete cleanup of all toiic contaminants at Well #2/ subject to the approval of WSDOE." Tom Stone: On March 16, 2013, staff received atuner- email from Mr. Stone ~~~ho indicated his fiill support of the proposed amendment. Bert Loomis: On March 18, 2013, staff received a tilnel~r email «~ith letter fi-om Mr. Loomis stating that he was in support of the proposed amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. The prompt and complete cleanup of all tonic contaminants at ~~~ell #2, subject to a completion bond approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE). 2. The complete removal of all topic contaminants from the Port Ludlo«- Golf Course, ~~-ith a posted completion bond subject to approval by WSDOE. 3. Written confirmation from the Washington State Department of Ecology that PLA/OWSI has obtained adequate Water Rights for fill build-out of the Port Ludlo~~ Master Plamied Resort. APPLICANT'S REPONSE On March 2~, 2013, staff received a written response from Port Ludlow- Associates regarding the public comments. With regard to the contaminated «e11 site: "781 Wallter Way-: This site is owned b~- OWSI. The DOE is aware of the enviromnental condition of the property. The contamination was caused by a leaky underground storage taiilc that was removed in 1990, before PLA acquired ownership of OWSI. OWSI believes the property will be remediated within the near future. At least two remediation plans have been prepared and are under discussion. PLA. OWSI, and the prior owner of OWSI, Pope Resources, are negotiating the allocation of responsibility for the cost of remediation and other issues relating to the remediation. If this negotiation does not result in the agreed remediation of the property, and if the parties dispute the scope or cost of the remediation, then some form of dispute resolution process, such as mediation. arbitration, or litigation, mar be needed. To the extent that Pope Resources or another third party does not bear the remediation cost, OWSI or its ratepayers ma~T bear or share the cost. No remediation costs w-ill be imposed on OWSI customers without the approval of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission following a public process. It is OWSPs expectation and understanding that it should use commercially reasonable efforts to cause potentially- responsible persons who caused the contamination to bear the remediation costs, rather than accept those costs and simply allocate them to its ratepayers." With regard to the Golf Course contamination site: "Golf Course Cart Bain at 7> 1 Highland Drive (My. Simpson incorrectly c~escr•ibes the location as the Maintenance Facilities at 181 Cameron D~~ive): This site is owned by PLA. The DOE is aware of the environment<21 condition of the property. The contamination w-as caused b~- a leaky underground storage tank at least 1~ years ago, before PLA's acquisition of the property, and to PLA's knowledge the contamination does not pose a serious tlueat to human health and safety or other elements of the environment. It is possible the property will not be remediated due to the contamination being in basalt rock. If the property is remediated, then neither OWSI nor its ratepayers ~~-ill bear any portion of the remediation cost. Generally: Federal and state environmental agencies, including the EPA and DOE, regulate the identification and remediation of contaminated real property. Cities and counties, including Jefferson County, typically do not adopt or enforce standards for identifying or remediating contaminated property.,' With regard to the water right/capacity issue: ``OWSI currently has approiimately 1550 residential water service connections, approiimately 23 commercial ~zater service connections (equal to 242 residential equivalent connections per the June 2012 MERU record), approiimately 77 pending or approved applications for new residential connections, and 81 unplatted preliminary lots for which OWSI has committed to provide water service in the future, for a total of approiimately 1950 residential equivalent connections that OWSI has eipressly- committed to serve since August 2001. (In addition, there are approiimateh- 300 vacant residential lots within the Port Ludlow MPR for wl>ich there are currently neither service connections nor applications for connections; OWSI mays be obligated to provide ~~-ater service to many if not all of these lots under commitments made prior to August 2001.) Under the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, a maximum of 2,575 Measurement Equivalent Residential Units ("MERUs") and a magnum of 2,250 residential units are permitted within the Port Ludlow Master Plaimed Resort. On December ~, 2007, the Washington Department of Health approved OWSI's Water System Plan for 2,197 residential equivalent connections. (OWSI ~~ill seek Washington Department of Health approval of an updated Water System Plan in 2013.) The 2007 Water System Plan predicts that in order to serve all potential residential water users within its service area OWSI would need additional water rights. lii June 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology- granted OSWI additional water rights by issuance of a water permit (No. G2-30442P) for the withdrawal of up to 100 gallons of water per minute at Well Nos. 13, 14, and 16. OWSI currently- holds sufficient water rights to serve all existing customers and all future customers that OWSI is obligated to serve. OWSI has sufficient water rights to serve, and the 2007 Water System Plan authorizes it to serve. existing residential water service connections and new residential service comiections for which applications are pending or approved. OWSPs service commitments equal the sum of the pending and the approved applications for residential service connections, and they comprise less than OWSI's approved connections under its 2007 Water System Plan. There is no objective evidence that Port Ludlow demographics and consumption patterns have changed substantially- in recent years. According to data compiled for the Port Ludlow Development Impact Monitoring reports, in 2005, there were 99 school children in Port Ludlow. In December 2012, there were 110 school children. This is not a material change. As PLA completes the build-out of Port Ludlow, OWSI eipects to obtain additional water rights. Applicable laws and regulations, including the Washington Subdivision Act, RCW Chapter 58.17, and the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, do not require that either Jefferson County-, PLA, or OWSI conduct an independent investigation of the availability- of domestic water service. These laws and regulations require compliance with state and local health regulations and water system plans regarding quantity-, quality, source, source protection, distribution and storage methods and facilities, and treatment and testing procedures. See Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 Section 6.406. Thee also require that "Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such ...potable water supplies ...and all other relevant facts ...and ...the public use and interest will be served by- the platting of such subdivision and dedication." RCW 58.17.110(2). These requirements are satisfied by the requirement that developers of new subdivisions provide evidence of water availabilityr before the preliminary- plat can be approved.' AGENCY COMMENTS On March 25, 2013, staff received an email from Susan Porto «ith the Jefferson County