Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM071519 - Including Hearing Comment re: Amendment to Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement and re: 2019 Second Quarter Budget Appropriations/Extensions$ON c,G SFIINU� MINUTES Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting — Monday, July 15, 2019, 9:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse — Commissioners' Chambers 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Kate Dean called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Greg Brotherton. Chair Dean announced that the afternoon session will reconvene at 3:00 p.m. to allow the Commissioners to attend a funeral service. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by individuals in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions. • Comment regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance, and salmon and otter facts. • Comment reporting on a recent Ferry Advisory Committee meeting. • Comment regarding the Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement. • Comment regarding an upcoming shooting event at the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association (JCSA). • Comment regarding the Port Hadlock Sewer Project. • Comment regarding the Broadband Access Team and their effort to expand broadband in the area. • Comment regarding an upcoming shooting event at the JCSA. • Comment regarding the JCSA Agreement and noise exemptions. The Commissioners and County Administrator addressed comments and concerns raised during the Public Comment Period. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brotherton moved to remove Consent Agenda Item No. 10, and approve the remaining items as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. HEARING NOTICE re: Development Agreement with Rocky Brook Hydroelectric Facility Addressing Mandated Public Access; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, August 5, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, Port Townsend, WA 2. AGREEMENT NO. 1763-93731, Amendment No. 3 re: Washington State Aggression Replacement Training (WSART) Quality Assurance; A Reduced Amount of $5,000; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2019 3. AGREEMENT NO. 1983-56621 re: General Terms and Conditions, Changing Agency Name from Washington State Department of Social and Health Services to Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families; No Change in Dollar Amount; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) 4. AGREEMENT NO. 1963-57016 re: Washington State Aggression Replacement Training (WSART) Consulting; In the Amount of $23,700; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) 5. Authorization for County Administrator to Sign AGREEMENT re: Reimbursement Services Agreement, Flex Benefits Plan; No Dollar Amount; Jefferson County Auditor; WageWorks 6. AGREEMENT re: Community Development Leadership and Team Development Services; In the Amount of $46,960; Jefferson County Community Development; Demarche Consulting Group 7. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Purchasing Agreement for Up -Fitting Propane/Bi-Fuel Vehicles; No Dollar Amount; Jefferson County Central Services; City of Longview 8. LETTER OF ASSURANCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF MEMBERSHIP LIST re: Accessible Communities Act; Governor's Committee on Disability Issues and Employment 9. ADVISORY BOARD RESIGNATION re: Climate Action Committee (CAC); Energy Representative, Sonja Hammar 10. (REMOVED) ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS (4) re: Climate Action Committee (CAC); Unexpired Terms to Expire December 31, 2021; 1) Diane McDade; 2) Cara Loriz; 3) Dave Seabrook; and 4) Shelley Jaye (Approved later in the meeting) 11. MINUTES re: Special Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2019 and Regular Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2019 12. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated July 10, 2019 Totaling $4,854.36 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with vouchers approved and signed by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners are retained by the Jefferson County Auditor and Public Works Department.) 13. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated July 5, 2019 Totaling $595,554.60, Dated July 6, 2019 Totaling $142,379.62 and Dated July 7, 2019 Totaling $259,367.48 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with A/P Warrants approved by the Payroll Services Manager are retained in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office) DISCUSSION re: ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS (4) re: Climate Action Committee (CAC) (Consent Agenda Item No. 10): Chair Dean explained the reasoning behind the choices for appointments. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Advisory Board Appointments (4) re: Climate Action Committee (CAC); Unexpired Terms to Expire December 31, 2021; 1) Diane McDade; 2) Cara Loriz; 3) Dave Seabrook; and 4) Shelley Jaye. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners reviewed recent meetings they attended. The meeting was recessed at 9:56 a.m. and reconvened at 10:02 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: 2019 Second Quarter Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments: Central Services Director Mark McCauley reviewed the appropriations and extensions. Chair Dean opened the hearing for public testimony. Hearing no testimony, she 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2019 closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 36-19 re: 2019 Second Quarter Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement: Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker reviewed the proposed ordinance that would amend the Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement. After discussion, Chair Dean opened the hearing for public testimony. The following individuals provided testimony: Rebekah Ross, Craig Durgan, Tom Brotherton, Rob Mitchell, Barbara Moore -Lewis and Joe Baisch. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Dean closed the oral portion of public testimony. Commissioner Sullivan moved to extend the deadline for receiving written comments to Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. After deliberating on the issue, the Commissioners decided to table further discussion until the next Board of County Commissioners meeting on Monday, July 22, 2019. CALENDAR COORDINATION: The Commissioners reviewed their meeting schedules. