Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051313_ra01Regular Agenda 9:30am JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Carl Smith, Director of Community Development Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager ~~ David Wayne Johnson, Port LudlovJ~L.ead Pl DATE: May 13, 2013 SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement MLA12-00260 - staffreport, deliberation and possible action 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 Ina (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 preliminary plat approval from the current seven years, 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 hearing. On Mazch 4, 2013, the Board accepted the request and held the required public hearing on April 1, 2013 at loam. Subsequent to public testimony, the BoCC deliberated and instructed staff to provide further analysis of the issues raised through public comment. ATTACHMENTS: • Staff Report revised to include analysis of issues raised • Amendment No. 2 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement • Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Provision of Sewer Service within the Boundaries of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort • Resolution of Amendment ANALYSIS: A revision of the staff report has been provided to the Board with additional analysis and recommendations prior to deliberation and action. Regular Agenda 9:30am ALTERNATIVES: The BoCC may move to 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: I . Approve and sign the attached DA and MOU amendments and Resolution of Amendment. 2. Draft a letter of concern to Ecology's Toxic Cleanup Program regarding Olympic Water & Sewer / FS ID 62223345 /WARM Rank 2. REVIEWED BY: STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF A RESOLUTION } to amend a development agreement with } Resolution No. land owned by Port Ludlow Associates } per Section 4.6; Exhibit A of the Port } Ludlow Develapment Agreement } Resolution No, 42-00 } The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enters the following findings: 1. On August 28, 1998 the BoCC adopted Resolution No. 72-98 establishing the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan in accordance with the Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A RCW. 2. The Comprehensive Plan established the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies in LNG 25.0 of Land Use and Rural element, which maintain the viability of Port Ludlo~Gv as Jefferson County's first Master Planned Resort (MPR) and only MPR established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 3. On May 8`~ 2000 the BoCC adopted Resolution No. 42-00 establishing a Port Ludlow Development Agreement (PLDA) with land owner Pope Resources pursuant to Chapter 36.70B.170 & 36.70A RCW. The PLDA governs land use development within the MPR and provides certainty to landowner and government for its term. 4. Section 4.6, Exhibit A of the PLDA allows the PLDA to be amended with the express written consent of the BoCC and Pope, or its successors in title (Port Ludlow Associates) by ordinance or resolution only after public notice and a public hearing. 5. On Octobe# 24, 2012 Jefferson County received a request from Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) and Olympic ater and Sewer Inc. (OWSI) to extend by amendment the term of PLDA and the OWSI Memorand m of Understanding (MOU) with Jefferson County from May 8, 2020 and October 4, 2019 respe tively, to May 8, 2025. 6. The PLDA~amendment also includes a provision to extend preliminary subdivision plat approval from the current seven years, to ten years. Preliminary plat approvals that would be effected are Olympic Terrace II Phase 2 set to expire on June 28, 2013, to be extended to June 28, 2016, and Ludlow Cove II set to exlDire on August 16, 2015, to be extended to August 16, 2018. 7. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow PLA to complete their anticipated development which has een thwarted by the economic downturn of 2008, resulting in a complete lack of new building activity on their part, a necessary precondition to completion and sale of the build-out of approved subdivisions and future development. i 8. Based upo a recommendation by the Department of Community Development, the BoCC approved the applica ion to review the proposed amendment and scheduled the required public hearing. 9. On April 1, 2013 the public hearing was held by the BoCC and public testimony was received. Testimony nn support of the proposed amendment was received by the BoCC, but which expressed concerns rejgarding adequate water supply and soil contamination. 10. Subsequen to the public hearing, staff investigated said concerns raised in public testimony and determined that water supply and soil contamination are under the legal and authoritative jurisdiction of the Was ington State Department of Ecology and Health, and that the PLDA was not an annronriat mechanism for enforcement of those issues. 11. On May 6, j2013 the BoCC approved Amendment No. 2 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A). The vote to approve was unanimous. 12. Approval o~this Amendment #2 to the PLDA is within the police power granted to local governments such as Jef erson County. NOW, THERiFFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County, Washington, a follows: 1.0 The adopti n of Amendment No. 2 of Port Ludlow Development Agreement (AFN ) of lands own d by Port Ludlow Associates (legal description of property is Exhibit 1 of the PLDA at AFN 4359, 4) and located in Jefferson County furthers the public's health, safety and welfare by extending the terms of expiration of the PLDA and MOU to May 8, 2025, and extending preliminary plat approy~al for Olympic Terrace II Phase 2 to June 28, 2016, and Ludlow Cove II to August 16, 2018. 2.0 The Board. intends that the Amendment No.2 approved by this Resolution shall apply only to all land owned by Port Ludlow Associates within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, to the extent permitted spy law. 3.0 Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective on the day of May 2013 4.0 Adoption. Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this day of May 2013. SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John Austin, Chairman ATTEST: David Sullivan, Member Erin Lund~rena Clerk of the Board Phil Johnson, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: ONLY ~ ~~ r 3 ~~~,~. ~ 1 ~1~ David Alvarez -~ Chief Civil De uty Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County WHEN REC RDED, RETURN TO: Marco de Sa ei Silva Davis Wright °I'remaine LLP 1201 Fourth Aivenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washiington 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 OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation Abbreviated ~,egal 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. 1; Lt 16 Area 3 Pt Ludlow No. 2; Lot 8 South Bay #2; Lt 74 Teal Lake Village; Parcels 1-11 Ludlow Bay Village; Lts 8-11 Ludlow Cove Div 1, Phase 2; TTs A-E Ludlow Cove Div 1, Ph 1; Lt 16 Olympic Terrace # 1; Lts 1-41 and TTs A-E Olympic Terrace Div 2, Ph 1; and 'tidelands fronting Ludlow Bay Village and Lt 1 Ludlow Beach TTs Complete legal description is on page (Exhibit A) of document. Assessor's Prpperty Tax Parcel Account Numbers: See Attachment No. 1 hereto. Reference to ~2elated Document: A.F. No. 435974 (Development Agreement) A.F. No. 536369 (Corrected Amendment No. 1) DWT 2292768v4 AMENDMENT N0.2 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT N0.2 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made this day of , 2013, by PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and OLYMPIC WATER AN SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation (collectively "PLA"), and JEFFERSON OUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"). This Amendment ends 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, l,ulder 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 36.708.170 and Jefferson Counnty 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 theapproximately 1,200-acre Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR), which is a master planned resort designated by Jefferson County in 1998 under the authority of RCW 36.70A.362. , C. ~ Adverse economic conditions in Jefferson County and throughout the rest of the nation and tha 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 recognized 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 pro~Cedures which would allow extensions of time that may or may not contain additional or filtered 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 DWT 2292768v4 0065364-000016 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 ill 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 oflthe 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, which 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 Preliminary 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. DWT 2292768v4 0065364-000016 IN WITNESS'WHEREOF, the parties hereto have mutually have executed and delivered this Amendment. APPROVED AS TO FORM: `~ ~~ i~ o~~~ ~- Prosecuting Attorney Director Department o~ Community Development 4 DWT 2292768v4 OO~i5364-000016 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 EXHIBITS: A - I 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 known 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 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 instrument. 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 this day of , 2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared ,personally known 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 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 DWT 2292768v4 0065364-000016 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 pn the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed this instrument, on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument, and acknowledged 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. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residin:7 at _ My appointment expires Print Name 6 DWT 2292768v4 0065364-000016 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) DWT 2292768v4 0065364-000016 AMENDMENT NO.1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT THIS ~-1MENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (this "Amendment") is made this day of , 2013, by OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC., a Washington corporation ("OWSI"), 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 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 "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 DWT 20891247v1 0065364-000001 to consider the Development Agreement Amendment if OWSI will join the County in amending the MOU to extend its term 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 terminate 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. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank.) 2 DWT 20891247v1 0065364-000001 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have mutually have executed and delivered this Amendment. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Prosecuting Attorney Director Department of Community Development 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners By By By OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC. By Its President DWT 20891247v1 0065364-000001 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 known 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 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 this 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 instrument, and acknowledged 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 DWT 20891247v1 0065364-000001 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Print Name DWT 20891247v1 Op65364-000001 STAFF REPORT TO FFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO: Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) FROM: David Wayne Johnson, Port Ludlow Lead Planner DATE: ,March 26, 2013 -Amended May 6, 2013 SUBJECT: 'Comments, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations on MLA12-000260 - Port Ludlow Associates 2013 Development Agreement Amendment ISSUE: The County has received a request from Port Ludlow Associates to extend the terms of their development agreement (DA) and the Olympic Water and Sewer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by five years, and preliminary plat approval by three years. On March 4, 2013 the BoCC approved the initial request tQ review the proposed amendment and schedule the required public hearing. A ten (10) day public com~ent period to expire on March 18, 2013 was included as part of the notice of public hearing schedu ed for April 1, 2013. Attached and summarized below are the public comments received during the ten clay 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 jcomments in their entirety. Upon instruction by the Board, Staff has provided further analysis of issues raise subsequent to the public hearing and before BoCC deliberations and makes a final decision. PUBLIC COIV~MENTS Port Ludlow ~fiillage Council: On March 18, 2013, staff received a timely letter from the Council supporting the xtension of the development agreement and outlining the following concerns: 1. Are th e sufficient water rights to meet the needs of the future residents contemplated in the Devel pment Agreement? Is ownership of these rights protected for the Port Ludlow Commuunity? 2. During drilling for Well #17, contamination 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 following concerns: 1. Soil Contamination Remediation and its Costs. 2. Water ~apacity for project demographic standards Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 111'a~;e Quentin F. So er, PhD: On March 18, 2013, staff received a timely letter from Dr. Soper supporting the proposed amen ment only if the following condition is met: "a complete cleanup of all toxic contaminants a Well #2/ subject to the approval of WSDOE." Tom Stone: O March 16, 2013, staff received a timely email from Mr. Stone who indicated his full support of the roposed amendment. Bert Loomis: pn March 18, 2013, staff received a timely email with letter from Mr. Loomis stating that he was in Support of the proposed amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. The prmmpt and complete cleanup of all toxic contaminants at well #2, subject to a completion bond approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE). 2. The complete removal of all toxic contaminants from the Port Ludlow Golf Course, with a posted completion bond subject to approval by WSDOE. 3. Writte~confirmation from the Washington State Department of Ecology that PLA/OWSI has obtain adequate Water Rights for full build-out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. APPLICANT'S REPONSE On March 25, 2013, staff received a written response from Port Ludlow Associates regarding the public comments. With regard to the contaminated well site: "781 Walker Way: This site is owned by OWSI. The DOE is aware of the environmental condition of the property. The contamination was caused by a leaky underground storage tank 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 o ner of OWSI, Pope Resources, are negotiating the allocation of responsibility for the cost of remediation nd other issues relating to the remediation. If this negotiation does not result in the agreed remediation of he property, and if the parties dispute the scope or cost of the remediation, then some form of disputed resolution process, such as mediation, arbitration, or litigation, may be needed. To the extent that Popp Resources or another third party does not bear the remediation cost, OWSI or its ratepayers may,bear or share the cost. No remediation costs will be imposed on OWSI customers without the approval oflthe Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission following a public process. It is OWSI's 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 co#;ts and simply allocate them to its ratepayers." With regard to ~he Golf Course contamination site: "Golf Course Curt Barn at 751 Highland Drive (Mr. Simpson incorrectly describes the location as the Maintenance Fzcilities at 181 Cameron Drive):. This site is owned by PLA. The DOE is aware of the environmental condition of the property. The contamination was caused by a leaky underground storage tank at least 15 .years ago, before PLA's acquisition of the property, and to PLA's knowledge the contamination does not pose a serious threat to human health and safety or other elements of the environment. Ibis 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 will bear any portion of the remediation co$t. Generally: Federal and state environmental agencies, including the EPA and DOE, regulate the idejntification and remediation of contaminated real property. Cities and counties, including Jefferson Coun~y, typically do not adopt or enforce standards for identifying or remediating contaminated property." Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 With regard to ~he water right/capacity issue: "OWS~ currently has approximately 1550 residential water service connections, approximately 23 commercial water service connections (equal to 242 residential equivalent connections per the June 2012 MERU record), approximately 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 approximately 1950 residential equivalent connections that OWSI has expressly committed to serve since August 2001. (In addition, there are approximately 300 vacant residential lots within the Port Ludlow MPR fpr which there are currently neither service connections nor applications for connections; OWSI may be pbligated to provide water 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 quivalent Residential Units ("MERUs") and a maximum of 2,250 residential units are permitted withi the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. On De ember 5, 2007, the Washington Department of Health approved OWSI's Water System Plan for 2,197 esidential equivalent connections. (OWSI will 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. In 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 WSI is obligated to serve. OWSI has sufficient water rights to serve, and the 2007 Water System Plan au horizes it to serve, existing residential water service connections and new residential service connec ions for which applications are pending or approved. OWSI's service commitments equal the sum of the fending and the approved applications for residential service connections, and they comprise less tlhan OWSI's approved connections under its 2007 Water System Plan. There i~ 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 Monito mg reports, in 2005, there were 99 school children in Port Ludlow. In December 2012, there were 110~SChoo1 children. This is not a material change. As PLA completes the build-out of Port Ludlow, OWSI expects to obtain additional water rights. Applicable laws and regulations, including the Washington Subdivision Act, RCW Chapter 58.17, and the Jefferson Coun Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, do not require that Jefferson County, PLA, r OWSI conduct an independent investigation of the availability of domestic water service. These aws-and regulations require compliance with state and local health regulations and water system plans re arding quantity, quality, source, source protection, distribution and storage methods and facilities, and t eatment and testing procedures. See Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 Section 6.406. They also require that "A propriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such ... potabl 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 availability before the preliminary plat can be approved." On March 25,013, staff received an email from Susan Porto with the Jefferson County Environmental Health depart nt regarding the aforementioned .issues of water and contamination: 1. The pr perty where Olympic Water and Sewer water system #68700 Well #2 is located contains a prop sed replacement well for Well #2, labeled as Well # 17. During the drilling process of Well # 7 petroleum products were encountered, believed to be from old underground storage Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 3~C'~i~;e tanks o the property site, and drilling ceased. Since that time a Site Hazard Assessment was comple ed and Ecology has assigned a Hazardous rank of 2. The status of the contaminated site known has Olympic Water and Sewer is identified in Ecology's database as "Awaiting Cleanup." You will need to consult with Cris Matthews at 360 407-6388 to identify what Ecology requires as the next step(s). The siUe referenced as the Port Ludlow Golf Course also contained leaking underground storage tanks. Site Hazard Assessment was completed and Ecology has assigned a Hazardous rank of 3. To y knowledge, neither a voluntary compliance plan nor a remediation plan has been approv d through Ecology. The status of the contaminated site known as the Golf Course is identifi d in Ecology's database as "Awaiting Cleanup." Again, you will need to consult with Cris Matthews at 360 407-6388 to identify what Ecology requires as the next step(s). Department of Ecology and Health would determine if OWS had adequate water rights and capacity. For Health I believe they would base their determination on the water systems total numbest of approve connections as compared to the full build out plan for Port Ludlow, or possibly a phase development approach. The Department of Health and Ecology coordinate on that aplroval and associated water right requirements. You will need to discuss the Port Ludlow Development plan details with either Andy Anderson at 360-236-3024 or Teresa Walker 360- 236-30$2. I believe the contact at Ecology for this information would be Marie Peters, 360-407- 0279, i not she can direct you otherwise. The ev luation of capacity should take into account reduced production from Well #2 and the intent t~ drill a replacement well for Well #2, together with declining production demands as docum$nted in the most recent 2012 Port Ludlow Development Impact Monitoring report. WRITTEN C(DMMENT SUMMARY: Public comments received all support approval of the proposed Amendments to the DA and MOU, however, concerns have been expressed, and suggestions on how to address those concerns have been offered. It is cl ar to staff from the Applicant's response and comments from Environmental Health that the water and c ntamination issues are under the purview of the Washington State Department of Ecology and Departmen of Health. Research, analysis and conclusions on the issues raised will be covered in the following secti ns. PUBLIC HEAQ(tING The required public hearing on the request was held on April 1, 2013 at 10:00am. One written comment submitted by Mr. Tony Durham (attached with written comments) was presented with oral testimony and is consistent with other written comments received. Mr. Tony Simpson also gave oral testimony related to the contaminate MTBE, which will be discussed in the Analysis section below. Subsequent to public testimony the Bloard deliberated and requested staff clarification on issues raised, including whether the Development greement Amendment was a proper enforcement mechanism for contaminated site clean- up and water system capacity, and if it was not, what would be. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Soil Contamination Staff contacted Cris Matthews with Ecology's Toxic Cleanup Program and discussed at length the two Port Ludlow contamination sites: • Olympic Water & Sewer / FS ID 62223345 /WARM Rank 2 • Port Ludlow Golf Course / FS ID 91762839 /WARM Rank 3 Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 4~1'~~~e The ranking in icates the priority of attention, or potential to be a problem, where 2 would be a priority and get cleane up before 3. Cris was more concerned with the OWSI well site (see Cris's first attached email) than the golf course, not just because it's ranked higher, but because it involves well water and some unknown, such as how fast is the contaminant moving through the soil and will it come in contact with a lens of ground water (the hydrologic connection) before it is cleaned up. We also discussed the contaminant MBTE which Mr. Simpson raised at the hearing. MBTE is nasty stuff and was scheduled to be phased out als a gasoline additive by 2004 (see Cris's second attached email). The fact that MBTE was not included in the initial testing of the site characterization is not unusual and would not affect the site ranking, but w uld be tested for prior remediation began so they would know whether they needed to apply the prop r procedure and apparatus to remove it. Cris made clear that OWSI is aware of the situation and wlere advised that Ecology would like to work with them through Ecology's voluntary clean- up option. Hotwever, Ecology has not had contact with OWSI recently, and suggested that the Board could submit a fetter of concern to his Section Manager, Rebecca Lawson with a copy to their Unit Supervisor, Scgtt Rose, expressing the community's concern as a way to encourage OWSI to move into the Voluntary Cleanup Program, or upon further evaluation and review, initiate a formal, active cleanup process using Model Toxics Control Act Regulations, which involves a legally binding agreement and order to clean up. Water Staff consulted I,Teresa Walker with the State Department of Health, who confirmed that OWSI is currently approvved under their current water system plan for 2,197 connections, 1,717 of which are active, with 1,5'7 residential connections. The current MERU (Measured Equivalent Residential Units, attached) identifies 1,995 total platted lots approved for water connection, 557 of which are approved but undeveloped, that is, without an active water connection. This means that OWSI has adequate capacity under their current water system plan (to be updated at year end) to supply current approved buildout with an additiona12d2 connections for future use. The total MERU count allowed of 2,575 for commercial and residential ~uvith currently 289 unallocated MERUs, means that OWSI will need to adjust their water system plan over time to account for additional connections for complete buildout using the MERU count as a guide. Its ould be noted that the MERU count is not strictly equivalent to actual water usage, but used by OWSI s a goal for their total number of connections needed, and by PLA and the County to determine the 1 mit of development within the Master Planned Resort. Staff also consulted Marie Peter with Ecology regarding water rights who confirmed that OWSI recently received approval for additiona190 acre feet per year of water to correct a deficiency in the water system plan, with adequuate water rights to 2025. If buildout continues as planned, additional water rights will be required at that time. The relationship between the Health approved water system plan and Ecology approved water rights is mutually suppou-tive. The water system plan is the planning tool to determine need, which in turn determines nec ssary water rights, with plan renewal every six years as required by Health. Also, water rights can only e "perfected" with a certificate by demonstrating actual use. This means the development o the OWSI water system is ongoing, with adjustments and re-evaluations over time as needed for ade uate supply, and as directed, reviewed and approved by Health and Ecology. Based upon this information, staff is confident that OWSI and/or its successor, will be able to supply water to the Port Ludlow community now and into the future as anticipated. The request to have an independent audit of the water rights~and future capacity isn't warranted considering the process in place through these State agencies to sec re adequate, safe water for human consumption. Jefferson County's role in water comes down solely to erifying adequate water through these agencies at time of Preliminary Plat approval and again at time o building permit approval. As such, the County can only guarantee that it has received confirmation fr m Ecology and Health that there is adequate water capacity at Plat approval, and that the Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 water purveyo Therefore, the and not throue Bonding has acknowledge it can provide water to a specific lot upon building permit approval. me to question the adequacy of the water supply is at time of Plat review before approval, the Development Agreement. It has suggested that a bond be required by the County through the development agreement to insure the soil contamination remediation is completed. Bonding in the land use sense is used strictly to insure that required develapment infrastructure (roads, sewer and water lines) is completed as an agreed upon condition of approval, typically before final plat approval, or in the case where a project could be started and not completted due to financial instability. Bonding in this case is not appropriate or even feasible since Jefferson (County does not have the legal authority to require it, does not have jurisdiction over contaminated soil remediation, and is unclear at this point how much of a bond would be required. Development As outlined in a attached memo from Chief Civil DPA, David Alvarez, the development agreement (DA) is a plan ing document that provides the County and PLA certainty regarding how the development will take place. It is not a regulatory document, although it adopts regulatory ordinances for the purpose of understandinjg and defining how the development buildout will be regulated. There is no legal basis for requiring condiltions of approval to the proposed amendment based upon regulatory actions, since those actions are not provided for under the development agreement or its adopted ordinances, with the exception of the subdivision ordinance requiring health review for adequate potable water. CONCLUSION It is clear from he comments received that without exception, the community supports the extension of the Port Ludlo Development Agreement through May 2025. Staff appreciates the concerns regarding soil and water, since this process has allowed us to vet these issues in order to resolve the concern or find a workable solution to a potential or actual problem. As such, staff concludes that there is an actual problem with sail contamination on PLA property which needs attention with the assistance of the Department of Ecology, the jurisdictional authority over the Toxic Cleanup Program, and recommends the County submit a letter of concern to Ecology regarding this issue. Staff also concludes that although additional water rights will need to be secured to complete the anticipated buildout of the resort, the process through which OWSI secures those rights and the system by which the State agencies with jurisdiction over water is functioning exactly as it should and there is no reason to believe that OWSI will not be able to c' ntinue to provide water to accommodate the remaining buildout. The question of whether or not he DA can be used to regulate these concerns has been settled through legal analysis. The DA is a planni g document, not a regulatory document, and cannot be used as such. Staff recommends approval of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 and the OWSI MOU to extend their terms of expiration until May 8, 2025. Prepared by D id Wayne Johnson, Port Ludlow Lead Planner March 26, 201& May 6, 2013 Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment #2 6~C'rzge ~ pc~R~ Lu.~Lc~,.t ~~LLA:c,: ~~zll p Q. >x. ~s~at2 narz~ Lut~LJa:, ~.u;A ~~ s~ ~~-... Marsh 18, 2013 Jefferson County Deparnnent of Community Development .Development Re iew Division 621 Sheridan Str$et Port Townsend, ~JA 9$3b8 xE: Case No.s: ZJON12-oao61- MLA12-aa250 Attn: David Wane Johnson The Port udlow Village Council has reviewed the application by Port Ludlow Associates for an amendment to th Port Ludlow Development Agreement which would extend the expiration of the Agreement an a itional five years from May $, 2020 to May $, 2a2S. The expiration extensions to the Memorandum oflUnderstanding between Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. and preliminary plat approvals has also been considered. The members ofthe Council, :reflecting the general atmosphere of the Port Ludlow Community, are only too awarje of the reduced economic vitality of the real estate and building environment in our area over the past several years:. This economic downturn has seriously hampered and. delayed the ability of Port Ludlow Ass fates to mays forward toward the build out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Even with an ec omie resurgence it seems highly unlikely that build out could be achieved prior to the present 2x20 exp Lion of the Development Agreement. While th~Port Ludlow Village Council supports the granting of the Development Agreement extension., we ha a concerns we want to bring to your attention: (1) Are there s dent water rights to meet the needs of the. fixture residences contemplated in the Development A went? is ownership of these rights protected for the Port Ludlow community? (2} During drllirtg for We11 #17, contamination was dented. There is concern among the community that those clean ~P costs may be passed on to OWSI ratepayers rather than be absorbed by the company`s ownership. j Respectfully, ~ ~~ G. David Armi e, President Port Ludlow Vi e Council CC: Diana Srnel~nd, President. Port LudlovN Associates Larry Smith, President C}lympc V~ater and Sewer 230 CAMBER LN ~ = '~ PORT LUDLOW, WA 98353-8782 '"'., '~~' E Fax/Phone (360) 437-8220 ' ~~~=~ ~ ausimosonC~msn.com ~~~r B ~~13 Jefferson County Department of Community Development ~. Developmgnt Review Division ~° ``''3, 621 Sherid n Street i °.