Envil-omnental Health department regarding the aforementioned issues of water and contamination: 1. The propertyr ~~-here Oly-mpic Water and Sewer water system #68700 Well #2 is located contains a proposed replacement well for Well #2, labeled as Well # 17. During the drilling process of Well #17 petroleum products were encountered, believed to be from old underground storage tanks on the property- site, and drilling ceased. Since that time a Site Hazard Assessment was completed and Ecology has assigned a Hazardous rank of 2. The status of the contaminated site lcno~~n as Oh mpic Water and Se« er is identified in Ecology's database as ``A~yaiting Cleanup." You ~yill need to consult ~~-ith Cris Matthe«s at 360 407-6388 to identify «~hat Ecology requires as the nett step(s). The site referenced as the Port Ludlo~y Golf Course also contained leaking underground storage tanks. A Site Hazard Assessment ~~-as completed and Ecology has assigned a Hazardous rank of 3. To my laio~yledge. neither a voluntai~r compliance plan nor a remediation plan has been approved through Ecology. The status of the contaminated site lcno~tin as the Golf Course is identified in Ecology's database as ``A~~,aitiug Cleanup." Again, you will need to consult with Cris Matthe~ys at 360 407-6388 to identify ~yhat Ecology requires as the nett step(s). Department of Ecology and Health would determine if OWS had adequate ~yater rights and capacity-. For Health I believe they_ ~yould base their determination on the water systems total number of approve connections as compared to the full build out plan for Port Ludlo~~-- or possibly a phase development approach. The Department of Health and Ecology coordinate on that approval and associated ~yater right requirements. You ~yill need to discuss the Port Ludlo~y Development plan details with either Andy Anderson at 360-236-3024 or Teresa Walker 360- 236-3032. I believe the contact at Ecology for this information ~yould be Marie Peters, 360-407- 0279, if not she can direct you othei~~-ise. The evaluation of capacity should take into account reduced production from Well #2 and the intent to drill a replacement well for Well #2, together with declining production demands as documented in the most recent 2012 Port Ludlow Development Impact Monitoring report. SUMMARY: Public comments received all support approval of the proposed Amendments to the Development Agreement and MOU, however, concerns have been eipressed and suggestions on how to address those concerns have been offered. It is clear to staff from the Applicant's response and comments from Environmental Health that the water and contamination issues are under the puivie~~ of the Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Health. At the time of drafting of this report, staff has not had the opportuiuty to consult ~~ith those State Agencies, but ~~ll be contactilig them for information regarding the role Jefferson County could play, or if provisions ~yithin the Development Agreement are an appropriate mechanism for ensuring their resolution. Prepared by David Wane Johnson, Port Ludlow Lead Planner March 26, 2013 230 CAM~~R Liu -~~ ~, ~~ ~1 PoI~T Ll,a~~auv, WR 9833-8782 , ~~ ~1 --+ Fax/Fhcsne [3b0] 437-1322[3 a~isitz~fasal~f~?~~sn.~nm_ :~ Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division ~ , ~~"v~~ 627 Sheridan Street ~~®~y~ Port Townsend, WA X836$ Attention: David Wayne Johnson March ~8, 21313 Ref: Port Ludinw Rssociates {PLRj/C3lympiC Water and Sewage Inc. {OWSI} Application to Extend the Port Ludlow Development Agreement by Five Years from May 8, ZD2f3 through May 8, Z[325 I>~efa) Dear Mr. Johnson, PLR purchased the Pnrt Ludlow Master Punned Resort {MPR) development from Pope Resources in August 2DfiJ1. Though they enjoyed the home-sales boom for seven years of growing economy, this has been foil~owed by a five-year downturn that has not yet ended. The Deveiopmerlt Agreement has only seven more years to run. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider PLR's request most favorably provided there are assurances that inng-term issues are not permitted to fester and expand beyond reason through the additional years. With the Concerns listed below addressed, l support PLR's application wholeheartedly, as I feel sure will may ether MPR homeowners. Cgncern 3.: Soli Contamination Rernediation and its Costs The WSDC3E {Washington State Department of Ecaingy~ ranks hazardous sites from ~ to 5, where 1 is most hazardous and 5 is least la~f r~ . Pope Resources' leaking fuel tanks created a rank ~ cRrr e> hazardous site at 781 Walker Way where the waterworks yard is located and a rank ~ (Rrr` c?~ hazardous site at the Golf Course Maintenance Facilities at 181 Cameron Dr. These cnntaminatinns are a serious health threat. Walker Way is the more serious because that is where the #2 well is in decline IR-` ~ ~°"~ Rts s`~ and the replacement #117 well hit Contamination [Rer EI leading to its a~bandnnrraent. The issue of whoa pays for Contamination remediation has not yet been resolved between PLAJDW51 and Pope Resources. At the Goif Course, ®WSl states that the contamination penetration appears immobile on top of rock. However, there are apparently nn monitoring holes to determine if this stability is inng term and that contamination could not eventually affect the drinking water aquifers. In 2f]1CY, 43W51 applied to the Washington lJtiiities and Transport Commission (WtJTC] for a water rates increase that proposed to include well #T7 Costs and contamination cleanup. The PLVC took the I55~e to the WLJTC In late ~{]~(~ ~ReFi aced Ref s}, QWSI wlthdreW the rate tnerea5e appl~catlnn (Ref N ,but the WtJTC permitted QWSI to accrue as expenses the well #17 costs and ctantaminatinn cleanup costs Into a separate holding account (Ref__G and R~f.u~ and to apply later for WUTC `~Ff r'} permisslen to set-off {reduce by charge} the 'balance ire this account to Port Ludlflw resident's water bills. By recouping QWSI's cnntaminatinn ciear~up tests via QWSI water rates, PLA and the Pope Resources cou9d potentially avail taking action through WSDQE and the Mnde! 1"oxics Control ACt {MTCR) tRe' to reccaver their remediation costs. Thus there is considerable concern by Pert Ludinw homeowners that they will be shack with a substantial portion of contamination, remedlatian, and well-drilling casts. Such issues had not surfaced at the time of the original levelopment Agreement, and the parties did not address them.. However,. they are apparent new. I believe that the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners ~ag~ U eaf 3 ~RaCC) has an obligation to the people to try and correct contamination issues and push the costs thereof to those who caused t'he problem, rather than farce the casts to be borne by the people as the payers of last resort. A clear plan of who will pay far and manage cantaminatian cleanup is essential and must apply to any heirs and successors. A possible cost-effective and technically appealing approach is to engage a locally knowledgeable arganizatian such as the 3effersan Public Utilities Commission (Jefferson PUI~} to study the issue and report on the options and the recovery possibilities using all the methods available through INSIJOE and IVITCA. The negotiation of this five-year extension is very probably the only appvrtunity that will ewer arise to achieve this end. Concern 2: Water Capacity Fur Aro~ectecl aerrto~ra~hic Standards The Port Ludlow water capacity has been questianed in the past ~Rr` "k though earns