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS re: Appointment of Chair for the Board of County Commissioner Meeting on August 19, 2019: Commissioner Sullivan moved to appoint Commissioner Brotherton as Acting Chair during Chair Dean's absence on August 19, 2019. Chair Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 10:52 a.m. and reconvened at 11:18 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 11:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Chair Dean announced that the Executive Session will be held from 11:19 a.m. to 11:34 a.m. with the County Administrator and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding Attorney -Client Privilege, Potential Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 11:34 a.m. Commissioner Sullivan moved to authorize the County Administrator to sign a settlement agreement with amounts acceptable to the Washington County Risk Pool, to reach an earlier resolution, if possible. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 11:35 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. Chair Dean announced that the Executive Session will be held from 11:36 a.m. to 11:51 a.m. with the County Administrator and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding Attorney -Client Privilege, Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 11:47 a.m. The meeting was recessed at 11:48 a.m. and reconvened at 3:01 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2019 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: The County Administrator reviewed the following with the Board. • PRESENTATION re: Quimper Lost Wilderness and the Citizen Efforts to Conserve 30 acres of Washington State Department of Natural Resource Forest, and Older Trees near Ocean Grove • ACTION re: Executive Session on Actual Litigation: Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Philip Hunsucker relayed that the Prosecuting Attorney's Office is recommending signing an agreement that would supplement the existing agreement with Fort Discovery. County Administrator Philip Morley concurred. Commissioner Brotherton moved to approve an amendment to the mediation agreement with the Fort Discovery Corporation. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. • UPDATE re: Quilcene Food Bank • UPDATE re: Brinnon Community Center • Budget guidance; annual memo • Revenue Stabilization Reserve • Quarterly Elected Officials and Department Directors; upcoming meeting • LGBTQ Center; progress on Letter of Support • Castle Hill; parking lot study • Affordable Housing Fund • Calendar Coordination • Open House re: Ruckelshaus Road Map NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ATTEST: 2kly , Gallaway, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Greg Member APPENDIX B Please publish: July 3, 2019 and July 10, 2019 Bill: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 Account: 15830 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF MASTER PLANNED RESORT Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, July 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers of the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA for the purpose of taking oral and written testimony regarding the possible approval of a Proposed Amendment 2 to Development Agreement by and between Jefferson County, Washington and Pleasant Harbor Marina And Golf Resort, LLP relating to the Development Commonly Known as the Pleasant Harbor Marina And Golf Master Planned Resort (Amendment 2). Amendment 2 modifies the development agreement approved by the County on June 4, 2018 in Ordinance 04-0604-18 in order to comply with the remand order of the Kitsap Superior Court on March 28, 2019 in in The Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, Case No.: 18-2-01758-18. In addition to the July 15, 2019 Public Hearing, written testimony may be submitted from July 3, 2019 and until the close of the public hearing on July 15, 2019, addressed to the BoCC at P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or by email at jeffboccgco jefferson.wa.us, unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. The public may view the text the proposed Amendment 2 in-person at the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner's Office located at 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Signed July :` , 2019 Kate Dean, Chair Jefferson County Board of Commissioners June 24. 2019 APPENDIX A AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF MASTER PLANNED RESORT AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("this Amendment") revises the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT approved by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") on June 4, 2018 ("the Development Agreement") in Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 and is entered into this day of , 2019, by and between PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership ("the Developer") and JEFFERSON COUNTY ("the County"), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington, pursuant to RC 36.70B.170-.210. 1 RECITALS. WHEREAS, a programmatic final environmental impact statement ("the FEIS") was completed in 2007; and, WHEREAS, the FEIS preceded the January 28, 2008 zoning decision in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 that created the master planned resort ("MPR") zone on Black Point in Brinnon, Washington; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and the FEIS were upheld on appeal by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the Thurston County Superior Court, and ultimately the Washington Court of Appeals, Div. II in Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 245 P.3d 789 (2011); and, WHEREAS, a project -level supplemental final environmental impact statement that built upon the FEIS was completed in 2015 ("the FSEIS"); and, WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, after public comment and public hearings, the BoCC unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 03-0604-18, which approved development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort ("Pleasant Harbor MPR"), including allowed uses, setbacks and height limitations, among other regulations, to restrict specific development in the underlying MPR zone ("the Development Regulations"); and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 and the FSEIS were appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and were upheld on January 20, 2019 in The Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, WWGMHB No. 18-2-0005, FDO (January 30,2019); and, WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, after public comment and public hearings, the BoCC unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 related to the Pleasant Harbor MPR, which approved a development agreement negotiated between the County and the