~ ~ ~` 4a~w ~ Port Town end, WA 98368 ,. ~• v ~,1~-''~`~t~~ Attention: David Wayne Johnson March 18, 2013 Ref: Port Ludlow Associates (PLA)/Olympic Water and Sewage Inc. (OWSI) Application to Extend the Port Ludlo~N Development Agreement by Five Years from May 8, 2020 through May 8, 2025 (Ref A> Dear Mr. Johnson, PLA purchdsed the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) development from Pope Resources in August 2041. Though they enjoyed the home-sales boom for seven years of growing economy, this has been folio ed by a five-year downturn that has not yet ended. The Development Agreement has only seven mor~ years to run. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider PLA's request most favorably provided tlhere are assurances that long-term issues are not permitted to fester and expand beyond reason thr ugh the additional years. With the concerns listed below addressed, I support PLA's application wholeheartedly, as I feel sure will may other MPR homeowners. Concern 1: Soil Contamination Remediation and its Costs The W~DOE (Washington State Department of Ecology) ranks hazardous sites from 1 to 5, where 1 is most hlazardous and 5 is least Ref s). Pope Resources' leaking fuel tanks created a rank 2 Ref c) hazardous site at 781 Walker Way where the waterworks yard is located and a rank 3 (Ref o) hazardous site at the Golf Course Maintenance Facilities at 181 Cameron Dr. These contaminations areas nous health threat. Walker~Way is the more serious because that is where the #2 well is in decline Ref a a"d Ref F) and the replacement #17 well hit contamination (Ref a leading to its abandonment. The issue of who pays for contamlination remediation has not yet been resolved between PLA/OWSI and Pope Resources. At the Golf Course, OWSI states that the contamination penetration appears immobile on top of rock. H~wever, there are apparently no monitoring holes to determine if this stability is long term and that contamination could not eventually affect the drinking water aquifers. In 2014, OWSI applied to the Washington Utilities and Transport Commission (WUTC) for a water rates increase that proposed to include well #17 costs and contamination cleanup. The PLVC took the issue to the WUTC in late 2010 (Ref ~ a"a Ref' . OWSI withdrew the rate increase application (Ref K, but the V)/ TC permitted OWSI to accrue as expenses the well #17 costs and contamination cleanup costs i to a separate holding account (Ref G~ a"a Ref v) and to apply later for WUTC Ref M) permission to set-off (reduce by charge) the balance in this account to Port Ludlow resident's water bills. By recoupi g OWSI's contamination cleanup costs via OWSI water rates, PLA and the Pope Resources could pptentially avoid taking action through WSDOE and the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (Ref ` to recoWer their remediation costs. Thus there is considerable concern by Port Ludlow homeowners that they will be stuck with a substantial portion of contamination, remediation, and well-drilling costs. Such issues had not surfaced at the time of the original Development Agreement, and the parties did not address them. However, they are apparent now. I believe that the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners Page 1 of 3 (BoCC) has an obligation to the people to try and correct contamination issues and push the costs thereof to those who caused the problem, rather than force the costs to be borne by the people as the payers of last resort. A clear plan of who will pay for and manage contamination cleanup is essential and must apply to any he rs and successors. A possible cost-effective and technically appealing approach is to engage a locally knowledgeable organization such as the Jefferson Public Utilities Commission (Jefferson PUD) to study the issue and report on the options and the recovery possibilities using all the methods availablle through WSDOE and MTCA. The negotiation of this five-year extension is very probably the only opportunity that will ever arise to achieve this end. Concern 2: Water Capacity for Proiected Demographic Standards The Pout Ludlow water capacity has been questioned in the past ~Re+ ""~, though some amelioration may well have occurred through the Tala Point rights ~R-Jo ReJP a"d Ref Q~ Apparently, the only Water Right nqt yet perfected is G2-29104, which has only nominal effect on capacity RU. Nevertheless, OWSI's ability o handle the PLA's build-out plus the approximately 300 privately owned un-built lots has not be n independently analyzed and documented. There i an apparent demographic shift in Port Ludlow that is not recognized in its planning. 40 years ago Port Ludlow was primarily a retirement and vacation community of snowbirds. Based on this, the average daily water consumption per residence was estimated to be about 200 gallons per day, which is relatively low (Ref s.oo.z19-zn9>-OWSI can undoubtedly furnish precise and current data. Now, a~ job markets have developed in the region, there appears to be noticeable growth in the numbel- of younger families with children that have bought homes here for year-round residence- the 200 census and school enrollment statistics should provide statistical verification of this. The water gonsumption of families with children is considerably higher, perhaps approaching a planning norm oiF 300 to 350 gallons per day per residence (Refs, p. zzzl Their numbers appear to be growing and there s ems to be no reason why this trend will not continue. Any consequent water shortage is a serious health threat especially for the elderly and children. Theref re, there is an important need for the Port 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-oyat. The future supply capacity must also be adequate to meet the need of a future Port Ludlow population taking into account the projected changes in demographics. Again, a knowledgeable source of information on this is probably the Jefferson PUD. If not addressed here and no~rv, then where, when, and how will the County ever have a compelling and legally feasible opportunity to address the issues? PLA's exte sion application does not address either of these concerns. However, the extension is a negotiation and I respectfully suggest that the BoCC is not bound to address only the PLA/OWSI agenda and should ensure that their taxpayer electorate and its property tax base are protected. The BoCC's authority tb act in these matters is specifically confirmed in Paragraph 3.13.1 of the Development Agreement Exhibit A (Ref T, aara a.is.i1. In the event that these issues take excessive time whereby PLA's current permits and grants are at risk, it is feasible to implement a short or bonded (Ref u interim extension. Yours sincercely, ~~ r ~~ b lM; ~L Anthony U impson, PhD ( em Eng), PEng (Meth Reg CA and PQ) ret. Page 2 of 3 cc: C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. Carl S ith Staci Hoskins John ustin David Sullivan Phil Johnson David Alvarez Philip Morley WSDOE WUTC JCPH PLMPR Residents JeffCo R~eouires Statesman-Group Performance Bond for Brinnon MPR PDN 18-Jan-2013 UW-118436 UTC Authorizes OWSI to Defer Costs of Well-17 and Contamination Remediation 24-Mar-2011 i~ r' (x ~'!,~ t'~'' .(L~,~ : t~*!1 ~~1 S ~ (',Q ~,;~~Ro'ht « ~'9- ~ ~~,.2.. 1'~' .~J`-G~v'~ Page 3 of 3 WUTC Utter PLVC to Commissioner Goltz re OWSI 2010 Rate Proposal 1-Oct-2010 PLVC Leltter and Analysis Stone to WUTC re OWSI Water Rate Increase 15-Nov-2010 David W. Johnson From: Tom Stone [tstone@q.com] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:35 PM To: David W. Johnson Subject: Port Ludlow Development Agreement Mr. Johnson, I haue been a Part Ludlow resident for 12 years and know Part Ludlow Associates (PLA) very well. I fully support the~~ir request for an extension to 2025 of their Development Agreement with Jefferson County.' Thomas Stone '; 95 Red Cedar Lan Port Ludlow, WA 8365 360 437-4108 1 Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 360-437-0901 ', bertl@cablespeed.com March 15, X013 David W. Johnson Jefferson County Developmejnt Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Exte Sion of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement Dear Davi k ~~.. ~~ ~1azo ~~ t_ ~~` ~~ ~ ~4~; ,~ ,, . I have reviewed the application submitted by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) and Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. (OWSI) for an extension of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement through May 8, 202,5. After careful consideration, I would support the extension request subject to the following conditions: a) Thei prompt and complete cleanup of all toxic contaminants at well #2, subject to a co pletion bond approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) (se attached details). b) Thei, complete removal of all toxic contaminants from the Port Ludlow Golf Course, with a pdsted completion bond subject to approval by WSDOE (see attached details). c) Written confirmation from the Washington State Department of Ecology that PLA/OWSI has obtained adequate Water Rights for full build-out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resprt (see attached details). Jefferson County has an obligation and responsibility to our community, to assure that we have an adequat and reliable water source. Attached is a July 23, 2007 report from WSDOE stating that PLA/O~WSI does not have adequate Water Rights. WSDOE his listed two Port Ludlow properties on its "Hazardous Sites List" (02/27/13) (see attached details). Both sites are located on PLA/OWSI owned properties. PLA/OWSI, and/or their predecessors, contaminated those sites, and therefore must bear full responsibility for remediatio~h to the satisfaction of WSDOE. Port Ludlow residence and Jefferson County taxpayers skull not pay any of the remediation cost. 1 Therefor, the County must require the posting of appropriate bonds to assure the complete remediat~on of those sites by the developer. I was pleased to learn that Jefferson County has recently fequired the Pleasant Harbor Developer to post bonds as a precondition for obtaining developr>nent permits. Port Ludlow residences certainly deserve the same level of protection. I hope w~ can avoid another IMQ-type fiasco and that the County will protect the interest of our community instead of the developer's. Perhaps Jefferson County should revisit the (95) Loomis vs. Jeffe n County decision before proceeding in haste to rubber stamp the extension request. Our co unity, deserves, and is entitled to, a beneficial and timely resolution of these issues. Sincerely, Bert Loomis Enc: ater Rights Tracking System (3/4/13) .1.1 Instantaneous Water Right Evalua azardous Sties List (2/27/13) OE Site Hazard Assessment Work Sh U~OE Interactions / Toxics /Port Ludlow lPeninsula Daily News (1/18/13) Final Decision & Order / Loomis vs. Je CC: John Austin. tion (7/23/07) eet We112 (4/26/11) Golf Course (3/13/13) fferson County, Pope Resources (9/6/95) Phil Morley David Alverez arl Smith avid Mann JCPH WUTC WSDOE PUD No. l -Burke PUD No. l -King WSDOE WATER RIGHTS TRACKING SYSTEM March 4, 2013 Jefferson County 3/17/13 Bert Loomis i ae ~ 3/azols WATER RKiHT3 TRACKWO SYSTEM CURRENT WATER RIGHT i WATER RIGHT CHANGE APPUCATION8 PENDING WITH ECOLOGY CoutMy: J~fh-son Dwdsima: This npoR ooMams X904 aDOUt watrrrfyht aPP~M~~+~ ~ AMP ~PP~^~ APP~kaMns do not coni6Y+M an appwNW Nvbr igMs. WRIA: 17 Control NDr Bus~nese/Penon Name PrioAty Dt ~ fie Purpwe Souris TRS QUAD G2-29445 WASHINGTON WATER SERVICE 72!49/1996 800.00 OM WELL T30 N/R02 W-28 G2-29342 Pau Schmidt 01/17/7996 294.17 IR WELL T27 N/ROt W-18 WELL T27 N/ROt V1~18 WELL T27 N/R01 W-18 G2-29328 CtMy Fin Diet3 71/20/199.5 38.00 DM WELL T28 N/R01 E-32 S2-29162 II R~tu Hokial 72106!1994 1.50 IR UNNAMED POND T27 PUR02 W-14 S2-29170 Don~lda Porter 72M17/1994 0.07 OS UNNAMED STREAM T27 N/ROt E-20 G2-29222 Jeft~rson Crdy PUD 1 05!70!7995 15.00 DM WELL T28 NlR01 E-01 G2-29130 Disdwrery Bay Village Water Co 09!08!1994 100.00 DM WELL T29 N1R0211w13 G2-29120 Jelfkwn Cnty 09!29!1994 250.00 DM FR WELL T27 N1R02 V1~13 52-28837 GEF~ALD L i SANDRA K YONKE 10/05/1992 0.04 FS IR UNNAMED SOURCE T28 N/R01 E-33 UNNAMED SOURCE M8 N/ROt E-33 UNNAMED SOURCE T'28 NlROt E-33 G2-28918 Cape George Cobny Club Inc 09121/7993 370.00 225.00 DM WELL T30 NIRO7 WL18 G2-29078 R R SHORT 07!2011994 100.00 IR WELL T29 N/RO7 W24 G2-26632 Je CMy PUD 1 702/1992 60.00 CI WELL 1"28 N/R01 E-33 G2-28732 Po Resources 01!22/7993 80.00 DS MI WELL T28 N/RO7 E-31 G2-29104 Oy Wtltleti9ewer 09/1M1994 x.00 18.00 DM WELL T28 WRO7 E~9 G2-30059 Po Townsend City 06!13/2002 150.00 IR WELL T30 N/ROt W-02 G2-30083 Jetfprson Cmy PUD 1 10/31/2002 600.00 DM WELL l'30 N/ROt W-33 G2-30003 Leokwrd Satin 07110/2001 750.OD CI WELL T29 NlROt W-17 G2-30025 Jartbs hleadlsy 08/24/2001 20.00 DS IR WELI.tt T30 NlRO7 W-05 VIELL#2 T30 WROt W-05 S2-29980 Harvey Minnthan 04/7312W1 0.11 IR ST Teal creek T28 N/R01 E-27 S2-29698 FnpCes Mangan 01/24/2000 0.02 DS UNNAMED SPRING T25 WR01 W-04 S2-30114 Dine Davis 06105!2003 0.03 DS IR LAKE LELAND T28 N/R02 W-25 52-30302 ShaNm Lacy 01/77/2006 0.20 0.32 DS UNNAMED SPRING T27 NIROt VV-29 G2-30316 Jeff Cnty PUD 1 03/13/2008 50.00 30.00 MU well T28 N/R02 W-02 Pag®2 of 3 WSDOE INSTANTANEOUS WATER RIGHT EVALUATION July 23, 2013 3/17/x.3 Bert Loomis July 23, 2007 This se lion addresses existing water rights, and their ability to support current and projected future els of water demand. A comparison is also made between source pumping capacity and de~artds. T.1 ''Water Rights Evaluation A sunvtnary of OWSI's existing water rights is provided in Table 7-1, organized by set~vice zone. This includes existing rights associated with two wells (4A and 9) that are presently inactive due primariJly to aesthetic water quality concerns (i.e., iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide). Appendix G contains completed Water Rights Self-Assessment forms. Water Rt bt No. a m 3erv[c Zone A Well'2 G2-00194C 120 150 Wcll3 G2-OOI93C 88 I10 Well'~4N G2-25627C i22 150 Sub- otal 330 410 Servic Zone B Acti~Wcilst'? Well l3 G2-25816C 35 (45 S) 175 Well' 14 G2-27492P l61 S 300 Sub- otal 35 206 S 475 We114A 02-21542C 30 ~ 23 We119 G2-21543C 70 46 Sub- otai l00 69 S !em'Tota! 465 954 Notes: tj+= acro•fect per year; gpm = gailotu per minute tnformalion in this table is based on infomiatia- hi Densrtmsr-t of F.cob¢v's wffier right records. (1} A~Inual quantity. Numbers in parentheses indicate supplemental quantities, which are not additive to primary qulantities. (2) In#tantaneous quantities. (3} The water rights for Wolin 93 and t 4 include Well 16 as an additional point of withdraws{. 