ameliaratian may well have occurred through the Tala Paint rights `~F`-`'. ~~--~~ ~"a~~. Apparently, the only Water Right not yet perfected is t32-2~7E34, which has only na~'rnal effect on capacity `~"' R'`. f~ievertlaefess, DWSI's ability to handle the PLR's build-out plus the approximately 3{30 privately owned un-built lots has not been irndependently analyzed and'. documented. There is an apparent demographic shift in Part Ludlow that is not recognized in its planning. ~L3 years ago Port Ludlow was primarily a retirement and vacation community of snowbirds. eased an this, the average daily water consumption per residence was estimated to be about 2t}tl gallons per day, which is relative9'y law {acres,-gyp°. r14-x~sy-~t7WSl can undoubtedly furnish precise and current data. IVaw, as dab markets haute developed in the region, there appears to be noticeable grawth in the number of younger families with children that have bought homes here fiar year-round residence-- the 201L7 census and school enrallrraent statistics should provide statistical verification afi this. The water consumption of families with children is considerably higher, perhaps approaching a planning ppear to be graving and Harm of 3t7~ to 35(3 gallons per day per residence {°~<'~~," f"~. Their numbers a there seems to be na reason why this trend will not cont'snue. Any consequent water shortage is a serious health threat especially far the elderly and children. Therefore, there is an important need for the Part Ludlow demographics and consumption patterns to be analyzed and plans revised as necessary. This is a proper requirement to address in a development agreement extension hearing-there must be sufficient perfected water capacity at build-out. The future supply capacity must also be adequate to meet the need of a future Port Ludlow population taking into account the pra~ected changes in demographics. Again, a knaw~ledgeable source of information on this is probably the Jefferson PUfJ. If not addressed here and Haw, then where, when, and haw will the County ever have a compelling and legally feasible opportunity to address the issues? PLA's extension application does not address either of these concerns. Howeaer, the extension is a negotiation and I respectfully suggest that the BaCC is Hat bound to address only the PLR/C7WSl agenda and should ensure that their taxpayer electorate and its property tax base are protected. The RoCC's authority to act in these matters is specifically confirmed in Paragraph 3.7.3.1 of the ~6]evelapment Agreement Exhibit A ~~~' ~. P'" ~'~~.i; In the event that these issues take excessive time whereby Pi_A's current permits and grants are at risk, it is feasible to implement a chart ar bonded i~t-'-"-~ interim extension. yours sincerely, Y ~ ' - Anthony U Simpson, PhD {C~iem Eng), PEng (IVlech. Reg CA and PCt} ref. F'~g~ 2 ~# 3 cc: Carl Smith Stasis Hoskins john >~1,ustin L7awid Sullivan Phil Joltinson Clavid Alvarez Philip Morley WSa©~ W t~TC 1CPH PLMPR Residents R~FEI3ENCIS ire availalal~ vii active Internet links here end in ttte text abesve: A. JeffCa Application by PLA-C}WSI for 5•Year Extension of Port Ludlow De~+elapment A~reernent 8-Dec-2[112 B. ©epartrnent of Ecala~y Hazardous Sites List far Port Ludlow 27-Feb-2(313 C. Ecoio~v WA t}WSl Site Assessment FSl^-62223345 781-Walker-Way 26-Apr-2011 [~. Ecaia#;y WA OWSI Site Hazard Cleanup FSID-91762839 Part Ludlow calf Course 13-Mar-2013 E. CrWSI €3ata far L1TC re Welt-1.7 Cc~ntarnirLatian Anaivsis and Findings 17-Feb-2(111 F. C}W5I Water System Pinanci~l Plan Lipdate 23-1u1-~Ot}7 (;. ~>.1TC-DWSI' Ernail_ re Accountin~,Aliacation of Weil-17 and Cantaminatian Remediatian Cost lt3-C3ct-2011 H. Part Ludlow Groundwater Aquifer Monitoring 20}12 Repast Rak~~nson-Noble far FLA Feb-20113 ~...__ I. WL3TC Letter PLVC to Commissioner Goltz re DWSI 2Q1Q Rate Proposal 1-Oct-2084 1. PLVC Leiter and Analysis Stflne to Wt1TC re QWSI ysfater Rata Encrease 15-'~av-2.010 K. WLfTC Docket UW-101543 Larder Suspending CJWSi 15 Sep-2010 Tariff Revision 16-Dee 20110 L. WAC Chapter 173-340 Model Ioxics Control Act-Cleanup Updated 12-Oct-2007 M. L}W-7.1[1436 UTC-DWSI Background re Deferred Accauntirog for Costs Related Ya Well-17 18-Mar-2011 lV. OWSI Source of Water Supzriv Existing Rights Anays~is 23°Ju9-2007 L), IEcfllo~y Report of Examination Of'G-Pape Taia Paint Reduced 30-Mar-2011 P. DWSI to Department of Health ire Zone B Water Systern Capacity and Viability 29-Nc~u-2007 Q. DWSI DC3E Ground Water 2c~ne B 1~ermit Wells 13-14-16 1-Tun-2011 R. Ecalo Water Rights Applications Pending Tracking System 1effCo 4-Mar-2013 5. Washin tan State De partrment of Health Water System Oesi~n Manual ilec-2009 T, 1effCo-Pape PL MPR Deer. Agreement Grant Resolution 42-00 Exhibit-A Paraf;raph 3-16-1 $-MaW°2000 ll° 3effCa Requires Statesman,-Group Performance Bond for Brinnon MPR PDN 1$-tan-2013 V. 11W-110436 LITC Authorizes DL4+SI to []efc:r Costs of Wc:li-7 1 and Contamination fternedlatian 24-Mar-2011 i''~ ~ Li C~ ~ i ~' JL r~,~ ' ~tiJ ~~ e ,S ~ C~~'i --• `~`~+L' w7M F tL~ Page3af3 ~3awd V11. Johnsarr Prorn: t7ave [gda141grnaii.comj Sent: lulonday, IVlareh 18, 2{113 12:4 PM To: David WV, Jahnsan Cc Vicki Tal4ericc~; Tony C~urharrr; Terry Umbrei#; Tams McDearrraid; Sue C)ernichen; Lois Ruggles; Linda F4askns; Lawry '~r~nt; Larry IVc~bles; .4erry Purdy; Elizabeth Van Zonnevelcf; Larry S,ith; Diana Srrxeland Subject: Case No 2011112 -~]i)61 and INLA12-i~fl260 Attachments: Dev Agreement Ext Letter 3-t8-2L313.pdt l]a~id, Attached is the t'or't Ludlow Village Council's letter of suPPart €or the extension of the C3e~elotrmenf Agree. It contains two areas of community concerns that we would like the County to take under consid'eratian. Thanks f]avid G. l7avid Axrmitage, President Part Ludlow Vil'Jage Council ~~~~ tzl~~~~~.~ ,~~~t~~~ c~~~~.l~~cL ,~ p.ta. BoX ~~~t2 Nlarc:h 18, 2[313 Jefferson County Department of+Gt~rnmuniry l~eveloprrtent beveioptnent Review Division ~2 Y Sheridan Street port T'ownsenel, WA 98368 Its:: Case Nn.s: ZONl2-[}C~(}61 - MLA12-~42C13 Attn: I3avid Wayne 3ohrtsors 'the Port Ludlow Village Council has reviewed the application by Part Ludlow Associates for an amendment tc~ the fort l~utlir~w f]eveiap~nent Agreement which would extend the expiration of the Agreement an additional five years from May $, 2x2[3 to May $, 2fl25. 'T`he expiration extensions to the Menrtprandttrrt of lJnderstanding ~tween Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. and prelirrrinar~T plat approvals has also been cc~ttsidered. The members of the Council, reflecting the general atrriosph~ere of the Port Ludlow Corn.rnut~ity, are only too curare of the reduced econorrtic vitality of the real estate and building environment in our area aver tl~e past several years. 'T`his econc~n~iG downturn loos seriously harr~pered and delayed the al~ilily of fort Ludlow Associates to move forward toward the build out of the Part Ludlow Master l'lattttect Resort. Evert with art economic resurgence it seenrts highly unlikely that build oaat could be achieved prior to the: present 2Q2C3 expiration of the beveloprnent Agreement. While the Port Iludlow Village Council supports the granting of the Development Agreement. extension, we have. concerns we want to bring. to your attention: [ 1) Are there sufficient water rights to meet the need's of the faxttxre residen4es contemplated in the I3evcloptxtent Agreernertt? is o~vttersl~ip of these rights protected for the Port Ludlow cot~arnunit}~`? (?