developer; and, WHEREAS, on June 25, 2018, Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 was appealed under Chapter 36.70C RCW is the Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA") to the Kitsap County Superior Court in The Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP ("the LUPA action"); and, WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the Kitsap Superior Court issued its decision and order in the LUPA action ("the LUPA Decision"), which was not appealed and is a final order; and, WHEREAS, the LUPA decision upheld the County's decision to approve the Development Agreement, except for the phasing plan in the development agreement and identification of a community center in the development agreement and related maps and remanded to the BoCC the development agreement for further proceedings consistent with the LUPA Decision; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019, the Developer forwarded to the County a proposed amendment to the Development Agreement and phasing map, which the County's staff determined satisfies the requirements of the LUPA Decision and is reflected in this Amendment; and, WHEREAS, this Amendment constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RC W 36.70C.020; and, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and provisions set forth in the Development Agreement and this Amendment, the receipt and adequacy of which consideration is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 2 AMENDMENT OF PHASING. Section 10 of the Development Agreement is replaced with the following: 10 PHASING. 10.1 Phasing Plan. 10.1.1 Phases Proposed. Pleasant Harbor MPR is a planned resort that is capable of being developed in independent and severable components or "phases." Future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and all associated infrastructure, including roads and utilities, may be reviewed, permitted, and constructed and/or bonded in phases or sub -phases. A phasing plan (consisting of three phases) for development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is attached as Exhibit 4. Each phase may further be broken down into discrete sub -phases as conditions dictate, but each primary phased must be constructed in the order set forth below. 2 10.1.2 Requirement of Adequate Infrastructure, Open Space, Recreational Facilities, Landscaping and Other Conditions Sufficient for Each Phase to Stand Alone. JCC 18.15.135 requires that if a master planned resort will be phased, each phase must contain adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping, and all other conditions of the Pleasant Harbor MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. The Developer will comply with JCC 18.15.135 and will complete or bond all necessary infrastructure to support a phase or sub -phase sufficient for each phase or sub -phase to stand alone, prior to obtaining approval for a subsequent phase. 10.1.3 Phase 1. Phase 1 a consists of site clearing, grading and construction of the golf course, road network, building footprints, and stormwater storage. Complete Highway 101 and Black Point intersection improvements. Build waste water treatment plant, commence road construction with services and begin implementation of the vegetation management plan. Create construction materials processing location. Phase 1 b consists of construction of the LOSS drainfield (wastewater treatment plant back up system), water storage tank with distribution piping at Tee 5, transit stop, construct sanitary sewer pump stations, Sea View Villas, Golf Vistas, construction of the Golf Terrace Community/Recreation Center and Conference center/spa (including 208 units, spa services, pool, water slides, commercial space and sports courts), construct maintenance building and 52 units for staff quarters and formation of a utility district. The Sea View Villas (up to 162 units) and Golf Vistas (up to 90 units) will be constructed during the several phases. The number of Sea View Villa and Golf Vista units constructed during a phase may vary; however, Phase 1 shall not be deemed complete until and unless all other improvements in Phase 1 are complete. 10.1.4 Phase 2. Phase 2 consists of construction of the Maritime Village building consisting of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial, construction of a Golf Terrace (172 units) half- way house (adjacent to fairway 5), develop the new, additional well, construction of the Golf Vistas and the Sea View Villas. Reconstruct Black Point Road and construct new access road to WDFW boat launch. 10.1.5 Phase 3. Phase 3 consists of construction of the remaining Golf Terrace (140 units) and the remaining Sea View Villas and Golf Vistas. 10.2 Preliminary Facilities. In addition to the facilities specifically described in Section 10.1 each Phase must design adequate preliminary facilities to service the phase. Preliminary facilities are those preliminary facilities or improvements that must be approved and installed in concert with the development of each phase. The preliminary facilities include the following: 10.2.1 Water System. A water system with sufficient water rights to serve the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.2 Wastewater Treatment System. A sewer system with sufficient capacity to accommodate the waste discharge for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.3 Road Network. A road network to accommodate the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.4 Landscaping Landscaping for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.5 Parking. Associated parking for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.6 County pproval of Preliminary Facilities Required. The County's approval of a phase or sub -phase, whether by preliminary plat or other process, shall require approval of preliminary facilities for the entire phase. The Developer may construct preliminary facilities for each lot or tract in conjunction with development of that lot or tract. A final plat for a phase may be recorded by lot or tract provided all of the preliminary facilities necessary to serve the lot or tract are complete and the specific development requirements within each lot or tract are complete. 10.3 Public Amenities and Access. Public amenities and access are those facilities and improvements that provide resort related activities and services. The Pleasant Harbor MPR, at a minimum, shall contain the following resort amenities (1) a 9 -hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; (4) pool; and (5) water slides. These amenities shall be completed in Phase 1 and made available to members of the general public for a fee to be established by the Developer. 