7.1.1 instslntsneoua Water Right Evaluation able' 7-2 provides a summary comparison of instantaneous water rights and projected iaximum day demands. As shown in the table, Service Zone A instantaneous water fights are sufficient to meet current and projected maximum day demands. However, ~r+'ice Z.vne B instantaneous water rights (associated with active wells) acs not sufficient Mvo meet long-term ptnject maximum day demands.. By 2tY25, there is a water right kieficiency of 39 gpm in Service Zone B. Section ~ - t3ource at' Suooiv Aneivsls - War 3yeten+ Nan Update WSDOE HAZARDOUS SITES LIST February 27, 2013 3/17 13 Bert Loomis This issue is an updated Hazardous Sites List as required by WAC 173-340-330. It includes all sites that have been. assessed a d ranked using the Washington Ranking Method. Also listed are National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Additions to the list, changes in remedial status of sites on the list, and removals from the list are published twice year. Placing ofa site on the Hazardous Sites List does not, by itself, imply that persons associated with. he site are liable under Chapter 70.1O5D RCW. Far additional information about a site on this list, please con t the appropriate indicated person. Please direct questions regarding circulation of the Hazardous SiteslList or Site Register to Ted Benson at (360) 407-6683 or tben4bl(aecy.wa,gov. Ecolobry is an equal-opportunilry employer. If you need this document in a format for the visually impaired, call Toxics Cleanup Program at 360-407-7170. Persons with hearing loss can call 71 l for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. HOW A SITE NETS ON THE HAZARDOUS SITES LIST Sites on the Hazardous Sites List (excluding NPL and TSP sites) have undergone a preliminary study called a Site Hazard Assgssment (SHA). An SHA provides Ecology with basic information about a site. Ecology then uses the Washin ton Ranking Method (WARM) to estimate the potential threat the site poses, if not cleaned up, to human health nd the environment. The estimate is based on the amount of contaminants, how toxic they are, and how eas ly they can come in contsart with people and the environment. Sites are ranked relative to each other on a scale f one to five. A rank of one represents the highest level of concern relative to other sites, and a rank of five th lowest. Hazard ranking. helps Ecology target where to spend cleanup funds. However, a site's actual impact on'ihuman health and the environment, public concern, a need for an immediate response, and available cleanup staff and funding also affect which sites get first priority for cleanup. HOW A SITE t$ETS REMOVED FROM THE LIST A site may be removed frarn the list only if the site is cleaned up. In some cases, long-term monitoring and periodic reviews) maybe required to ensure the cleanup is adequate to protect the public and the environment. Ecology will hold a public notice for any site it proposes to remove from the Hazardous Sites List. HOW TO ACCT=SS DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SITE FILES To review a filer record pertaining to a site on the Hazardous Sites List, please contact the Public Disclosure Coordinator list d for the region in which the site resides. • Central Regional Ofce: Roger Johnson, l5 W Yakima Ave. Ste. 200, Yakima 98902-3463, (S09} 454-7658, rjoh461(aecy.wa.gov ~ Eastern Regional Office: Kari Johnson, N 4601 Monroe St., Spokane 99205-1265, (S09) 329-341 S,kajo461(~ecy.wa.gov ~ Industrial Sectioh: Ann Lowe, 300 Desmond Dr. SE, Lacey 98503-1274, (360) 407-6916, alowd6l ~a!ecy.wa.gov • Northwest Regiopal Office: Sally Perkins, 3190 160th Ave. SE, Bellevue 9&008-S4S2, (42S) 649-7190, sper461 C;ecy.wa.gov • Northwest Regional Office: Sally Alexander, 31.90 160th Ave. SE, Bellevue 9&008-S4S2, (A2S) 649-7239, saat461e cecy.wa.gov ~ Nuclear Waste P#ogram: Valarie Peery, 3100 Port of Benton Btvd., Richland 99352, (504) 372-7920, vpee461@ecy.wa.gov • Site CleanuplUn~lerground Storage Tank Unit Carol Dorn, 300 Desmond Dr. SE, Lacey 98503, (360) 407-7224, cesg46l Ca~ecy.wa. • Southwest Regional Office: Debbie Nelson, 300 Desmond Dr. SE, Lacey 98503-1274, (360) 407-6365, dene461(djecy.wa.gov Publication 13.09-042A HIAZARDOUS SITES LIST >I< NOTICE OF HAZARD RANKING Grant ,._. __ __ FS ID SITE NAME 14193738 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 2802409 WARDEN CITY WATER SUPPLY WELLS 4 & 5 52332779 WHITNEI( DISTRIBUTING CO Grays Harbor __r, , FS ID SITE NAME 33315723 ANDER570N & MIDDLETON CO 33541272 APEX E VIRONMENTAL 1121 BERGS INE CONSTRUCTION 3 REPAIR 94658144 BRUNEI LD TWIDWELL 1141 CRYSTA STEAM BATHS 1130 HOWAR MOE ENTERPRISES 1t27 HUNGR`A WHALE GROCERY 1117 MOST W~STERN LAUNDRY 6508672 PEOERSpN PROPERTY MONTESANO 4061791 RODERI~K TIMBER CO 1125 SAGINA4IJ MILL 9401122 SHERM PROPERTY 97193494 TONYS HORT STOP 1128 VIRGIL FASTER 36813164 ~- WHITNEYS CHEV INC ~ Island ' - ~~ FS ID SITE NAME 2016 ADAMS N BUILDING 91445142• COUPES GREENBANK STORE 2011 DECEPT N BAY MARINA 39633333 HARBO AIRLINES lNC 4066617 HOLMES HARBOR ROD & GUN CLUB 1087945 HWY 2D ~ SLEEPER RD 2006 MELCO N1FG TRACT 4 2007 OAK HAF#BOR LDFL 2008 UNOCALI,000PEVILLEBULKPLANT 130 US NAVY~,AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND AUL7 136 US NAVY! WHIDBEY HWES 137 US NAVY! WHIDBEY LAKE HANCOCK 131 US NAVY' WHIDBEY OUt 132 US NAW' WHIDBEY OU2 133 US NAVY! WHIDBEY OU3 t 35 US NAVY~I WHIDBEY OUS 2015 WHIDBE OIL 67449232 WHIOBE PRESS FS ID ~~ _ ~ ~ =~~ = SITE NAME 9412688 ANDERS~N PROPERTY OLD HADLOCK RD 96498799 BRINNON GENERAL STORE 1148 CHEVROhI BULK PLANT PORT TO S ND 3828620 GLEN NE~ 95275518 IRONDA 24761 LEES TR 8531364 MOUNT AKER BLOCK BUILDING 62223345 OLYI~IC WATER & SEWER 89236919 PENNY S VER MART 91762839 PORT LU LOW GOLF COURSE 1079781 ROGER ROWN 11656968 SANDYS HEVRON 203 US NAW PORT HADLOCK Ha:ard Sines list end: • New site added to th • Naw site added to ~ Site re-ranked • Superfund sib; St e • Super(und site; Fa~ - Superfund site; Jo4nt ~ Superfund site; Ut~de -/ Tacoma Smelter Pr WN E 1323 T BUZZYS PROPERTY SCRAP YARD IRON 8 STEEL PLANT FORMER CK REPAIR e ranked Est CITY RANK STATUS RU GRAND COULEE 5 Cleanup Started EA WARDEN 3 Cleanup Started EA MOSES LAKE 1 Awaiting Cleanup EA CITY RANK STATUS RU tiOQUTAM 5 Awaiting Cleanup SW HOQUTAM 5 Awaiting Cleanup SW HOQUTAM 1 Awaiting Cleanup SW MONTESANO 2 Cleanup Started SW ABERDEEN 5 Awaiting Cleanup SW HOOUTAM 3 Awaiting Cleanup SW WESTPORT 2 Awaiting Cleanup SW Hoquiam 1 Cleanup Started SW MONTESANO 1 Cleanup Started SW JUNCTION CITY 1 Cleanup Started SW ABERDEEN 1 ConsVucilon Complete-Performance Montiorl~ SW ABERDEEN 5 Awaiting Cleanup SW MONTESANO 3 Cleanup Started SW MONTESANO 1 Awaiting Cleanup SW MONTESANO 3 Cleanup Smarted SW CITY RANK STATUS RU LANGLEY 5 Cleanup Started NW GREENBANK 5 Cleanup Started NW OAK HARBOR 5 Cleanup Started NW OAK HARBOR 3 Awaiting Cleanup NW LANGLEY 4 Awaiting Cleanup NW OAK HARBOR 1 Awaiting Cleanup NW OAK HARBOR 5 Awaiting Cleanup NW OAK HARBOR 2 Awa4ing Cleanup NW COUPEVlLLE 1 Cleanup Started NW OAK HARBOR 0 • CkanuD Started EP OAK HARBOR 0 ~ Cleanup Started EP OAK HARBOR 1 Cleanup Started HO OAK HARBOR 0 ~ Construction Complete-Performance Monitoring EP OAK HARBOR 0 ~ Cleanup Started EP OAK HARBOR 0 • Cleanup Started EP OAK HARBOR 0 • Cleanup Started EP CLINTON 5 Awaiting Cleanup NW OAK HARBOR 5 Cleanup Started NW CITY RANK STATUS RU PORT HADLOCK 1 Awaiting Cleanup SW BRINNON 1 Awaiting Cleanup SW PORT TOWNSEND 1 Cleanup Started SW PORTTOWNSENO 2 AwaBingCleanup SW PORT HADLOCK 1 Cleanup Started SW CHIMACUM 1 Cleanup Started SW PORT TOWNSEND 5 Awaiting Cleanup SW PORT LUDLOW 2 Awaiting Ct•attup SW PORTTOWNSEND 1 CkanupStarted SW PORT LUDLOW 3 Awaiting Cksnup SW CHIMACUM 3 Awaiting Cleanup SW OUILCENE 2 Cleanup Started SW PORT HADLOCK 0 ~ Cleanup Started HO e National Priorities List (NPL) Central Regional Office; Frosti Smith (509) 454-7841/Ted Benson {360)407-6883 Eastern Regional Otbce: Patti Carter (509) 329-3522JTed B®naon {~0) 407-6883': has lead Northwest Regional Ofice: Donna Musa (425 649•T136Ifed Benson (380)407-6883 ral (EPA) has load Souttwvsl Regional OM11ce: Rebecca Lawson (380) 407-8241fT Bann (380)407-8883 lead H¢adpuarters Site Cleanup Section: Barry Rogowskl (360) 407-7243lT Benson (380) 407-6883 r a Federal Facilities Agreement Industrial Section: Paul SkyHingstad (380) 407.894917 Benson (360) 407-8883 ume (State Lead) Nuclear Waste Program' John Price (509) 372-7921/Brenda Jentzen (509) 372-7912 PROPERTY INC WSDOE WELL #2 SITE HAZARD ASSESSMENT April 26, 2011 3/17/13 Bert Loomis SITE~~INEORMATION: Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. 781 ~afker Way Port udlow, WA 98365 Parc$I # 821084004 SITE HAZARD ASSESSMENT' WORKSHEET 1 Summary Score Sheet Ecol$gy Facility Site ID No.: 62223345 Sectipn/Township/Range: SE '/< Section 8 "Township 28N Range I E LatitWde: 47.92813 Longitude: -(22.69877 Site . cared/ranked for the August 1011 update Apri 26, 2011 SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is owned by Olympic Water and Sewer Incorporated (OW~I), a private utility that services Port Ludlow, a resort/retirement community located along the Hood Canal. The site, approx[mately 2.2 acres in s[7~, is located at 781 Walker Way in a wooded rural residential neighborhood in Port Ludlow. Approximately '/s acre of the site has been developed and cpnsists of unpaved land that gently slopes to the southwest. There are three structures on the pmpgrty: an approximately 20 ft.x50 ft. maintenance officelshop/garage; asingle-wide trailer used for storagge; and a 20 ft.x 10 ft. pump-house along the northwestern fence-tine which houses Well #2, a group-A public water well. There is an asphalt driveway that runs down the middle of the developed area f~ram Walker Way to approximately the storage trailer. The 1 t is bordered by a ravine on the west, a residential property to the south, by a road (Walker Way) to th north. and a flat, wooded area and small road to the ease. The western half of the property is woo d and contains a ravine with a seasonal streamt drainage that the Department of Natural Resources classifies as fish habitat. This water Grains to Port Ludlow Bay and Puget Sound. Soils rare of the Cassolary- Everett complex, generally consisting of well-drained soils. A welt log from !Well #2, however, shows brown sandy clay from 49 ft. to 79 ft., brown cemented sand and gravel to 10$ ft., brown sandy clay to l21 ft., brown clay to 137 ft., brown and blue clay to 205 ft., then gray gravelly hard pan to 212 ft. The property was developed by its previous owner, Pope and Talbot Development Incorporated, in 1968. Pope and Talbot used the site to house a corporate office and garage/shop far property Bevel pment and ati[ities. Their original office structure is no longer there. They installed three unde aund storage tanks for gasoline to service their utility trucks and maintenance vehicles. A 1000 gallon UST was under the shop, a 2000-gallon UST was just outside the west wall. of the shop, and a 2000- gallon UST was approximately 40 ft. to the south of the shop. In 19(85, the property was sold to Pope Resources, LLC, who removed all three USTs in 1990. Soil sampling from the doors of the excavations under the two USTs under(alongside the shop showed soil cont 'urination with TPH levels above Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA} clean-up levels of 100 m . (TPH 3000 mg/kg and 9b3 mg/kg). Soil samples from the third excavation site to the south sho ed no contamination. Contaminated soil was then removed from the area of the two shop USTs except where it might compromise the shop structure. The area under the 1000- gal UST was only excaV~ated to 10 ft. below ground surface (bgs). Re-testing of the area below the shop floor after excaWation indicated remaining soil at the bottom of the excavation with TPH of 1237 mg/kg, approximately twelve times MTCA clean-up levels. Wel{'#2 is one of five active welts owned by OWSI. Water from well #2 is combined with water tcom Ewa ether wells (3 and 4N} to serve 592 houses in one region of Port Ludlow. Well #2 is approximately 200' from the shop and its former USTs. It has been tested periodically for volatile organics and none have been detected to date. Well #2 is losing production. In 2 9 OWSI proposed to drill a replacement weal at the site (well #17}, approximately 200 ft. to the sout of the shop and approximately 50 ft. from the southernmost former UST site. On April 20, 2009 the c ntracted welt-drillers. Hallocene Drilling, encountered water at approximately 50 fi. and halted for thle day. The next day they returned to the site and smelled gasoline at the well site. No further drilli~tg was done and both a water and soil sample were obtained from the well. A water sample was also dbtained from Weil #2. T'he crater sample results from Well #17 revealed gasoline at 5530 uglL, and benzene at 948 uglL, levels well above their respective MTCA Method Aclean-up levels of R00 cell, and 5 ug/h. Toluene. ethyl~enzene, and xylenes were. found as well, though below MTCA. The soil sample showed benzene at 0.27 mg/kg, just below MTCA. Clean-up level of 0.3 mg/kg, and Toluene at 0.011. None of the othericomponents of BTEX were detected in the soil. WeII #2 was tested for volatile organic com unds (VOCs} and none were detected. i Analyte Found Well #17 MTCA A VVeI! #1? MTCA A 4121/09 Water Sample ULU* Soit SampM ULU* Sampling Result (ug/L) Result (mg/kg) u L m k Benzene 948 5 0.27 0.3 Eth (benzene 62 700 <.OS 6 Toluene 208 1,000 .Oll 7 X lenes 153 1,000 <0.15 9 Gasoline raage 5530 800 <]0 30 organics with benzene *MTCA A ULU relers to the Mcxlel Topics Control Act "fable 740-1 Methud A Soil Cleanup LevNs for Unrestricted [.and lJse OWS hired SLR International in the spring of 20] 0 to conduct a Site Characterization. Four soil borin s were drilled on April 12, 2010: three at the shop site of the two former USTs, and one to the north f the storage trailer. Four water-monitoring wells were then. installed in June 2010: •' M W# 1 -Along western edge of shop, adjacent to the excavation site of the 2 former USTs • MW#2 -Western side of pad (approx. 120' south of well #2, just north. of the storage trailer} • ' M W#3 -Along southern fence-line (43' south of well # 17} • MW#4 -Northern edge of property in middle of driveway. Gro' ndwater sampling from the monitoring wells was conducted on June 14 as well as October 20, 201 .Water from monitoring wells 1 and 2 consistently exceeded Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Met od-A clean-up levels for benzene and gasoline range organics (GRO}. MW2 had particularly high levees of benzene (2,100 and 1,300 ppb- MTCA clean-up level is 5 ppb), and GRO (8,400 and 3,900 ppbMTCA clean-up levels are 800 ppb). MW 1 and M W2 tested positive for toluene and ethylbenzene vn both dates, and MW2 was above MTCA levels for ethylbenzene on June 14. Ana tical Re sults Well Uate Benrxne Toluene F,thylhcnaene 'total NaphUtalene Gasoline Numher Collected Xylenes Range () 1C% M'I'CA A{ethod A Cleanup 5 l,gOU 700 I,OOt1 160 800 Levels MW-I G-14-2010 110 45 1.10 ISG <l 990 10-20-21110 520 i40 3f0 221 Is 1900 MW-2 F-Id-2010 2,100 GZO 960 650 It)n 8,400 10-2U-ZO1U 1300 ?9(1 430 530 35 3 0 MW-3 6-14-2010 0.3G <I <l <3 <,I <I00 IU-20-2010 <0.3s <1 <1 <3 <1 <100 MN'-7 frt4-2010 <0.35 <I <I <3 <I <100 Ea20-2(110 <p.35 4 q <3 <1 <IUp Soil testing was conducted from samples obtained while drilling monitoring wells in the spring of 201(Q.1'he initial boring for M W 1(1 B) and soil borings fi•om wel Is 2 and 3 all showed soil contamination above MTCA Method-A cleanup levels for benzene, and M W 1-$ was also above MTCA for GRO. Anal iql Results m Soil Approximate I~te 13cnu;ne Toluene Ethylbenzette Total GRO Bpfing Sample Collected Xylenes Numher Ue th fist MTCA Met hod A Clean I.evelr 0-03 7 6 9 30 MW-1R 245-25 4-14-2010 0A9 5.7 1.2 67 140 MW-I 40-40.3 6-5-2010 <0.03 <0.05 <0.05 <O.IS <Z 55-555 6.5-2010 <0,03 <U.US <0.05 <0.15 •=2 MW-2 40-40.3 6-9-2010 0.11 D.tNi2 U.I1 0.066 2.90 Sj5-$$,$ G-9-2010 0.21 <OAS 41.05 <U.IS Q MW-3 30.-30.9 G-9.2010 <0.03 <b.05 <O.OS 41.15 <2 as.s-4s.9 6-la2olo 0.036 <o.os <o.os m.ls <2 h4N'-4 3U 5-31 6-IU-2010 <0 03 <0.05 41.05 4) I S <2 55-55.5 6-11-ZUIp 41..03 <OA3 4).05 <0.15 K2 SpE~tAt. CotvstDEita-Ttotvs (include limitations in site file data or data which cannot be accojmmodated in the mode(, but which are important in evaluating the risk associated with the site,'or any other factor(s) over-riding a decision of no further action for the site): Wei #2 is a Class A public water well, the water of which is combined with that of two other wells to serv~ 592 residences in Port Ludlow. The ite characterization by SLR International did not include soil, sediment, or water sampling from the g lly on the western portion of the property, which is down gradient from the wells a,id former UST .This gully is classified by the Department of Natural :Resources as fish habitat and it empties into ort Ludlow Bay, a commercial shellfish area. Due to the contamination documented on-site being primarily subsurface, the air route is not applicable for WARM scaring for this site. Thus. only the groundwater and surface water routes will be scpred. ROtJ'~E SCORES: Surf ce WaterMuman Health: NS Air/F uman Health: NS Grou dwater/Human Health: 5.79 Surface Water/Environmental: NS Air/Environmental: NS i OVERALL RANK• 2 4 WORKSHEET z Route Documentation 1. SURFACE WATER ROUTE - NUt Sco~'ed 2. Al1R ROUTE - IVI~I Scored 3. t~ROU~nwATER RouTE as List those substances to be considered for scoring: Source: 3 Gasoline Range Organics, Benzene, Ethylbenzene, lead b. Explain basis for choice of substance(s) to be rs in scoring: These substances were detected in on-site subsurface soil and groundwater samples associated with the site in concentrations exceeding their respective MTCA cleanup levels. Testing for lead was not performed but can be assumed to be present given the age of the gasoline tanks. c. List those management units to be considered for scoring: Source: 3 Subsurface soils and groundwater. d~ Explain basis for choice of unit to be us in scoring: Gasoline Range Organics, Benzene and Ethylbenzene were detected in on-site subsurface soil and/or groundwater samples in concentrations exceeding their respective MTCA cleanup levels. Given the likelihood of leaded gasoline, lead may be presumed to be present as well. WORKSHEET 4 Surface Water Route (Not Scored) WORKSHEET' S Air Route (Not Scored) 5 WORKSHEET 6 Groundwater Route 1.0 SUBSTANCE CHARACTERISTICS 1.1 omen Toxici Drinking W Acute Chronic Carcinogenidty Siubstance 4t andard Value Toxicity Value Toxicity Value ~ Value II L (mg/ kg-bvv) (mg/kg/daY) WOE PF 1 TPH~G (benzene) 5 8 3306 3 ND - A 1 - 2 Ethy benzene 700 4 3500 3 4.1 I - - 5 3 Lead' 1 S 6 - ND 0.001 10 B2 - ND * Potle~tcv Facto~- Source: 1, 2, 3 Highest Vatue: 8 (Max = ~ 0) Plus 2 Bonus Points? 2 Final Toxicity Value: 10 (Max = 12) 1.2 Mobility (use numbers to refer to above listed substances) Cations/.