~ boring drilEing for Well #17, contamination was identifed. There is concern axnang trte eotrtmunity that those clean up costs may be passed onto OWSI ratepayers rather than be absorbed by the corrrparsy`s ownership. Respectfully, ,~~ ;~ ~ i~` ~ _ ~ _. G. l7a~rid Armitage, Fresiden# Fart Ludlow Village ~atancil CC. Diana Smeland, Fresiderz# Tart L~dlaw Assaeia#es Larry Smith, President ~?lyrrrpic Water and Sewer prucntin F. Svpe~'a Pt~l7 {C:ltetnistrr°~ l l Topsail Lane Fe~-t lJudl4w, 'V4'ashtngt~tn 483bS (3Gfl} X37-9~7() lVlarch 17, 20l 3 I]avid W. 9ohnsan :leffersan County ~ ~ "~ ~'' ~ "' X21 Sheridan Street Port "1'a~vnscnd, WA 9838 R~: fart ~.udiow Development Agreement l/xtension Dear Mr..Iohnsan: I am a retired Port 1/udlaw resident. After reviewing the Extension Application, 1 would support that recluesc only if the fallowing condition is met: A c~rnplete cleanup of all trt:~ac c4ntar~ninants at'v'~ell #~ I subject to the ag~proval rrf ~VSDC)E. WSDOE has listed a Fart I~udlaw property an its "Hacardaus Sites List." "phis site is located an FLA owned properties, PI.A, rar their predecessors, contaminated that site, and therefore must be held responsible for rcmediatan to the satisfaction af'V+JSDOE. Fart I.udla~~~ residents roust n~1 lae fared to pay any of the remedation cast. My home is located approximately five hundred feet downhill from Weill 2, 1 am ~°ery concerned that this condition has existed far many years, with ,Ieffersan County being fully aware of the problem and having done nothing to rerrtedy the condition to date. With a PhD in Organic: Chemistry, 1 have a full appreciation and understanding of the damage these toxins can cause. I expect the County to use crll means at their disposal to pran~ptly resolr~+e this situation, Please keep me apprised of your progress. I offer my assistance in addressing; any technical questions that you may have. Sincerely, t~uentin F. Soper, PhD CC: Sohn Austin WSD[]1= David V11. ,lahnsvn. ~ro~: horn Stone [tstane a~q,.cannJ Sent: Sateard~y, 3VIarCY~ 1~6, 2013 `x:35 PM ~`o; Devoid W. Joh!nsern Sa~bject: Port Ludlow C}ev~elap~ent Agree€r~erat N'Ir. Johnson, I have E~een c~ Port L~dfow resident far 12 years and know Pvrt Ludlvw Associates (PLA} very well. I fully support their request for an extension to 2025 of their Qevelopment Agreement with Jefferson County. Thomas Stone X35 Red Cedar Lane. Port Lud#aw, 1N'A 9$3b5 ~b0 X37-410$ aavid Illrf. Jvhnsvn Eram: Bert Laarr~is [ber#I+~7a ca'~lespead.carn] gent: Su¢~day, IMarch 17, 2013 2:34 PM ~{~. bavid VII. Jahnsar,; Jahn Austin; bavid Alvarez; Carl Smith Cc: barneyCla dur~edigitalpix.carr~; kinghyd~c:iypen.cam; sthili e~cajeffersan +~a.gav; cans~zmar ~r7ufc wa.gov; [David Armitage; fitness@cablespeed.cam; Elizat~eth Van Zanneveld; Tony burham; Tany Sirnpsan; Sue Oemichen; 'Maui Traci, Randall Shelley; Sate Grant; Richard Grieves Sr~t~gect: RE: Exterasian of the Part t.wd~'aw Development Agreement ,Attachrnentg: Part Lud9aw _ PVC-QVIISI ~bovelapmer~t ext .pdf; Western_WA_GMA_~fearings_Raard~becisi©n_in_Laamis_v_JeffCa_reQPort_Ludlaw_UGA_ -Sep-199a.pctf Dav'sd, a signed copy of my fetter and all the referenced eQtc~os~res are attached in ~P©p forr~rlat --- Bert l~~rt ~vvmis 235 1Fdgewovd Drive Port Ludlam°, Washingta~n 98365 360-437-OtI01 bcrtt~cr ~e4if~tesx~eed.ccrm March l5, 2013 1-]avid 'W. Johnson. 3efferson County DevelopmeIlt 1~~L"IOW 1~Y'Lr153C1F1 621 Sheridan Street l}ort Townsend, 'IAA 983E 8 R~: )/xtension ofthe Part Ludlow° Developrrient Agreement Dear f3avid: l have reviewed tlae application subinitted by Port Ludlow Associates {PLA} arid. ~3lympic Vv'ater and Sewer Inc. {~Vv'Sl} for an extension of the fort Ludlow Development Agreetnet~t through May 8, 21125. Afier careful consideration, l would support the extension request subject to the falla~n~ing eol~ditions: a} The prorrlpt and complete cleanup of all toxic caritaminants at w=ell #2, subject to a completion bond appro4°al by the Washington State Department of Ecology ('WSDf7E} (see attached details). b) The colnplete removal of all toxic contaminants from the Port Ludlow +Colf Course, with a postal completiion bond subject to approval by WSDaI~ (see attached details}. c} Written cc~nlirmation from the Washington State Department of ecology that PLA,~"~t~~Sl has obtained adequate Water tights for full build-out of the Part Ludlow Master Planned Resort {see attached details}. Jefferson County has an obligation and responsibility to our community, to assure that we have an adequate and reliable water source. Attached is a July 23, 207 report from WSI70E stating that PLAIOVG'SI does not have. adequate Water Rights. WSDOI~: has lasted two Port Ludlow properties on its "l-Iazardous Sites List" (~212~i113} (see attached details). Both sites are Yocated on PLAIOWSI owned properties. PLAIOWSI, andlor their predecessors, contaminated those sites, and thcrelore must bear full responsibility for remediation to the satisfaction. of WS1301~. Port Ludlow residence and Jefferson County taxpayers shall not pay any of the remediation cost. `Therefore, the County must require the posting of appropriate bands to assure the complete rernediatior~ of those sites by the developer. I was pleased to learn that Jefferson County has recently required the Pleasant Harbor Developer to post laonds as a precondition for obtaining development permits. Port Ludlow residences certainly deser4•e t'he same level of protection. I hope we can avoid another IMQ-type faasco and that the County will protect the interest of our corr~munity instead of the developer's. Perhaps Jefferson County should. revisit the (95} Loomis vs. Jefferson County decision before proceeding in haste to rubber stamp the extension request. Our community, deserves, and is entitled to, a beneficial and timely resolution of these issues. Sincerely, Bert !L.oomis Enc; Water Fights `I~racking System (314!13} 7.1.1 Instantaneous Water Right Evaluation {712317} 1-Ia~ardous Sties List X2127113} DOE Site I-lazard Assessment Work Sheet Well 2 (4126111). DOE Interactions 1 Toxics 1 Port Ludlow C-olf Course (3113113) Peninsula Daily News (111$113} Final L]ecision & Order 1 Loomis vs. Jefferson County, Pope Resources 1916.195} CC John A~~stin Phil Morley David Alvarez Carl Smith David Mann JGPII W H"I'C Vv'SDOE PllD No.l-Burke PUD No.l-King 3 ~ ALBERT MARSHALL LC3C)MIS, lV., ) 5 Petitioner, } ~ vS. } ? ~ al~~l l~RSOrr c©~..r~r~, ) 8 Resgandent, } FINAL l~ECISiC)N } AAID DRDER 10 and } 71 PC)PE RES~URC;ES, ) 1Z } Intervenor.. ) 13 } ~A 15 16 'I7 C)n March. 22, 1995, the ~~estem Washington Grawfh Management l~Iearings Board ~ B (Beard} received a petition far review fi-am Albert l'vlarshal! Loemis IV {Loomis} ,~ 9 challenging Jefferson [;aunty's amended de~relopment regulation. C]rdinance No. 01-I31 ! 7- 20 95, designating the Port Ludlow Interim Urban Grawtl~ Area (PLIUGA}. Z1 Can Agri1 l 8, ! 995, Jefferson County ~C:ounty} filed a oration to dismiss for lack of ~ standing. Can April 20, 1995, Pape Resaurces (Page) filed a oration to intervene. C)n May l 5, 1995, wre held a greltearng conference and hearing an the tnotians. Clur prehearing 24 order was entered May 23, l 995. Can May 2~, l 995,. we issued an artier granting Pope ~5 ~~ Gnawu, MwgNr~nt hfw+r~ 8aaro Moc~.rr wi.r~rivn ttt wwr2#.e Ar+rxw. Sump r, f3ayrr~~a. ~ v~0~-~3 3 urban growth area The designations must be consistent with the goals and 2 requirements of the Act and the CPPs. (p,57Q} 3 The CPPs of .Iefferson Court€y direct that the County and City will "}ointly '~ prepare a regional population forecast for growth management plamting ~ purposes." The forecast was designed. to rise ~e Washington State f3f~ice of Financial h~anagerrtent {CFI} population prr~~ec#ion as the low or base fi projection and thereafter establish a rnediutxr or high range figure. 