{tnioas ICoeffieient of Aqueous Migration (K)I O R SolubiUty (mgtL) i- 1= 1.8E+03 =3 2= 2= 1..5E+2 = 2 3 K is a.I to 1.0 = 2. present in liquid Corm = 3 3 = 4= 4= 3= 5= 6= 6= Source: 1, 2 Value: 3 (Max = .;1 1.3 Slubstance Quantity: Explain basis: Area estimated by SLR to be cortaminated with hydrocarbons above MTCA Method A for gropndwater is 225'x125'= 28,125 feet. X 3feet assumed depth (per WARM manual) =84,375 cubic feet' - 3,125 cubic yards Souroe:2, 3 Vatue:4 (Maxim ~ U{ 2.0 ICRATION POTENTIAL Source Value 2.1 C ntainment (explain basis): leaking USTs (former), no containment, 2 3, 9 10 documented soil and water contamination in+ax - }m 2.2 N(•t precipitation: 18.92"- 6.1" = 12.82" 2, 10 ? (Max = 5} 2.3 Subsurface hydraulic conductivity: SLR report: "dense glacial advance 2 3 4 o twash sand, ravel and silt units " to a oximatel r 60' (Max = ~} 2.4 V¢rtlcal depth to groundwater: Confirmed groundwater contamination 2,3,9Marg. a 1.0 TARGETS Source Value 3.1 G oundwater usage: Pubfic supply with alt. sources available for portion, 9 2 ? 5 of ers are rivate with no alt. sources available. ' ' (Max = }o~ 3.2 Distance to nearest drinking water well: <600 feet 2,3,9 S (Mxx = 51 3 3 Pgpulation served within 2 miles: Pop.= 29l 0=54 7,11,12, 54 . 2 19 !w•el(s +591=2910 13 (Max=1W} 4 3 Area irrigated by (groundwater) wells within 2 miles: 13 8 . (0;75)*~ 105=8 (Ma>=su} 2.0 ', RELEASE Source Value Explai basis for scoring a release to groundwater: Gonfinned release to ~ groundN~~ater 3'9 ~M~r = s~ 7 SOURCES USED IN SCORING W4shington State Department of Ecology, Toxicology Database for Use in Washington Ranking Melthod Scoring, January 1992 2. Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Ranking Method (WARM) Scoring Manual, Aptit 1992. 3. Sit Characterization Report, Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. Property, 781. Walker Way, Port Lu~low, WA., December 17, 2010, SLR International Corp. 4. Clillirtate Summary for Chimacum, WA., Western Regional Climate Center, htt :;/~~~~w.vti°rcc.dri,edulcgi-bin/cIiMAIN.pI'?wal4i4downloaded3-?-l1 5. Iso~sluvials of 2-Yr. 24 Hr. Precipitation in Tenths of an Inch, NOAA Atlas 2, Volume 1X, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, htt~://wti~~~y.w~rcc.dri.edulpcpnfreglwa2y24h.~f, downloaded 3-7-I 1 6. U.S.G.S. topographical map for area 7. Col'respondence between Larry Srnith, OWSI and Marjorie Boyd, JCPH, March 3, 201 I 8. Ma of Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Growing Areas, Puget Sound, January 2009, W hington State Department of Health, ~+~~ti~~.doh.va.gov/ehp/s17PubsJai-map.pdf 9. Iniq'ial Investigation Report, Washington State Department of Ecology, April 30, 2009 10. Washington Climate Booklet, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington. State Extension Service, Pulkman, WA., December 1972 1 I. Jefil'erson County On-Line GIS system for Jefferson County Environmental Heath Information (Arlcview 10} 12. Se try Internet Database of Water Wells. Washington State Department of Health 13. Wa er Right Tracking System, Washington State Department of Ecology. WSDOE TOXIC SITE PORT LUDLOW GOLF COURSE March 13, 2013 3/17/13 Bert Loomis Facility/Site: PORT LUDLOW GOLF COURSE 9162839 Also known as: PORT LUDLOW GOLF COURSE Address 181 CAMERON DR P(~hRT LUDLOW WA 9$365 G$ographic information E logy Region: SWRO C unty: Jefferson Ecolpgy Interactions Decima{ Coordinates latitude: 47.90489 Longitude: -122.68659 Legislative District: 24 Congressional District: 6 State Cleanup Site TOXICS (360) 407-7224 LUSt Facility TOXICS (360) 407-7224 7583 Undkr'ground Storage TOXICS (360) 407-7224 7583 Tan i industrial Codes {External Links Below} No N~41CS information is available for this facility site. WRtA: 17 Tribal Land: No 6/13/2006 4/27/1998 6/9/2006 1/1/1975 8/6/1996 No SIC informaton is available for this facility site. Report ge~rated on 03-13-2013 Facility/$ite: Print Map Pale 1 of I https://fo~ress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/ReportJPrintl3ingMap.aspx 3f 13/2013 S~f Y'.: PORT LUDt ONE G~I.P COURSE Aternete Namms:. PORE LUOLOsY GOLF COURSE .. _------------_ ° r ___. .. _...._...... ~ 'M':E:. .:.dress: 181 CAMERO DR PORT LUDLOt 98355 g"n'Ug. CleanupSite ID: ~ FS 10: 91Tg283g Vittr ViciJrty rAao Lat7long: 17.90489 -t22.tNK69 Legislah~+s Dishict. 24 TO V:nehFTlengt+Seuion: 28X 1E 21 Ccngressicnat District. 5 View Site ~'+eb Paae Ecobgy SdWa: A g Ctaanup RasPOneiCk Ur, t: Southwest k Brownhtmt UST Set C: t587 okRtJ Btit 3 S8e ).tanager: Southwest Region Em~ronrntntat Covenant? l1'Rla IC: 1T Statutt: b PSI Step IIFi. RtGeh•tC' NFy. Detr. rtfA Reaaan: gSSOUu-EG ~Lf L:iUP LISlr{g! eu1D Cleanup UnB Name Unit Type Process Type Unit Status Size (Acres) ERTS ID E3<o PORT lUCLOiY gOLF COURSE Upbnd No Protese Repcrle0 CkentG Up Applies to: Related ro Activiy Display Name Ststus SNrt Otte End Date Legal Mechanism Performed By ProjeM Manager (Unit-1-UST CkenuoSec S::^.e CiscovervF•Reroase ReoartRecsrced &13lZOOf ,tchnston Corot GkanuaSdt '. Site tfazerd kaseanmertNFcacre. SAe Comokted 8!&2007 12+2612007 Ecorogy w; CouMv Meath-SYy inscttxicn r..k..,a.. LkanucSrtt trezerSoua Stes tastinc,?iPL 12'2&'2007 Soutnrrnt Rtclon lust <B52 LU5i-NOtiSwGan <i27/19-s8 <27tt93f lust <yE1 LUST-ReaanRlCervEG tYltOr1998 dr2ol200t Lust 4''x52 LUST - Reoort RectiveE 3l3t%1998 <27l1998 +:FFEC7ED k.ift;;~ S U3r,'c~atu.i3 S. tAedta: '. CareRlld SurhCC Sol Sediment Air 8edtnxk Contaminant water wamr '~ Non-NSbgenatee Sohc~ts S Petrokum-Other C C 8 - 8tbc+ CkenuF level R - RemetliattC C - Cor.feme: ADOVe CkanuP LevN RA - Remedieted-Abo•; t S - SuapedeC R5 - Rensdisted-8epe: ~. PENINSULA DAILY NEWS January 18, 2013 3/17 13 Bert Loomis I Today's eninsula Daily News 01/18/13 BRINNQ - A Seattle consul#ing firm is set to begin an environrnentai study on along-pl nned 252-acre resort on Hood Canal that the builder hopes to begin developi g by the end of this year. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development is finalizing a contract with EA Blumen of Seattle to draft a $92,950 supplemental environm ntal impact statement on the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Res~rt located 3 miles south of Brinnon, Associate Planner David Wayne Johnson Said. "We are i the process of getting the contract signed," Johnson said, adding that the study will be completed by Sept. 11. The project applicant is the Statesman Group of Companies, aCalgary-based resort-budding corporation that first proposed the $300 million project in 2006. Statesman will pay for the environmental study. Statesm n Group President Garth Mann said Wednesday he received the contract is week but. had not yet reviewed it. Johnson aid Mann's attorney assured him the company would sign the agreement. "We're right at the doorstep of getting the whole process going, and development agreements and zoning regulations," Johnson said. "The zones will define what is allowedrn those areas as far as heights, dimensio s, standards, setbacks, that kind of thing." The marl a-golf resort would be developed on property on the Black Point The land Is zoned fora "master-planned" resort and already includes the 300-slip Pleasant jHarbor Marina, which is owned by Statesman. "We're close to nearing ahalf-century of being in the business,„ Mann said this week. '~ "We've examined the property and done a ton of work and consulted a lot of different people," he said. "We are of the opinion that there is validity in moving forward. °It would be nice if we could get the SETS [supplemental draft. environmental impact statement] competed and out of the way, and could start construction in late 2013 or early 2014," Mann said. The North Hood Canal Chamber of Gommerce has endorsed the project. The Brinnon Group, which opposed the project in its earlier versions, is monitoring fts progress, organizer Barbara Moore-Lewis said this week. "The Brinnon Group is concerned about the health of Hood Canal," she said. "We are pinpointing weaknesses in the proposal and will bring them up in due time. "This will be the real crux of the SEIS: How do you mitigate any impacts on the canal and whether there actually exists technology to do that." The resort would include 890 residential units and an 1 &hole golf course, a wastewater reclamation plant and 12,000 square feet of commercial space at a marina village off U.S. Highway 101. "There is likely to be opposition," Johnson said. "Some people think it's too big," he added. "I am confident we are going to finish the SEIS and the development agreement and zoning regulations, so he [Mann] can proceed." Statesman already shows the resort as a concern on its website, wwwatatesmancornoration.com, complete with an artist's rendering of $690,000 sea-view residences, and parking. for cars and boats. Johnson predicted the draft EIS would be ready for public review this fall, with its first stop being the Jefferson County Planning Commission. A hearing examiner also will hold a public hearing on marina, golf course and other usage zones included in the undertaking, which wiN be developed on property zoned overaN for a master planned resort. "As a model, look at Port Ludlow zoning and regulations," Johnson said, referring to the marina-golf resort 20 miles south of Port Townsend. "[Statesman] tweaked it to their circumstances. "It's essentially the same kind of thing." Mann said he will not seek financing for the project until it's approved. Plans call for the resort to be built in phases, with the wastewater treatment plant coming first. +sa~ ~tw w , ~ ~d b ~ tilsst ', Bari, cif ~~~ that alt!~~ ~w "They are proposing to clear and put in an 18-hole golf course that will require a huge amount of excavation on the site," he said. "You are talking about millions of cubic tons of material. "If they start that and don't finish it, thaYs not good. "That wiB all be worked out in the devek>pment agreement." Public comment will be taken on the draft SETS and the final EIS. A public hearing also will be held when the Planning Commission considers the final E{S. Finally, the county board of commissioners will vote on whether to approve or deny the. study's preferred alternative. Information and numerous documents on the proposal are available at ~ http:!/tinvurl.com/7yr,~fx3s. Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5060, or at g~~1.,gottfiebCcDAennsuladai~news.com. Last modified: January 17. 2013 5:52PM Quentin F. Soper, PhD (Chemistry) 11 Topsail Lane Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 (360) 437-9470 March 17, 2013 David W. Joh~son Jefferson County 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Port Ludlow Development Agreement Extension Dear Mr. Johnson: ~.rF~ . I am a retired ort Ludlow resident. After reviewing the Extension Application, I would support that request o ly if the following condition is met: A complete cle pup of all toxic contaminants at Well #2 /subject to the approval of WSDOE. WSDOE has listed a Port Ludlow property on its "Hazardous Sites List." This site is located on PLA owned properties. PLA, or their predecessors, contaminated that site, and therefore must be held responsible for remediation to the satisfaction of WSDOE. Port Ludlow residents must not be forced to ply any of the remediation cost. My home is 1 Gated approximately five hundred feet downhill from Well #2. I am very concerned tha this condition has existed for many years, with Jefferson County being fully aware of the p#~oblem and having done nothing to remedy the condition to date. With a PhD inj Organic Chemistry, I have a full appreciation and understanding of the damage these toxins can cause. I expect the County to use all means at their disposal to promptly resolve this situation. '~ Please keep m~e apprised of your progress. questions that you may have. Sincerely, Quentin F. Soper, PhD CC: John'iAustin WSI~OE ,,-~ ~ Wit- ~-~-, 1 s zo~3 I offer my assistance in addressing any technical March 25, 201 David Johnson'.. Department of community Development Development Review Division 62l Sheridan Street Port Townsend; WA 98368 ss Y~• .~ ~f` JJ~Yi 2 5 2013 ~~~"~ $9 ~ ~ t~~ ~$ ~ ~ uu ~ t„.~ *" ~ ~aa Re: Extension of Port Ludlow Development Agreement and Preliminary Plats Dear Mr. Johnson: Attached is ouri, response to Public Comments received on Amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement CASE NO.s: ZON 12-00061 -MLA 12-0026 Respectfully Diana Smeland; Larry Smith President President Port Ludlow Associates LLC Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. \~, ~ t ~ ~-~ ~ ~/ z. PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC ("PLA") 2 5 2~1 AND OLYMPIC WATER AND SEWER, INC. ("OWSI") ~ . e ~ ' s'~, ~ r ° 4'- COMBINED RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ,~~~ ~ ~ ' w ~ ' REGARDING PLA'S AND OWSI'S PROPOSED AMENDII~IENT N0.2 TO PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED MAY 1, 2000 MARCH 21, 2013 1. AN HONY SIMPSON LE TER DATED MARCH 18, 2013 Comment :The WSDOE (Washington State Department of Ecology) ranks hazardous sites from 1 to 5, where 1 is most hazardous and S is least (Re s . Pope Resources' leaking fuel tanks created a r~nk 2 iRe c hazardous site at 781 Walker Way where the waterworks yard is located and a rank ~e ° hazardous site at the Golf Course Maintenance Facilities at 181 Cameron Dr. These conta¢ninations are a serious health threat. Walker Waya is the more serious because that is where the #2 well is in decline ~~ and Re F and the replacement #17 well hit contamination ~Re leading to its abandonment. The issue of who pays for co~rtamination remediation has not yet been resolved between PLA/OWSI and Pope Resources. At the Golf nurse, OWSI states that the contamination penetration appears immobile on top of rock. How ver, there are apparently no monitoring holes to determine if this stability is long term and th t contamination could not eventually affect the drinking water aquifers. In 2010 O SI applied to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) for a water rates increase that proposed to include well #17 costs and contamination cleanup. The PLVC took Ithe issue to the WUTC in late 2010 ~~ a„d Re OWSI withdrew the rate increase application'(Re x but the WUTC permitted OWSI to accrue as ex enses the well #17 costs and contaminate n cleanup costs into a separate holding account ~R~c and Re V and to apply later for WUTC ~Re permission to set-off (reduce by charge) the balance in this account to Port Ludlow resident's 'ater bills. By recouping OWSI's contamination cleanup costs via OWSI water rates, PLA and t e Pope Resources coul~otentially avoid taking action through WSDOE and the Model Toxi s Control Act (MTCA) ~e ~ to recover their remediation costs. Thus there ~s considerable concern by Port Ludlow homeowners that they will be stuck with a substantial onion of contamination, remediation, and well-drilling costs. Such issues had not surfaced at! the time of the original Development Agreement, and the parties did not address them. Howiever, they are apparent now. I believe that the Jefferson Board of County CommissiorVers (BoCC) has an obligation to the people to try and correct contamination issues and push the costs thereof to those who caused the problem, rather than force the costs to be borne by the people as the payers of last resort. A clear pla' of who will pay for and manage contamination cleanup is essential and must apply to any heir and successors. A possible cost-effective and technically appealing approach is to 1 DWT 21454190v 0065364-000001 engage a loy~ally knowledgeable organization such as the Jefferson Public Utilities Commission (Jefferson PIIUD) to study the issue and report on the options and the recovery possibilities using all the metlliods available through WSDOE and MTCA. The negotiation of this five year extension is every probably the only opportunity that will ever arise to achieve this end. PLA Respolnse to Comment 1: The two sites are discussed separately below: 781 Walke Wa : This site is owned by OWSI. The DOE is aware of the environmental condition o the property. The contamination was caused by a leaky underground storage tank at least ~ years ago, before PLA acquired ownership of OWSI. OWSI believes the property will be rem diated within the near future. At least two remediation plans have been prepared and are un er 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 partie~ dispute the scope or cost of the remediation, then some form of dispute resolution process, su h as mediation, arbitration, or litigation, may be needed. To the extent that Pope Resources qr another third party does not bear the remediation cost, OWSI or its ratepayers may bear or sha a the cost. No remediation costs will be imposed on OWSI customers without the approval of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission following a public process. It is OWSI' expectation and understanding that it should use commercially reasonable efforts to cause pote tially responsible persons who caused the contamination to bear the remediation costs, rathe than accept those costs and simply allocate them to its ratepayers. the Mainte ante Facilities at 181 Cameron Drive : This site is owned by PLA. The DOE is aware of th environmental condition of the property. The contamination was caused by a leaky underground storage tank at least 15 years ago, before PLA's acquisition of the property, and to PLA's knovlrledge the contamination does not pose a serious threat to human health and safety or other elemepnts of the environment. It is possible the property will not be remediated due to the contaminate n being in basalt rock. If the property is remediated, then neither OWSI nor its ratepayers v~ill bear any portion of the remediation cost. Generally: (Federal and state environmental agencies, including the EPA and DOE, regulate the identificatiojn and remediation of contaminated real property. Cities and counties, including Jefferson Gounty, typically do not adopt or enforce standards for identifying or remediating contaminated property. Comment ~: The Port Ludlow water capacity has been questioned in the ast tR-~, thou h some amelipration may well have occurred through the Tala Point rights ~ O Re P ana Re Apparently, the only Water Right not yet perfected is G2-29104, which has only nominal effect on capaci (Re R Nevertheless, OWSI's ability to handle the PLA's build-out plus the approximately 300 privately owned un-built lots has not been independently analyzed and There is an apparent demographic shift in Port Ludlow that is not recognized in its planning. 