7efferson County determined ittat this was. one of many CPPs tha€ did not apply to the ? IiJGA. As we held al}ove the full range ofthe CPl's apply... (p.S70) 8 We hold that QFM projections must be exclusively used except when a ~ local goverrtnaent cars cleanly skrow that the projections are inaccurate and .~ fl that a different set of f gores needs to be used to accomplish the goals and requirernen€s of the .Act. Fur~therrraore, if the courtt~r--wide planning policies ~'~ require a join€ly developed forecast then that req~lirement must also lac fulfilled,.. (p.571 7Z ~3 No actual analysis of the need, expense yr ability to provide water services ~~ for the designated IIJCIr~,s was done.... Such an analysis is a necessary component in .lefferson County given the .repeated references to the water ~~ crisis that currently exists. {p.S7l) 1B Likewise, the Ievel of service (L4S~ standards required by the Act and the ~7 CPPs were not established. The County set forth guidelines (with a substantial number ofquestionable exetrtptiorr5) far some public facilities rt8 and services applications outside II7GAs. Petitioners contend that those are ~9 bath unintelligible and do not fix a meaxtingfuI level. We paint the Corinty tca tits WAC 365-195-21 ~ X12) procedural Criteria definition which states: 20 "Level of service" means an established minimum. capacity ofpublic facilities or services that must be proti~ded per unit. ~~ of demand or other appropriate measure of need," ~ 'UUithout the analysis of need for, cost af, and ability to provide services that was lacking here it is taut surprising that adequate LCS standards could trot 23 be developed. ~Dn remand., this issue will treed to be rectified. (p,5?I ) ~4 'We agree with the +Cetatral Puget Soured Board's staterrter#€ in Tacvmu v. ' f'ier~e C~tc,nnr that UGAs and IiJGAs are €o initially be drawn at rnurticipa! 2l~ w C3rowln ~ Fir~~ps ~~ ,1, w,r.e xis Ay.rwr, 8-da. ~r f~,.: aeaae~~ea Fins! f7ecisi~n anti Order -3- "~ ask the fallowing questions, with recognition that the burden of showing non-compliance ~ always rests upon the petitioner. 3 ~ {1 } Is the ordinance a result of a considered application of appropriate goals and ~ requirements afthe Act? 6 ' (2} C]id the process comply with the public participation requirement of the Act? 7 $ (,~ Was. the deliberation and decision-making process reasoned? 9 a. Is the ordinance supported b~F reasoned choices based upon 1 ~ appropriate factors actually considered as contained in the record? ~ ~ b. Were inappropriate factors avoided? 1Z ,~ ~ {4~ Dkoes the ordinance fall within the discretion granted to the decision-maker to choose from a range ofreasonable options? 14 ~$ We will analyze Petitioner's challenge to .Tefferson County Ordinance #01-01 l?-95 ~~ I ~PLILJGA) in the context of this framework. i7 1. IS TkiE [3RDINANCE A 1~SULT UF' A CONSIDERED APPLIiCATIOI~1 flF "l APPR©PRIATE GALS AND REQUIREII~IENTS OF THE ACT'? 1~ ~ RCW aG.'70A~110 (1) states; "An urbata growth area may include territory that is located ~~ outside of a city only if ~~~h~,~rritory a~r~~~.1v1~ ~h *acterized by~lrb~n ~ or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth." (empl~.sis added.) ~3 ~4 Wien establishing a Part Ludlow Study Area in Ordinance l S- l DZ8-9a, ,let~'erson County 25 acknowledged this requirement by listing the very first prerequisite of the study to be: 26 t~ ~++rne i~rr+pa 8a.rd +~+~•~r i1S YM~1iA'llst,kv~nL1~, S1~t! N1 ~. ~ X5.3 PllOfff: Final t}ecisi~n and Qrd2r -5- as the process continued. W e never did find any evidence that the required preexistence of 2 3 5 5 9 14 1? 12 13 ~4 15 ~fi 17 18 19 2fl 21 22 23 24 2a 2fi urban densities had been fauna. Subsection ~~) of .l IO states: "Based~~~~~1,1~~grawih manag~,ia the urban growth areas in the county shah include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the caurtty far the succeeding twenty-year period. Each urban growth area shah permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas" (emphasis added). V~''e stated in our August l 0th order that C}FM projections must be exclusively used except when a l+aeal government can clearly show that the projections are inaccurate and that a different set of figures needs to be used to acca.mpIish the goals and. requirements of the Act. We also stated that the County's reliance vn historical growth, pattezns far population predictions in the Watterson study perpetuated existing problems and abdicated O~ responsibilities. Finally, we reminded the County that if the CPPs required a jointly developed forecast, theft that requirement also had trr be fulfilled, We find no evidence in the retard that the County has made any attempt to attain compliance in these matters with the adoption of this amendment. On ,lanuary 9, 1995, the City of Part Townsend sent. the BOCC a letter voicing concern about the proposed PLIF3GA Ordinance. It contained the following statement: Section 2.Z0 of the proposed amending ordinance allocates 2,500 of the projected urban ptipulation to the Part Ludlow IUCir,A,, with the remainder being allocated to the City of fart Townsend. The City continues to be unaware of how the County arrived at this x,500 person figure for Part Ludlow. The recommended or ``m©derate" forecast and distribution of the Vh~atterson Report does not rraake reference to this figure. ~,Ve believe that Fir~a~ t3e~isian and Oder -7- w.wnn w. Gsawth A~fanpMrn~x t eoana ~1cry..ry »f w..~ aloe Awrxw, sux. r~ oyrr~.. w,a, veao ~r~a+s: ago-+aes-sses Did 3efl`erson County fail to cornpiy with the Growth 1Vla~tiagement Act (GMA} and its oven ~ County-Wide Ftartnning Policies (CPFs} in designating the FLIllGA {4rdirtance #QI-(ll 17- ~ 95) in that it allegedly:: 4 5 { l } Failed to provide adequate assurance that sewer and water services would be available within the FLII~GA? B ~ (2) Failed to prQVide adequate assurance that other "public facilities aid serviees" ® would be available within the FLII`1GA.? ~ ~3) Failed to develop a Capitalr"acilities Flan before adopting the Urdinance? ll1 11 ~~) Failed to address the Cottrtty's anticipated ability to finance the public facilities and' sen-ices needed in the PLII..IGA aver the planning period? ~~ '~ ~5} Failed to require sufficient evidence that available ground water msources were ,~~ sufficient to meet the proaected population needs without causing environtnentai degradation? 15 9 ~ In Issues (1 }and {2), L,oamis claimed that the County failed to comply with the #T requirements of ttte Gi'~IA and its own CFFs by enacting the ~rdinanee without properly ~$ consderiatg and. assuring the avaiIabliry of water, sewer, and other "public facilities and services" to all property owners within the FLI[,IGA. ~'~ ~ In his brief, I.a~rmis painted out that alihougla the CiMA definitions of "public facilities" 21 artd "public serrFices"' merely list the types of facilities and services to be artaly~d by local governments planning {finder the Act, the term "public" Etas a well understood meaning 23 beyond that. The term "public'" brings with it an understanding that all members of a 24 comrrt.~nity Ere entitled to tlae services andlor facilities at issue_ ~~ RCW a6.7QA.11(3~3) states: 2G ~ ~~nw~~rnrwr r i ,, v ws.t tt~ si sua. a, t aea~aes-ass final decision and' Qrdes -9- 5 5 l B 9 ~Q 11 ~~ 73 14 15 '~ 6 f~? ~~ 19 ~d 21 23 Z4 2~6 The draft ordinance that went to the BOCC for public bearing on .lanuary 9, 1995 still contained many references tv public facilities and services. At that hearing, the Port Ludlow Planning Cvtrtrrtittee presented proposed changes to the Ordinance includitag deletion of all references to the word "public." They demanded that all of their proposed changes be made or they would not support adoption of the PLIUGA Ordinance. In the comments presented they stated: All of the "public facilities" mentioned are privately owned by pertinent associations and are not available tv the general public....Furthertrtore there is no evidence that supports the notion that the parks, open spaces, and greenbelts are sufficient to meet the needs of the Port Ludlow IUGA. At the same hearing and in written testimony to the $OCC, several citizens expressed their concern that the existing facilities were not public and no provision was la~eing made for public facilities. For exarrtple, in the rtninutes ofthat hearing, Julia Chochrarte is quoted as saying: Ifthe residents of Port Ludlow are uncomfortable with affordable housing requirements and detetanine that their urban 'type services should be private and available only to those who can pay association fees, there why are we considering this am urban growth area? This was an excellent question that appears to have gone unconsidered and unanswered. The BOCC removed all provisions relating to existing "public facilities and services" froth the Ordirtartce and failed to replace them with any assurance that "public facilities and. services' would be made available within the PLIUGA. Given the lack of planning for public provision. of public facilities and services, the County had a responsibility to exact an assurance from the private utility and facility providers that services would be availab~ within the IUGA. However, IUCA designation provides ??52.~,ilarantee of public utilities availability at a preferred time ar level. Furthermore, many conditions could vw~en MhaMirfptort Larcr~rsh ~! llMrii{,M eo.rd 17f YYMR7t1~! Awex1~. SWh t4 Plx~: ~ Final [7ecosirrn artd t~rdet -1.1- 1 In Issues (3) and (9}, Laamis claimed that lef~'erson County violated the CMA and its own ~ CPPs by designating the PLluGA without doing the required capital facilities and Pascal ~ analyses for floe entire PLIUGA. l~oomis quoted several CPPs to back this assertion. 4 ;~ CPP 1.3, providing that the sire and delineatioai of UGA boundaries will be determined by "lands already characterized by urban development which acre '$ currently seared rar are planned to be served by roads, water, s~i , _sevrrer ~, and startn drainage, schools aFad cattier urban services within the next twenty years, ~arovid~d tha#+r~ ~z~an services whch_are nat. ve, t i_n pl~~~~ $ i 9 CPP 2.I, providing that "[t]he full range of governaxaental urban services at 10 the adopted level of service standards will be planned for and. provided ~,~ within UGAs ' ' - including community w ,piped fire flow, and storm water systems, ~~ 13 CPP I.7, providing that "[lajefore adapting boundaries of UGAs, interim level of service standards for public services and facilities located inside and ~ 4 outside of UGAs will be adopted lay the +Courttty and its ~}'GAs." (Emphasis in alt quoted CPFs provided by Loomis.) 15 16 'We stressed in Part 1'owns~nd v. ,Ie~ersan County (#94-2-1}{306) and Was3r~ngtan 17 Enviranmenrr~l Ccauncii v. ~Ylratcam County (#94-2-0009) thaat, prier to adoption of any $ IUGA beyond city limits, a county Faust perform a proper planning analysis of its growth 19 needs and floe present and future availability of adequate public facilities and services to 211 meet thcase needs, as well as a planning for the cast ctfproviding such public facilities and 5@NiGeS. ~~ Loomis claimed that the County erred by relying extensively upon the 1993 EIS for the Pope Resources Development Plan to justify floe adequacy of sewer, water and other public 24 facilities and services within the Port Ludlow 1LIGA. That FEIS, althi,ugh quite well done, 25 is for a private. low impact retirement and vacation community with planned grass 2;G {3row~h ~MeapMewlvt Fi,,,~e, ~~ tt~ ~ ~~ ~wirw.. Swart • err 4~ Finai Oeei~~on and D~der -"~3- service and therefore to be out of compliance with the Act and its own CPPs. Part ~ Townsend stated in its Jan Mary 9, 1 ~S letter to the I3C3CC: $ Similar to our Sri-Area UGA cammetats, we are unsure as to what is 5 proposed far level of service standards within the proposed Part Ludlow IUGA. We reiterate that standards should be adapted along with this ~ amending ordinance which are specific and clearly define bath the quantity of water to be supplied per person per day, and adequate fire flaws. 7 County-Wide Planning Polzcy 2.3 states that new development must meet S the adapted level of service standards established far [IGAs "as a conriirior~ of project approval." ~ 0 Sadly, no attempt has beers made in this amendment to the IUGA Grdinance to bring the ,~ 1 LDS .standards into compliance. These LC}S standards are inappropriate factors that continue to be used by Jefferson County. 1~ 13 Ito his fifth issue, Loarnis claimed that the Caurtty failed to comply with the GMA by ~ 4 adapting the Part Ludlow IUGA flrdinartce without sufficient evidence that available 15 groundwater resources were adequate to meet projected population needs without causing ~~ environmental degradation. The County's +~rdinance acknowledges that the Port Ludlow 17 ' IUGA will be wholly dependent upon groundwater resources for the water capacity needed. fig to service future development within the Part Ludlow RIGA. "The record shawl that the ~~ adequacy and quality Qf groundwater supplies are extremely contentious issues in Jefl"ersort ~Q County. In designating the PLIUGA, tine County had flee abligauan to carefully examine Zi the adequacy of water far the IUGA and the impact upon groundwater resources. fine of the many warnings the B[3CG received caraae fratn the Manager of Water District 1 asking the Commissioners to "slow dawn and take a harder look at water issues and see haw the ~ water system plan pans cut before IUGA designation." 2~ ZZ8 w..~n ~, ~,rowlh ~ ~r~rirq~ acrd ~r Mar+wor+ ~~~ wr~e 2t~ Awnr~. SufN ~~ C~yrr~pis. ~ -a~.~ ~in~l [7sGistion and order • 15- 1 The BOCC passed the PLIUGA Clydnanee ~,~ the QOH approval of the LCW Plaa~, ~ thereby designating a UGA without assurance of adequacy of water for a low impact ~racation and retirement community let alone an urban growth area. Jefferson County ~ failed to avoid inappropriate factors by relying upon a water system plan that does not 5 contemplate urban densities ar urban water usage per capita and has not been approved by ~ p~H, 7 ~ 4. D(3ES THE O1~DINANCIE FALL '~TTHIN TTiE DTSCRETIDN GRANTED TU THE DECISION_MAT~,ER Tn CHf~DSE FRUM .~ RANGE OF 3 REASC31-IIABLE CH[)TCES? ~0 7'I For the reasons stated in answer to Question 3 our answer to Question ~ must also be no.. 1~ 13 C(]I~CLUSI(]N 14 i~ []n its face Ordinance ~~1-J117-95 looks like a th.orottgh~ well thought out piece of ~,~ legislation. However, the cornerstone and premises upon which this amendment to the ~~.