40 years ago Port Ludlow was primarily a retirement and vacation community of snowbirds. Based on this, the average daily water consumption per residence was estimated to be about 200 DWT 21454190v4 0065364-000001 i gallons per jday, which is relatively low ~Rers. ~. z~9-za9~ _ OWSI can undoubtedly furnish precise and currentldata. Now, as job markets have developed in the region, there appears to be noticeable growth in the number of Unger families with children that have bought homes here for year-round residence - the 2010 ensus and school enrollment statistics should provide statistical verification of this. The water c nsumption of families with children is considerabl h~her, perhaps approaching a planning no m of 300 to 350 gallons per day per residence (Rel~p. 2~. Their numbers appear to be growing and there seems to be no reason why this trend will not continue. Any consequent water short~rge is a serious threat especially for the elderly and children. Therefore, there is an important need for the Port 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 po ulation taking into account the projected changes in demographics. Again, a knowledgea le source of information on this is probably the Jefferson PUD. If not addressed here and n w, then where, when, and how will the County ever have a compelling and legally feasible op rtunity to address the issues? PLA Resp nse to Comment 2: OWSI currently has approximately 1550 residential water service con ections, approximately 23 commercial water service connections (equal to 242 residential quivalent connections per the June 2012 MERU record), approximately 77 pending or approve applications for new residential connections, and 81 unplatted preliminary lots for which OW I has committed to provide water service in the future, for a total of approximately 1950 residential equivalent connections that OWSI has expressly committed to serve since August 2001. (In addition, there are approximately 300 vacant residential lots within the Port Ludlow M R for which there are currently neither service connections nor applications for connections OWSI may be obligated to provide water service to many if not all of these lots under com fitments made prior to August 2001.) Under the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, a maximum of 2,575 Measurement Equivalent Residential Units ("MERUs") and a maximum 2,250 residential units are permitted within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. On December 5, 2007, the Washington Department of Health approved OWSI's Water System Plan for 2,197 residential equivalent connections. (OWSI will 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. In June 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology granted OS I additional water rights by issuance of a water permit (No. G2-30442P) for the withdrawal f up to 100 gallons of water per minute at Well Nos. 13, 14, and 16. OWSI curr ntly holds sufficient water rights to serve all existing customers and all future customers t~iat OWSI is obligated to serve. OWSI has sufficient water rights to serve, and the 2007 Wateri System Plan authorizes it to serve, existing residential water service connections and new residential service connections for which applications are pending or approved. OWSI's 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. DWT 21454190v~4 0065364-000001 There is no bjective evidence that Port Ludlow demographics and consumption patterns have changed su stantially in recent years. According to data compiled for the Port Ludlow Developme t Impact Monitoring reports, in 2005, there were 99 school children in Port Ludlow. In Decembeir 2012, there were 110 school children. This is not a material change. As PLA connpletes the build-out of Port Ludlow, OWSI expects to obtain additional water rights. Applicable caws and regulations, including the Washington Subdivision Act, RCW Chapter 58.17, and t e Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, do not require that ither Jefferson County, PLA, or OWSI conduct an independent investigation of the availability f 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. They also require that "Appropriate provisions are made fo>r 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 pf 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 availability ~iefore the preliminary plat can be approved. No develop r can perfect water rights without the construction of water facilities and the commence ent of actual beneficial use by the water system customers. To perfect water rights, a developer first must obtain a water permit, then must construct new water facilities, then must put the water facilities to actual beneficial use, then must apply for and obtain from the DOE a water certifiicate, before the water rights are perfected. Because of deadlines imposed by the DOE for the commencement of the beneficial use, and because of the significant cost of constructin new water facilities, the process for obtaining new water rights is never commenced far in advan a of the construction of the project for which the water rights will be used. Jefferson C unty did not require OWSI to perfect all water rights that ultimately will be required for the buil -out of the Port Ludlow MPR when the Port Ludlow Development Agreement was made in May 2000, and there is no legal or rational basis on which it should do so now. DWT 21454190v~ 0065364-000001 2. PO T LUDLOW VILLAGE COUNCIL E IL DATED MARCH 18.2013 Comment ~: (1) Are there sufficient water rights to meet the needs of the future residences contemplated in the Development Agreement? Is ownership of these rights protected for the Port Ludlow (2) During drilling for Well #17, contamination was identified. There is concern among the community hat those clean up costs may be passed on to OWSI ratepayers rather than be absorbed b the company's ownership. Public Records Request to Jefferson County. PLA Respo~se to Comment 3: Please see PLA Responses to Comments 1 and 2 above. 3. QU~NTIN F. SOPER LETTER DATED MARCH 18.2013 Comment ~: A complete cleanup of all toxic contaminants at Well #2 I subject to the approval of WSDOE. i~ PLA Respopnse to Comment 4: Please see PLA Response to Comment 1 above. 4. TO STONE EM IL DATED MARCH 18, 2013 Comment I fully support their request for an extension to 2025 of their Development Agreement ith Jefferson County. PLA Response to Comment 5. No response by PLA or OWSI is necessary. 5. BE T LOOMIS EM IL DATED MARCH 18, 2013 Comment ~. I have reviewed the application submitted by Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) and Olympic W ter and Sewer Inc. (OWSI) for an extension of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement hrough May 8, 2025. After careful consideration, I would support the extension request subs ct to the following conditions: a) The prompt and complete cleanup of all toxic contaminants at well #2, subject to a completion jbond approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) (see attached details). b) The~omplete removal of all toxic contaminant s from the Port Ludlow Golf Course, with a posted co pletion bond subject to approval by WSDOE (see attached details). c) Writ en confirmation from the Washington State Department of Ecology that PLA/OWS has obtained adequate Water Rights for full build-out of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Re ort (see attached details). PLA Resp nse to Comment 6. Please see PLA Responses to Comments 1 and 2 above. In addition, P A and OWSI note that completion bonds commonly are required by cities and 5 DWT 21454190v4 0065364-000001 counties in connection with project permit applications, where the applicant is legally obligated to completed construction of an improvement (for example, a public park) that has a known design or sc pe and a known cost, in exchange for the issuance of a governmental approval (such as a final lat approval) that otherwise is not to be issued until the improvement has been completed. In other words, completion bonds secure a developer's obligation to the city or county to c plete a defined improvement whose cost is known to all and which the developer is legally obli ated to complete. PLA and OWSI are unaware of a legal or rational basis on which Jefferson C unty would require PLA or OWSI to post a completion bond for work that neither PLA nor O SI may be required to complete, for the benefit of a government agency that has not requested of required the bond, for remediation work whose scope and cost have not yet been determined.' DWT 21454190v4 0065364-000001 David W. Johnson From: I Diana Smeland [DSmeland@portludlowassociates.com] Sent: ', Monday, March 25, 2013 10:22 AM To: '~, David W. Johnson Cc: I Larry Smith Subject: ! [BULK] RE: Response to public comment #ZON12-00061-MLA 12-0026 David We noticed a blank in r spouse to comment 1. It should read...781 Walker Way: This site is owned by OWSI. The DOE is aware of the environmental condition of the property. The contamination was caused by a leaky underground storage tank that was removed in 1990, before PLA acquired ownership of OWSI. Diana From: Diana Smeland Sent: Monday, March To: David Johnson (dw Cc: Larry Smith Subject: Response to David Attached is a cover I 2013 9:49 AM comment #ZON12-00061-MLA 12-0026 and response to comments. Please tet me know if you have any questions. Diana Diana Smeland President s, LLC Ludlow, A 98365 I www.westharborhomes.com ~ ; ~! 2012 Distir of Award of Excellence I 2013 Washington State Wine Commission Award of >f Northwest Meetings and Events David W. Joh From: Susan Porto Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:01 AM To: David W. Johnson Cc: Walker, Teresa (DOH); Anderson, Andy (DOH); Hayes, Corina M (DOH); crim461 @ECY.WA.GOV; Lum, Bill (ECY); Jared Keefer Subject: ' Olympic Water and Sewer WS#68700 Well #17 and Well #2 Attachments: Fwd: WAC 173-340 MTCA -TOXIC Cleanup --- Port Ludlow / OWSI toxic well site David, In regard to your question related to the status of Olympic Water and Sewer Water System #68700, Well #17 and the March 15th Bert Loomi comment letter referencing the proposed extension of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, I have the ollowing comments: 1. The property wlhere Olympic Water and Sewer water system #68700 Well #2 is located contains a proposed replacement weell for Well #2, labeled as Well #17. During the drilling process of Well #17 petroleum products were encountelred, believed to be from old underground storage tanks on the property site, and drilling ceased. Since that timed a Site Hazard Assessment was completed and Ecology has assigned a Hazardous rank of 2. The status of the contaminated site known as Olympic Water and Sewer is identified in Ecology's database as "Awaiting Cleartlup." You will need to consult with Cris Matthews at 360 407-6388 to identify what Ecology requires as the'next step(s). 2. The site referenced as the Port Ludlow Golf Course also contained leaking underground storage tanks. A Site Hazard Assess ent was completed and Ecology has assigned a Hazardous rank of 3. To my knowledge, neither a voluntary com liance plan nor a remediation plan has been approve through Ecology. The status of the contaminated ite known as the Golf Course is identified in Ecology's database as "Awaiting Cleanup." Again, you will need t consult with Cris Matthews at 360 407-6388 to identify what Ecology requires as the next step(s). 3. Department oflEcology and Health would determine if OWS had adequate water rights and capacity. For Health I believe they ~nVould base their determination on the water systems total number of approve connections as compared to the full build out plan for Port Ludlow, or possibly a phase development approach. The Department ofiHealth and Ecology coordinate on that approval and associated water right requirements. You will need to discuss the Port Ludlow Development plan details with either Andy Anderson at 360-236-3024 or Teresa Walker ~60-236-3032. I believe the contact at Ecology for this information would be Marie Peters, 360- 407-0279, if no she can direct you otherwise. The evaluation of capacity should take into account reduced production from Well #2 and the intent to drill a replacement w II for Well #2, together with declining production demands as documented in the most recent 2012 Port Ludlow Development Impact Monitoring report. If you would like to review the files related to the site hazard assessments or the drinking water system in our office, please let me know. SuSAw Porto R.S. Je f fersow Couwt~ Pu.bl c --teaLth Phowe 360.3859404 SAX 360.3~9.448~ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This a-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged ' ormation. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by eply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. .~Y~.vl~yv~,~l~ G+C-rc..N~\ Lz-~ `/dec.-~"` I L ~ 0 ~/~ ~ l ~ / ~ ~ /O : O-a a; z.~,L Development Agreement Extension Notes 1. Name is TorMy Durham, VP of PLVC and resident of Port Ludlow for 19 years. 2. At PLVC Ge Feral Meeting on 7 March, PLA (Diana Smeland) requested PLVC support for 5 yr. extension of the Devel pment Agreement. 3. PLVC held S ecial Meeting on 14 March to consider request. 4. At meeting xtensive comment and discussion over a 2 hr. period. 5. Almost withmut exception, everyone recognized that the economy since 2007-08 had been weak, and not supported level of demand necessary to complete build out by originally planned May 2020 date. 6. Wide agreement that extension request was reasonable and deserving of community support. 7. Council approved preparation and transmittal of letter of support for extension request. 8. Council also~required support letter to include 2 specific related issues/concerns that the County was urged to ad ress as an integral part of the extension review/approval process. Those 2 issues are :- a. Adequacy of Water Rights : The adequacy of water rights at levels consistent with projected needs as construction and population approach and reach build-out levels must be assured. Two otes :- i. In the early years the population of Port Ludlow was very heavily composed of retirees and vacationers, many absent several months each year -hence low per household ', water usage estimated at 200 gallons/day (average). iii. Recently, more year round residents, and changes in demographics including some moderately younger residents and a sprinkle of families with children -higher per household water usage estimated at about 300-350 gallons/day. Currently approved supply is 550 acre-feet. PLVC estimated need at build out is 580 acre-feet, i.e. need approx..30 additional acre-feet or an increase of 5-6%. This is not a huge increase, but it is IVOT trivial -and availability needs to be ASSURED. b. Contamination Clean-Up Costs : There is known fuel (gasoline) contamination at 2 sites in Port Ludlow. The contamination requires on-going monitoring, clean-up and remediation, the costs of which must be borne by the contamination creators and not be transferred either directly or indir ctly to the residents of Port Ludlow. 'e. The first contamination site is located at the Waterworks Maintenance Yard near Well #17 on Walker Way. Well #17 was subsequently abandoned, but the site is also close to the older Well #2 which remains in use. ii. The second contamination site is at the Golf Course Maintenance Facility off Cameron Drive. 9. Bottom Line : The community widely supports the requested 5 year extension of the development agreement, ut urges that County approval require updated and independent analysis of water needs and approp late action to resolve both issues as an integral condition of that approval. David From: Matthews, Cris (ECY) [crim461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: ~ Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:55 AM To: David W. Johnson Cc: Rose, Scott (ECY) Subject: ', Port Ludlow sites David: Thanks for the call. As a discussed, given the level of interest /concern for these cleanup sites - in particular, the Olympic Water & Sewelr production well site - it may be appropriate for the Jefferson County Commission to request more direct Ecology / Toxics Cleanup Program assistance with resolution. I would suggest a simplle letter outlining the County's concerns for these issues and ask for Ecology's direct assistance. This might be additional effort to move PLA into the Voluntary Cleanup Program, or even initiate a formal, active The two sites are in Ec logy's database as: • Olympic Water & Sewer / FS ID 62223345 /WARM Rank 2 • Port Ludlow G If Course / FS ID 91762839 /WARM Rank 3 Address the letter to: Rebecca Lawson Section Manager ~! Toxics Cleanup Progranh /Southwest Regional Office Department of Ecology) PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7715 With cc to: Scott Rose Unit Supervisor Same address Let me know if you have questions. 4/9/13 VduntaryCleanup Program { To~dcs Cleanup Program {Washington Department of Ecdogy Toxics Cieanuo > Voturrtary CI The Voluntary Cleanup F cleaning up a hazardous Under this option, you m request services from th fee, including: • Technical assgs requirements. y Cleanup Program Program gram (VCP) is one of several options for ~aste site under the state's cleanup law. i perform a cleanup independently and Department of Ecology (Ecology) for a Focus: Update on VCP ODIn1OrIS Korean: ~7U~1O~ ~>gF ~~ ~$k~y1011 ~$t ~~ "~4 once on how to meet cieanup • Written opinion on whether your cleanup meets those requirements. The VCP includes the foil wing beneficial features: • Anyone can join. Anyone, from property owners to prospective purchasers or developers, may apply to enter the VCP. • ]pin at any time You may apply to enter the VCP at any point in the cleanup process, including during the investigative or pl nning phases. In fact, Ecology encourages early consultations. • Site manager. pon entering the VCP, Ecology will assign a site manager to your project who can provide technical assistan a and written opinions on your planned or completed cleanup. • Timely service. (Upon receipt of a request, the site manager assigned to your project will provide you an opinion usually within 90 c!"ays. • Pay only for requested services. You pay only for the services that you request. There is no application fee. • Withdraw at any time. You may withdraw from the VCP at any time during the cleanup process. The VCP is voluntary. Upon successful completi n of your cleanup, Ecology will issue you a No Further Action (NFA) opinion, which may be useful in obtaining loans or Belli g or redeveloping your property. Upon receiving an NFA o inion, local governments may apply for an independent remedial action grant from Ecology to help offset their cleanup osts. For more information, visit: www.ecv.wa.aov/oroarams/swfa/grants/rao.html. Should I loin the VCP? This page explains your options under the law and helps you decide whether the VCP is the best option for you. Getting Started This page gets yo~ started and provides answers to frequently asked questions about the VCP application process, including your app ication and Ecology's response. The Proeess This page provide answers to frequently asked questions about the operation of the VCP, including how to: • Request Se ices • Pay for Se ices • Change Co facts • Withdraw frpm the Program The Services This page provides answers to frequently asked questions about the services you may request under the VCP, including: • Overview • Types of O inions • Opinions on Property Cleanups • Opinions on Site Cleanups • Limitations f Opinions • De-listing o Sites • Periodic Re iew of Cleanups • Rescinding f Opinions The Requirements 1/2 ..._ ................_ _ 4/9/13 Vduntary Gteanup Program ~ Topcs Cleani.ip Program ~ Washington Department of Ecology This page identifies the requirements governing the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and provides guidance on how to meet those requ rements. This page also iden ifies important reporting requirements, including data submittal and licensing requirements. lust the Forms This page provides you with the forms you need to do the following: • APPIy • Request Opi ions • Change Co cis • Withdraw from the Program lust the Oainion Letters This page provides~a quick overview of the types of opinions Ecology provides on a cleanup under the VCP and the boilerplate letters cology uses to provide those opinions. i Contacts This page provides) information on how to contact the persons who manage the operation of the VCP: • Statewide oordinator • Fnancial M Hager • Regional U t Managers Copyright ©Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html. 2/2 413/13 Eco(ocw home > U ndersta Cleanup Site Discovery & Ecology finds out contamination prof state citizens, or k Releases of hazard Underground Stora within 24 hours o releases must be n Initial Investigat. within 90 days of r step provides enot. needs further inve: further action. If fl letters are sent to them to work coop contamination prok step... Site Hazard As: confirm the pres determne the re and the environr by Ecology staff districts /depart Hazard Ranking (V Hazard Assessment Ranking Method (W~ between 1 and 5, w highest level of risk Superfund sites and higher priority far cIE site hazard ranking i contaminants preser Cle~xap Process: Moor Steps $ Qefir~toru > Steps in Cleanup Process ing Site Cleanup Major Steps & Definitions ieporting: The process whereby bout contaminated sites. Most lems are reported to us by Washington y business owners and operators. rus substances from Leaking le Tanks must be reported to Ecology discovery; all other incidents or ported within 90 days of discovery. (II): A brief investigation conducted giving a site discovery report. This information to determine if the site ation, emergency cleanup, or no per action is required, early notice owners, operators, etc. inviting lively with us to resolve any rs, AND the site proceeds to the next Related Rules, Policies, and Other References Rule WAC 173-340-300 and -450 5 WAC 173-360-360, -372, and -375 Site Discovery & Reporting Policy 300 See also "How to report": Spills & Emergencies Other Environmental Incidents & Concerns Rule : WAC 173- 340- 310 Policy: 310A Went (SHA): An assessment to of hazardous substances and to risk the site poses to human health (Note: Some SHAs are conducted others are conducted by local health s.) Rule: WAC 173-340-320 Procedures: 320, 321 See also: Local Health Districts I Departments ZNI Score): The results of the Site ~p are used in the Washington I) to yield a WARM scare -- a number e a score of 1 represents the i 5 the lowest. Generally, federal es ranked 1 or 2 are considered up. Some factors that enter into ude: the amount and type of and how easily contamnants could Rule: WAC 173-340-330 Policy: 340 Focus Sheet: WARM vwvw.ecyv~.gov'programs/tcp/cu s~pport/cu~rocess steps defiis.hhn 1/4 4!9/13 Cleanup Process: Major Steps & Definitons come into contact nth people and the environment. The level of public canc~m is also considered. Listing on Hazzard us Saes List (HSL). Ranked sites are Rule: WAC 173-340-330 placed on the stat Hazardous Sites List, asemi-annual List of contaminated si es that shows sites ranked and slated Policy: 330A for cleanup under t e Model Toxics Control Act. Emergency Actio~: Emergency situations such as Spill Prevention, Preparedness & spills of hazardous substances and drug lab cleanups Response Program are referred to ono her program for immediate action. Interim Action: ny remedial action that partially Rule: WAC 173-340-430 addresses the clea up of a site. Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study (RI/FS): An in-depth study co ducted. to: • Determine d tailed site characteristics and define the extent and r~hagnitude of contamination at a site; Rule: • Evaluate potential impacts on human health & the WAC 173-340-350, and environment land establish cleanup criteria; and -355 through -370 • Evaluate cleanup alternatives. See also: Voluntary Cleanup Program The RI/FS may be 'iconducted as two separate steps, but VCP they are usually combined into one study. A draft of the Cleanup Levels and Risk RI/FS report is ma a available for public review and Calculation (CLARC) Tool corrru~rtent before fi afizing. In some cases, a ' EPA Review' may be needed -- this is an evaluation of the nvironmental impacts of the proposed -'-~anup to ensure that the proposed work meets the Luirements of thle State Environmental Policy Act. :anup Action an (CAP): A document that describes selected cleanup method(s) and specifies cleanup ~ndards and othler requirements. It is based on omiation and te~hnical analyses generated during the Rule: WAC 173-340-380 ruiFS and conside ation of public col~nents and community concerns. A draft of the CAP is made available for public review and ca nt before finalizing. ,~~ fltat+i~rr~ Engineering Desi n: A cleanup step that includes . development ofd tailed plans and specifications to carry out the selected thod of cleanup, including development Rule: WAC 173-340-400 of an engineering esign report. 2/4 4l~t13 Remedial Design Cleanup Constr~ selected cleanup eliminate, render I isolate, treat, des Includes construe contaminated soil; disposal; pumping water; sealing off cap or barrier; th the growth of mic contaminants in p Synonyms: Clean Cleanup Operatic at a site after cle~ that the cleanup c properly. (Note: T federal CERCLA de Cleanup Process: Major Steps 8~ Defiratons tion: The implementation of the ~tion (i.e., actions taken at a site to ss toxic, stabilize, contain, immobilize, goy, or remove a hazardous substance). on activities such as removal of or sediment for off-site treatment or end treating of contaminated ground ontaminated soils or sediment beneath a addition of chemicals or enhancement of organisms that break down e; etc. Action, Remedial Action. --- Rule: WAC 173-340-400 and -410 1 & Maintenance: Activities conducted up construction is completed to ensure containment system is functioning Rule: WAC 173-340-400 definition is not synonymous with the and -410 tition of Operation & Maintenance). Environmental or prohibit activi integrity of a cle exposure to hazy Synonyms: Inst Covenants. Tenants: Measures taken to limit that may interfere with the p action or that may result in us substances. oval Controls, Restrictive - --- - - Periodic (5-Year)'IReviews: A review of post-cleanup conditions and monitoring data that may be required at least every five years to ensure that human health and the environment ark being protected. Removal from Hai Sites may be remo~ List (a semi-annual cleanup standards requirements have p p -- [Note: Cleanu O ~r fauns of monitoring Im standards are met ~rn Hazardous Sites Lis#.] Examples in Rule: WAC 173-340-440 (1) See also: Financial Assurances WAC 173-340-400~6c) and -440 11 Rule: WAC 173-340-420 -- Agreed Order: A I gal document issued by Ecology which fom~alizes an agreement between the department and pot ntially liable persons (PCPs) for the actions needed at a site. (Subject to public comment.) Consent Decree: issued by a court reached between i rdous Sites List (de-listing): d from the state Hazardous Sites Ming of contaminated sites), when ive been achieved and all met. Rule: WAC 173-340-330 (7) Policy: 3308 ion & Maintenance or other r continue after cleanup site has been removed from the Rule: WAC 173-340-530 legal document, approved and ch formalizes an agreement state and potentially liable Rule: WAC 173- 340- 520 ~lxocess steps_defis.htrn 3/4 4!9/13 Cleanup i?rocess: Major Steps & Definitons persons (PCPs) on ~he actions needed at a site. De Minlmus Cons Consent Decree tl of a "de minimus" minimus" means t contributed by on insignificant in am com~rient. } Prospective Purc particular type of person not Curren who proposes to I site. (Subject to ..................:......................................... Enforcement On department requir with an enforcerrw liability for costs comment.) nt Decree: A unique type of t may be entered into in the case ontribution Settlement (where "de it the amount of contamination or more Potentially Liable Parties is mt or toxicity). (Subject to public Rule: RCW 70.105D.040 {4a) Policy: 5208 ser Consent. Decree. A sent decree entered into with a liable for remedial action at a site :hase, redevelop, or reuse the Rule: RCW 70.105D.04Q (5} and WAC 173-340-520 (1c} Policy: 520A A legal document issued by the remedial action. Failure to comply order may result in substantial penalties. (Subject to public Rule: WAC 173-340-540 Policy: 540A See also: Focus Article: Mods Sites Tool page Toxics Cleanup P Toxics Cleanup P Acronym List Copyright www.ecywa.9~Pro9 Reaulations page Tools page State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html. steps_defis.htm 4/a extensions. This provision was obviously overridden by the terms of Ch. 58.17 RCW, the Subdivision Statute, which originally authorized a five year expiration date. Now Ch. 58. ] 7 RCW invalidates plats preliminarily approved after seven years. The County can contractually agree to grant a developer, here PLA, greater protection than what the state law, as a minimum protection, offers. Again, exceeding the state minimum protections is within the "police power" the County may exercise when entering into a development agreement or an amendment to a development agreement. In sum, the County (via the DA) is authorized to grant plats with preliminary approval 10 years of protection from expiration because, simply, 10 is a larger number than seven. Issue #4: Is the proposed amending of the DA the proper time to require PLA to remedy the contaminated soil and potable water supply issues as a precondition to any amendment to the DA? For several reasons the answer to this question is "no." • The first reason to not intertwine the soil and potable water issues with a possible amendment to the DA is that the County is NOT the enforcing agency to assure PLA's compliance with the clean-up, for example, of the leaking UST at 781 Walker (look to State Dept. of Ecology) and is NOT the regulatory agency for the sufficiency of the potable water supply (look to State Dept. of Health). • A second reason fora "no" answer is that those citizens asking the County to use the tool apparently found in Section 3.13.1 of the DA, entitled "Public health or safety requirements," have misread that section. That section repeats the text of RCW 36.70B.170(4) which states "[a] development agreement shall reserve authority (to the local government, here Jefferson County) to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety." The key word in that state law is "regulations," which in the context of Ch. 36.70B RCW is a reference to "development regulations" intended to regulate how development occurs. A "development regulation" is a zoning or land use code that would govern future actions by the developer AND would not be applicable to what has already occurred, i.e., the petroleum-based product has already leaked from the UST at 781 Walker. Similarly, the County doesn't have any authority to enact or adopt "development regulations" regarding the sufficiency or safety of potable water, other than the County can require proof of potable water at the subdivision and building permit stages. The County doesn't regulate how a water purveyor obtains the water, it only asks if there is enough water when either of those two triggering events occur. DCD has assured the BoCC and the citizens it will further investigate with Ecology and State Health the status of the issues raised by the citizens. PLA asserts it has been a responsible citizen with respect to these issues. • A third reason fora "no" answer is based on the observation that the DA is a planning document and is not an enforcement document. The DA looks forward not backward and states the contours of what land use development will occur in the MPR. While the DA is enforceable in a court of law, it does not include enforcing procedures and was never intended to include such procedures. • A fourth and highly technical reason fora "no" answer is found in DA §4.13, which states that only the County and PLA can rely upon or enforce the terms of the DA and the County is choosing to NOT intertwine this amendment with the soil and water issues. Any questions? I am at extension 219, David Alvarez, Chief Civil DPA Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Scott W. Rosekrans ,+~~ sue, ~` .