~, iI_IGA. Ordinance is based remain fatally flawed for eotnpliance with the GMA, The Port 1 ~ Ludlow IUGA was adapted without proper population allocation; without evidence of pre- existing urban densities; without requisite LOS standards; without adequate analysis of 19 capital facilities needs and the fiscal impacts of growth for the entire 1llGA from acounty- ~~ wide perspective; without assurance that either "public" facilities and services already exist ~~ ar would ~ equitably available within the ILIGA; and without proper review of the ~ adequacy of water supply for an urban community at Port Ludlow. 23 24 ~5 ~~ +~ w 14T 'WVMt'21# ~hl~lMlK, $tlkr /1 P}+Crr-: ~inat ~?ecisi~pn and C}rdes -17- AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (this "Amendment") is made this day of , 2013, by OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation ("OWSP'), and JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"). This Amendment amends and modifies that certain "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Provision of Sewer Service Within the Boundaries of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort" dated October 4, 1999, between OWSI and the County (the "MOU"). RECITALS A. The Port Ludlow Development Agreement dated May 1, 2000, between Pope Resources, Olympic Property Group LLC, Olympic Resorts LLC, OWSI, and Olympic Real Estate Development LLC (collectively "Pope"), and the County, which was recorded i~1 the real property records of Jefferson County, Washington, under Auditor's File No. 435974, as amended by Corrected Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement dated and effective July 7, 2008, which was recorded in the real property records of Jefferson County, Washington, under Auditor's File No. 536369 (as amended, the "Development Agreement"), governs the development of certain real property located in the approximately 1,200-acre Port Ludlow MPR, which is a master planned resort designated by Jefferson County in 1998 under the authority of RCW 36.70A.362. The MOU and the Development Agreement both govern the development of real property within the Port Ludlow MPR. B. OWSI is wholly-owned by Port Ludlow Associates LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("PLA"), which is the successor to Pope Resources, Olympic Property Group LLC, Olympic Resorts LLC, and Olympic Real Estate Development LLC under the Development Agreement. PLA and OWSI collectively are the successors to Pope under the Development Agreement. C. The MOU will expire on October 4, 2019. The Development Agreement will expire on May 8, 2020. D. PLA and OWSI desire to extend the term and make other amendments to the Development Agreement, in the form of a proposed Amendment No. 2 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement Amendment"). The County is willing to consider the Development Agreement Amendment if OWSI will join the County in amending n~~T aos~~i2a~~ i oo~s~~~-oooooi the MOU to extend its tens to match the proposed extended term of the Development Agreement. E. OWSI and the County desire to extend the term of the MOU as described in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and agreements of the parties, it is agreed by and between the parties that the MOU shall be amended and modified as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Extension of Term. The term of the MOU shall expire and tenlunate upon the expiration or termination of the Development Agreement, as it may now or hereafter be extended. 2. Effect of Amendment. This Amendment amends and modifies the MOU and shall be effective as of the date of mutual execution and delivery hereof. In the event of any conflict between the MOU and this Amendment, this Amendment shall control. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them under the MOU. Except as contained within the MOU, this Amendment, and the Development Agreement (as amended), there are no other agreements or understandings between OWSI and the County relating to the subject matter of the MOU and this Amendment. The MOU is hereby confirmed and ratified. (Re»iaindei ofpage if~tentiosurlly left bla~rk.) 2 n~~T aos~~i2a~~ i oo~s~~~-oooooi IN WITNESS WI~REOF, the parties hereto have mutually have executed and delivered this Amendment. JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners By By By APPROVED AS TO FORM: Prosecuting Attorney Director Department of Community Development OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC. By Its President n~~T aos~~i2a~~ i oo~s~~~-oooooi STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) On this day of , 2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared ,personally halown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, on oath stated that he or she was authorized to execute the instnunent, and acknowledged it as the of Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instnunent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Print Name STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) On thus day of , 2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared and ,personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instnunent, and aclalowledged it as the three members of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Board, acting in their official capacity representing Jefferson County, Washington, for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. 4 n~~T aos~~i2a~~ i oo~s~~~-oooooi NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Print Name n~~T aos~~i2a~~ i oo~s~~~-oooooi WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Marco de Sa e Silva Davis Wright Tremaiile LLP 1201 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 AMENDMENT N0.2 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Grantor: JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Grantee: PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company OLYlVIl'IC WATER AND SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation Abbreviated Legal Description: Portions of Sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 29, Township 28 North, Range 1 East; Lts 48, 68, 71, 105 and 45 Area 4, Pt Ludlow No. l; Lt 16 Area 3 Pt Ludlow No. 2; Lot 8 South Bay #2; Lt 74 Teal Lake Village; Parcels 1-ll Ludlow Bay Village; Lts 8-ll Ludlow Cove Div 1, Phase 2; TTs A-E Ludlow Cove Div 1, Ph l; Lt 16 Olympic Terrace #l; Lts 1-41 and TTs A-E Olympic Terrace Div 2, Ph l; and tidelands fronting Ludlow Bay Village and Lt 1 Ludlow Beach TTs Complete legal description is on page (Exhibit A) of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Numbers: See Attaclunent No. 1 hereto. Reference to Related Document: A.F. No. 435974 (Development Agreement) A.F. No. 536369 (Corrected Amendment No. 1) D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 AMENDMENT NO.2 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made this clay of , 2013, by PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation (collectively "PLA"), and JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"). This Amendment amends and modifies that certain Port Ludlow Development Agreement dated May 1, 2000, between Pope Resources, Olympic Property Group LLC, Olympic Resorts LLC, Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., and Olympic Real Estate Development LLC (collectively "Pope") and the County, which was recorded in the real property records of Jefferson County, Washington, under Auditor's File No. 435974, as amended by Corrected Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement dated and effective July 7, 2008, which was recorded in the real property records of Jefferson County, Washington, under Auditor's File No. 536369 (as amended, the "Agreement"). RECITALS A. The Agreement is a development agreement under RCW 36.70B.170 and Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.40.850. Pope and the County made the Agreement effective May 8, 2000. PLA is the assignee and successor to Pope under the Agreement. B. The Agreement governs the development of real property owned by PLA and located in the approximately 1,200-acre Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR), which is a master plam7ed resort designated by Jefferson County in 1998 under the authority of RCW 3 6.70A.3 62. C. Adverse economic conditions in Jefferson County and throughout the rest of the nation and the world since 2008 have significantly reduced the demand for real estate, delaying the period of time between the commencement and completion of real estate development projects. These impacts are especially severe in resort communities like the Port Ludlow MPR. The Washington State Legislature recogiuzed this impact in 2010, when it amended RCW 58.17.140 to extend the generally applicable preliminary plat vesting period from five (5) to seven (7) years. As amended, RCW 58.17.140 currently provides in part as follows: "A final plat meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the legislative body of the city, town, or county for approval within seven years of the date of preliminary plat approval. Nothing contained in this section shall act to prevent any city, town, or county from adopting by ordinance procedures which would allow extensions of time that may or may not contain additional or altered conditions and requirements." D. PLA and the County desire to extend the vesting period for preliminary plat approvals relating to the PLA Property, as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170(3)(i) (development standards set forth in development agreements include "[a] build-out or vesting period for applicable standards"). 2 D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 E. The Agreement expires May 8, 2020, twenty (20) years after its effective date. The build-out of the PLA Property currently is expected to occur over the next six (6) to twelve (12) years. PLA and the County desire to extend the term of the Agreement, as contemplated by Section 3.11 of the Agreement ("the parties acknowledge that modifications to the proposed development will occur during the build-out period in order to achieve a variety of purposes," including responding to changing market needs), and as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170(3)(i). F. This Amendment was the subject of a fifteen (15) day comment period, which ran from , 2013, to , 2013. As required by RCW 36.70B.200, a public hearing was held before the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners on , 2013. The Board of County Commissioners reviewed and took official action adopting this Amendment by ordinance/resolution # on , 2013. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and agreements of the parties, it is agreed by and between the parties that the Agreement shall be amended and modified as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Defined Terms. The following terms used in this Amendment shall have the following meanings: "PLA Property" means the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, wl>ich comprises those portions of the Pope Property that are owned of record by PLA and located within the Port Ludlow MPR as of the effective date of this Amendment. All references in the Agreement to "Pope Property" shall mean "PLA Property." 2. Preliminary Plat Vesting Period. Each preliminary plat approval relating to any portion of the PLA Property, including without limitation the Preliminary Plat of Olympic Terrace Division II, Jefferson County File No. SUBOS-00003, and the Prelinunary Plat of Ludlow Cove Division II, Jefferson County File No. SUB07-00038, shall expire ten (10) years after the date of approval, subject to potential extensions as provided in the applicable subdivision regulations. A final plat meeting all requirements of the applicable development standards shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval within ten (10) years after the date of preliminary plat approval unless such period is extended as provided in the applicable subdivision regulations. This period of time shall apply even if it expires after the term of the Agreement. 3. Term of Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall be extended five (5) years and shall expire May 8, 2025. 4. Effect of Amendment. This Amendment amends and modifies the Agreement and shall be effective as of the date of mutual execution and delivery hereof. In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and this Amendment, this Amendment shall control. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them under the Agreement. Except as contained within the Agreement and this Amendment, there are no other agreements or understandings between PLA and the County relating to the subject matter of the Agreement and this Amendment. The Agreement is hereby confirmed and ratified. D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have mutually have executed and delivered this Amendment. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Prosecuting Attorney Director Department of Conununity Development JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners By By By PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company By Its President OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC. By Its President D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 EXHIBITS: A - Legal Description of PLA Property STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) On this day of , 2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared ,personally la7own to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, on oath stated that he or she was authorized to execute the instnunent, and acknowledged it as the Port Ludlow Associates LLC, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instn~ment. IN WITNESS WI~REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Print Name STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) On this day of , 2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared ,personally la7own to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument, on oath stated that he or she was authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the of Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc., to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WI~REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at 6 D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 My appointment expires Print Name STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) On this day of , 2012, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared and ,personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed this instnunent, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument, and aclc~7owledged it as the tluee members of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Board, acting in their official capacity representing Jefferson County, Washington, for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instnullent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Print Name 7 D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of PLA Property (Owned of Record by PLA and Located Within the Port Ludlow MPR as of the Effective Date of this Amendment) D\~'T 2293768e4 006~36~-000016