~A~' , . G 1 s ~. David W. Alvarez, Chief Deputy Cheryl L. Potebnya, Deputy Thomas A. Brotherton, Deputy Christopher R. Ashcraft, Deputy Miriam E. Norman, Deputy Lianne Perron-KOSSOW, Victim Services Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA98368 Phone: (360)385-9180 Fax: (360) 385-0073 NOT CONFIDENTIAL To: From: Date: Re: County Commissioners County Administrator DCD Administrator Smith Planning Administrator Hoskins David Alvarez, Chief Civil DPA Apri18, 2013 Amendment #2 to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement Background: The public hearing regarding Amendment #2 to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement occurred before the BoCC on April 1, 2013. Certain comments were made, some of which raise legal questions I will attempt to answer here. Issue #1: How do we amend the Development Agreement ("DA")? Amendment of the DA is controlled by §4.6 of the DA, which requires express written consent by PLA and the County to make any amendment effective. Furthermore, the BoCC "must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public hearing." The public hearing occurred on April 1, 2013. Issue #2: Is the County authorized to enter into a DA that is effective for 25 years? Yes because development agreements are authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. In fact, RCW 36.70B.170(4) states "the execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of county and city police power." Nothing in the statute limits the length of a development agreement and thus the county is free to contract with a developer for as long a term as it chooses. With respect to the PLA DA all parties are aware there's been no market for new residential development during the recession in effect shortening the term of this DA during the recession's duration. Issue #3: Does the Couuty have authority to make preliminary plat approval valid for 10 years, which is longer than the seven years of validity permitted by state law? As the reader may recall, one of the main rationales for the DA was planning certainty, i.e., the DA vests PLA to older land use development regulations throughout the term (originally 20 yeazs) of the DA regardless of what changes the County subsequently made or might make to its development regulations. In the case of subdivisions the DA vests PLA to the 1992 Subdivision Ordinance. For example and with respect to long subdivisions (creation of five or more lots) the 1992 Ordinance, at §6.212, expires such long subdivisions at three years and allows multiple one-year EXPLANATION of Table 2 Conversion Matrix 1. Harbormaster Restaurant closed and converted to Port Ludlow Yacht Club (private). 2. Creekside 2 preliminary plat approval expired January 20, 2004. 3. Village Center -Loomis -Snug Harbor Cafe 50 seats x 50 gpd divided by 200gpd. 4. Port Ludlow No. 5 -recount based on PLA numbers. 5. Port Ludlow No. 6 -recount based on PLA numbers. 6. Ludlow Beach/Point Tracts -segregated for actudl count of each. 7. Ludlow Cove II -preliminary plat approval August 16, 2008 expires August 16, 2015. EXPLANATION of Table 2 Conversion Matrix L Harbormaster Restaurant closed and converted to Port Ludlow Yacht Club (private). 2. Creekside 2 preliminary plat approval expired January Z0, 2004. 3. Village Center -Loomis -Snug Harbor Cafe 50 seats x 50 gpd divided by 200gpd. 4. Por[ Ludlow No. 5 -recount based on PLA numbers. 5. Port Ludlow No. 6 -recount based on PLA numbers. 6. Ludlow Beach/Point Tracts -segregated for actual count of each. 7. Ludlow Cove II -preliminary plat approval August 16, 2008 expires August 16, 2015. MERUs Allocated to ne Uses Uses Commercial MERUs MERU Record Joe 2012 ~;.,i n..a Pnblir Facility Measurement Eanivalent Residential Units (MERUs) rao~e v ~.,.,........... ---- A ddress ERII Allocation 'i VIERUs Jse Existing Uses Last count 320.4 Fire Hall 7 650 Oak Bay Road 1 0,000 sf @ 200 gpd/T 000 sf 1 e st max otentia] Treatment Plant and Pump Stations 8 481 Oak Bay Road 1 993 FEIS S Conference Center - (Grace Christian 2 00 Olympic Place 1 993 FEIS 4 'Church Beach Club & Bridge Deck 1 21 Marine View Drive & 21 1993 FEIS 2S Harbor Drive The Inn -Hotel 1 Heron Road 130 gpd per room (37 rooms) 24 The Inn -Restaurant/lounge 1 Heron Road SO gpd per seat (72 seats) 18 Marina I Gull Drive 1993 FEIS 1 SS Harbormaster Restaurant - (Port SS Heron Road pd per seat (16S seats)) udlow Yacht Club TBD Resort Commercial (future use) 2500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 3 1993 FEIS Resort Revision TBD Village Center -Moriarty (Wells 9401 Oak Bay Road 4074 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4 Far o Home Mort a e) Village Center- Moriarty'~2 (Sun 9405 Oak Bay Road 5000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf S Micros stems) est max otentia] PT Of6ce/PL Property Sales (Urgent 9481 & 83 Oak Bay Road TBD) EIS (Actual Flows 20 Active Live, Son a's Barber) Care , Village Center (Village Store, Dana 60 Paradise Bay Road S 200 gps/1000 sf 1 S Pointe Interiors, One Cut Above, (1993 FEI Glessing & Assoc. CPAs, Jon Frowla CPA, Cacina Pizza, Post Office, Once U on a Time Village Center Expansion Village Way 45,000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4S ]993 FEIS Village Center -Loomis (Columbia 9500 Oak Bay Road 3000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 3 Bank, Art Galley Village Center-Loomis (Snug 9526 Oak Bay Road SOODat Cafe x SO gpd per seat 12.5 Harbor Cafe, Edward Jones, Windemere real estate) Coldwell Banker Bldg (Dentist) 9522 Oak Bay Road 4000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4 ort Ludlow Community Church 9534 Oak Bay Road Actual Flows O.S RV Park 44 Breaker Lane 1993 FEIS 10 ,Port Ludlow Associates Offices 70 Breaker Lane Actual Flows 0.5 Port Ludlow Health Clinic (Brady 111, 11 S, 119 V illage Way e ~ r Chiropratic, Hear for Life, Ludlow @ 60 V page Center/Stor Ba Massa e) Paradise Bay Road i ' 'Kitsap Bank 74 Breaker Lane 3500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 3.S (Actual Flows TBD) Club (Recreation Center) Ba 120 S innaker Place 1993 FEIS 22.5 y Ludlow Bay Reatty (John L Scott) 40 Teal Lake Road Actua] Flows 0.4 MERU Record June X012 m....~,. ~ ~,..,...,..~~;ai and Public Facility Measurement Equivalent Residential Units (MERIJs) ... Use Address MERU Allocation MERUs Existing Uses Last count 320.4 Fire Hall 7650 Oak Bay Road 10,000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 1 est max otential Treatment Plant and Pump Stations 8481 Oak Bay Road 1993 FEIS 5 Conference Center - (Grace Christian 200 Olympic Place 1993 FEIS 4 Church) Beach Club & Bridge Deck 121 Marine View Drive & 21 ]993 FEIS 25 arbor Drive The lnn -Hotel I Heron Road 130 gpd per room (37 rooms) 24 The Inn - Restaurant/lounge 1 Heron Road 50 gpd per seat (72 seats) 18 arina 1 Gull Drive 1993 FEIS 15.5 Harbormaster Restaurant - (Port 55 Heron Road (50 gpd per seat (165 seats)) Ludlow Yacht Club TBD Resort Commercial (future use) 500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 3 ]993 FEIS Resort Revision TBD Village Center -Moriarty (Wells 9401 Oak Bay Road 4074 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4 Far o Home Mort a e) Village Center- Moriarty #2 (Sun 9405 Oak Bay Road 5000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 5 Micros stems est max otential PT Office/PL Properly Sales (Urgent 9481 & 83 Oak Bay Road 1993 FEIS (Actual Flows 20 Care, Active Live, Son a's Barber TBD) illage Center (Village Store, Dana 60 Paradise Bay Road 15,000 sf @ 200 gps/1000 sf I S Pointe Interiors, One Cut Above, (1993 FEIS) Glessing & Assoc. CPAs, Jon Frowla CPA, Cacina Pizza, Post Office, Once U on a Time Village Center Expansion Village Way 45,000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 45 1993 FEIS Village Center -Loomis (Columbia 9500 Oak Bay Road 3000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 3 Bank, Art Galle Village Center -Loomis (Snug 9526 Oak Bay Road 50 seat Cafe x 50 gpd per seat 12.5 Harbor Cafe. Edward Jones, 200 Windemere real estate Coldwell Banker Bldg (Dentist) 9522 Oak Bay Road 4000 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 sf 4 Port Ludlow Community Church 9534 Oak Bay Road ctual Flows 0.5 RV Park 44 Breaker Lane 1993 FEIS ] 0 Port Ludlow Associates Offices 70 Breaker Lane Actual Flows 0.5 Port Ludlow Health Clinic (Brady 1 ] 1, 115, 119 Village Way Included with allocations for Chiropratic, Hear for Life, Ludlow i Village Center/Store @ 60 Ba Massa e) ~ Paradise Ba Road Kitsap Bank 74 Breaker Lane 3500 sf @ 200 gpd/1000 3.5 (Actual Flows TBD) a Club (Recreation Center) 120 S innaker Place 1993 FEIS 22.5 Ludlow Ba Realty (John L Scott) 40 Teal Lake Road Actual Flows 0.4 MERU Record June 2012 T~ti~a z BPC:drnt:al Measurement F.nuivalent Residential Units (MERUsI Plat Totals Lot Count Admiralt 64 North Ba Condominiums 54 Fairwa Villa e 14 Hi hland Greens 38 Inner Hazbor Villa e 46 Loomis Short Plat 22 Port Ludlow No. I-1 72 Port Ludlow No. 1-2 63 Port Ludlow No- 1-3 54 Port Ludlow No. 1-4 106 Port Ludlow No. I-5 29 Port Ludlow No. 2-1 63 Port Ludlow No. 2-2 103 Port Ludlow No. 2-3 233 Port Ludlow No. 3 87 Port Ludlow No. 4 80 Port Ludlow No. 5 17 Port Ludlow No. 6 19 ~ Port Ludlow No. 7 20 Ba side Short Plat 4 Ba view Villa e 55 Ed ewood Villa e 27 Fairwood Villa e 19 Greenview Villa e 16 Ludlow Ba Villa e TH & Marina Lots 58 Ludlow Beach Tracts 18 Ludlow Point Tracts 14 Ludlow Cove (Single-family Residential Lots) (Phase 1 & 2) 17 Ludlow Point Villa e-Div l 35 Ludlow Point Villa e-Div 2 14 Ludlow Point Villa e -Div 3 I S Ludlow Point Villa e -Div 4 21 Oak Bay and Great Scott Short Plats 6 Ol is Terrace Division I 41 OI m is Terrace Division 1I Phase I 4] South Ba No. 1 57 South Ba No. 2 18 South Bay No. 3 35 Teal Lake Villa e 98 Timberton Villa e Phase I & IUCreekside Village Div I 59 Timberton Vi11a e IIUCreekside Villa e Div II 19 Wed ewood Short Plat 3 Woodrid e Village 35 Vittuli Short Plat 2 Total Platted Pro ernes ]974 Existin (built) residential develo meet L353 Platted undeveloped lots 557 Preliminar Plat A royal Creekside 2 (ex fired) O] m is Terrace Division II Phase TI 39 Ludlow Cove II 42 Total Lots with Preliminar Plat A royal 81 Total Residential MERUs 1995 MERU Record June 2012 Tablet Calculation of Available MERUs Based on Sections 3.801 and 3.805 Total Avai-able MERUs 2575 Total Patted Pro a 1914 Built 1353 Flatted undevelo ed lots 557 Lots with Prelimina A royal 81 MERUs Allocated to Residential (Total residential dwelling units shall not exceed 2250) 1995 MERUs Allocated to Commercial 290.4 Total Allocated MERUs 2285.4 289.6 unallocated Statistical analysis accurate as of 5/31/2007 Per Section 3 803 MERU Allocation and Assimment: 1. Each MERU is assumed to generate 200 gallons per day (GPD) of sewer wastewater flow. 2. Each single family dwelling unit or recorded, platted lot counts as one MERU 3. Each multi-family dwelling unit counts as one MERU 4. Assisted living, congregate care, and similar facilities are assigned MERUs based on the number of bedrooms, beds, and type of care or assistance provided based on Department of Ecology standards in effect at the time of application. 5. Commercial development is assigned MERUs based on Department of Ecology standazds as of the effective date of Ordinance NO.08-1004-99. 6. If the use is not assigned a flow rate by DOE, the required gpd will be assigned based on actual use or other comparative process approved by the Department. 7. Residential lots approved by a preliminary subdivision are allocated MERUs based on the preliminary approval. If the subdivision expires or is withdrawn, the MERU allocation shall revert to unallocated status. 8. If a recorded subdivision is vacated or if platted lots are consolidated in a manner that precludes development of one or more residential uses, unusable MERUs will revert to unallocated status. Tahle 2 Conversion Matrix Based on Sections 3.803 and 3.806 Use being converted or Allocated MERUs New Prior Available adjusted Reverting to Count Assigned MERUs unallocated status MERUs _ ~ from las t count 193.1 Harbormaster Restaurant 41 0 41 41 Creekside 2 111 0 111 111 VillageCenter-Loomis -7.5 12.5 5 -7.5 Port Ludlow No. 5 1 17 18 1 Port Ludlow No. 6 5 19 24 5 LudlowBeach/PointTracts -l2 32 20 -12 Ludlow Cove II -42 42 0 -42 Ad'ustment 96.5 f x" ~ ~ "~~ . r ~ ~ ~` ~. ~= .r.~-~ ~ ~E-_ - ~`"``"~ ~ _ 289.6 MERU Record June 2012 .,~_~. r.,~..,.~~n..o „r available MFRTls Based on Sections 3.801 and 3.805 Total Available MERUs 2575 Total Platted Pro a 1914 Built 1353 Platted undevelo ed lots S57 Lots with Prelimina A royal 81 MERUs Allocated to Residential (Total residential dwelling units shall not exceed 2250} 1995 MERUs Allocated to Commercial 290.4 Total Allocated MERUs 2285.4 289.6 unallocated Statistical analysis accurate as of »S uwu i Per Section 3 803 MERU Allocation and Assignment: l . Each MERU is assumed to generate 200 gallons per day (GPD) of sewer wastewater flow. 2. Each single family dwelling unit or recorded, platted lot counts as one MERU 3. Each multi-family dwelling unit counts as one MERU 4. Assisted living, congregate care, and similar facilities are assigned MERUs based on the number of bedrooms, beds, and type of care or assistance provided based on Department of Ecology standards in effect at the time of application. 5. Commercial development is assigned MERUs based on Department of Ecology standards as of the effective date of Ordinance NO. 08-1004-99. 6. If the use is not assigned a flow rate by DOE, the required gpd will be assigned based on actual use or other comparative process approved by the Department. 7. Residential lots approved by a preliminary subdivision are allocated MERUs based on the preliminary approval. If the subdivision expires or is withdrawn, the MERU allocation shall revert to unallocated status. 8. If a recorded subdivision is vacated or if platted lots are consolidated in a manner that precludes development of one or more residential uses, unusable MERUs will revert to unallocated status. Table 2 Conversion Matrix Based on Sections 3.803 and 3.806 Use being converted or Allocated MERUs New Prior Available adjusted Reverting to Count Assigned MERUs unallocated status MERUs . _ ,_ ' - _ from last count 193.1 Harbormaster Restaurant 41 0 41 41 Creekside 2 111 0 111 111 Villa eCenter-Loomis -7.5 12.5 5 -7.5 Port Ludlow No. 5 1 17 18 1 Port Ludlow No. 6 5 19 24 ~ Ludlow Beach/Point Tracts -12 32 20 -12 Ludlow Cove II -42 42 0 -42 Ad' ustment 96.5 ~., ~:. ~ - 289.6 MERU Record June 2012 2 ~~~~~~ 4~ JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL MERU RECORD Ordinance No. 08-1004-99 adopting development regulations for the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort effective October 4, 1999 Section 3.802 requires the Department of Community Development to maintain a count of Measurement Equivalent Residential Units (MERUs) and of residential dwelling units. Total residential dwelling units are not to exceed 2250. Total MERUs are not to exceed 2575. Allocations of MERUs are to be determined according to the provisions of Section 3.803. The department is to maintain a matrix showing allocation of residential and commercial MERUs. Table 1 the total MERU cap, the allocation of residential and commercial MERUs and the total MERUs remaining to be allocated Table 2 the matrix for tracking MERUs that revert and/or aze assigned to new uses, conversions from residential to commercial or adjustments due to subdivision, lot consolidation, etc. Table 3 a detailed allocation of residential MERUs Table 4 a detailed allocation of commercial and public facility MERUs Questions should be referred to: Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Avenue Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4465 t ~.. 3 7Ja cie Hoskins, Planning Manager Updated as of June 29, 2012 MERU Record June 2012 David W. Johnson From: Matthews, Cris (ECY) [crim461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 12:05 PM To: David W. Johnson Subject: MTBE David: Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) was partially banned in Washington State from May 2001 with phase-out complete in January 2004. The ban looks like this: Partial: may not be intentionally added to fuel, or knowingly mixed in gasoline above 0.6% (vol.) (information from USEPA's nation-wide MTBE tabular compilation here). The question in the public meeting about a lack of MTBE testing in Port Ludlow is a good one. In fact, the MICA regulation does require MTBE testing (WAC 173-340-900 Table 830-1) when gasoline and groundwater are involved. However, Olympic Water & Sewer Inc. contracted a private environmental consulting firm (SLR) to perform site characterization, and the groundwater sampling work did not include analyses for MTBE. Ecology was not involved in that characterization work. This lack does not affect the basic regulatory status as a "listed" site. That is, having been subject to a site hazard assessment resulting in placement on the state Hazardous Sites List with cranking = 2; a higher priority for attention. Olympic Water & Sewer Inc. has been advised that proper cleanup resolution for the site would be best achieved by working with Ecology's Voluntarv Cleanup option where remedial action measures proceed with assigned oversight and technical assistance from the Toxics Cleanup Program. Let me know if you have questions. Cris Matthews, LHG Hydrogeologist Toxics Cleanup Program Southwest Regional Office Washington Department of Ecology 360.407.6388 cris. matthews(cr~ecv. wa. aov www ecv. wa. pov/programs/tcp/cleanup. htmt