3 THIS AMENDMENT IS INCORPRATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NO OTHER CHANGES. This Amendment modifies the Development Agreement to be consistent with the LUPA Decision made final by a lack of appeal. No other changes are made to the Development Agreement. Except for the changes made to the Phasing Plan in the Development Agreement in this Amendment, the language of the Development Agreement controls if 4 any conflicts between the Development Agreement and this Amendment. This Amendment shall be attached to the Development Agreement. 4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Each of the parties represents and warrants that: (a) Each is fully authorized to enter into this Amendment; (b) Each has taken all the necessary actions to duly approve the making and performance of this Amendment and that no further approval is necessary; (c) Each has read this Amendment in its entirety and knows the contents of this Agreement; (d) The terms of this Amendment are contractual and not mere recitals; and, (e) Each have signed this Amendment having obtained the advice of legal counsel. (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) R JEFFERSON COUNTY WASHINGTON Board of County Commissioners Kate Dean, Chair Date David Sullivan, Commissioner Date Greg Brotherton, Commissioner Date SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Galloway Date Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form only: Philip C. Hunsucker Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Patricia L. Charnas Date Director of Community Development Z PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP By: M. Garth Mann Its: Manager Date: Acknowledgement STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF 1 On this day of , 2019, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Melvin G. Mann, to me known to be the person who signed as manager of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, the Washington limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was duly elected, qualified and acting as said officer of the limited liability company and that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. Dated this day of ---.32019. (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Appointment Expires: PLEASANT HARBOR- HOUS LEASA THARBDR- HOUS (NO MODIFICATION PROPOSED) EXISTING BED BF—FAST(NO MODIFICATION PROPOSED) F_"..__"-___ - - - - - - - - Motel acwrtwEation. ss Suaes JEFERSON Boat—. R— TRANSIT IMASON TRANSIT STOP (PROPOSED) WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT us 101SIR 116 HIGHWAY OIL a �A 041ob ;w ro - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOSS DRAIN FIELD TERRACE LOFTS Multi FI -11 Su Id,, ]13 -., COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER 308 SURES HOTEL OVER MEN p wi-j.elv CONSTRUCTION LF —TA 0 F. -I 7 GOLF VISTA S,gW F—I oo� , 0 SE—EA VILLPS J- 0 1. SIX SCALE IN FEET 2W SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT B CONSERVATION Exhibit 4 EASEMENT PROPOSED PHASING OF OVERALL SITE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & GOLF COURSE DATE: 18 JUNE, 2019 LEGEND: ■PHASE m 1 -1=1 lZ=NT= -- N EPMSE-2 MT� --R-DIN D PHASE 3 --T.—T....— STAFF 52s ff h .... g ----------- HOOD CANAL oo� , zjyi HOOD CANAL Consent Agenda JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Patty Charnas, Director, Dept. Community Development DATE: July 1, 2019 SUBJECT: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort — Compliance with LUPA Court Decision STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The BoCC should approve a motion to publish a hearing notice and set public comment for a proposed amendment to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Agreement that complies with the March 28, 2019 decision by the Kitsap County Superior Court remanding the development agreement to the BoCC for further proceedings consistent with the Superior Court's order. ANALYSIS: On January 28, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 approved zoning for a master planned resort in Brinnon, Washington. A 2007 programmatic final environmental impact statement (EIS) preceded the zoning decision reflected in Ordinance No. 01-0158-08. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 was appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the Thurston County Superior Court, and the Washington Court of Appeals, Div. II, all of which upheld Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. After the Court of Appeals decision in 2011, the developer and the County started working on a supplemental EIS, development regulations and a development agreement that satisfies the extensive requirements of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, state law and the Jefferson County Code. Draft development regulations were considered by the Jefferson County Planning Commission, which made a recommendation to the BoCC. On June 4, 2018, after public comment and public hearings, the BoCC unanimously adopted two ordinances related to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR). A 2015 project -specific final supplemental EIS (FSEIS) preceded the two ordinances adopted by the BoCC on June 4, 2018. In Ordinance No. 03-0604-18, the BoCC adopted development regulations for the PHMPR. The development regulations establish zoning restrictions Consent Agenda including allowed uses, setbacks and height limitations, among other regulations, to restrict specific development in the underlying zone. The development regulations do not approve development. Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 was appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and was upheld on January 30, 2019. There was no appeal of this Growth Management Hearings Board decision, so it is final. The BoCC also adopted Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 on June 4, 2018. In Ordinance No. 04- 0604-18, the BoCC approved a development agreement negotiated between the County and the developer. The development agreement approves a phasing plan for resort development as well as conditions of approval for the future development of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The development agreement states that the development agreement constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020. Chapter 36.70C RCW is the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 was appealed under LUPA to the Kitsap County Superior Court. On March 28, 2019, the Kitsap County Superior Court upheld Ordinance No. 04-0604-18, except for the phasing plan in the development agreement and a failure to identify a community center in the development agreement and related maps. There was no appeal of this the Kitsap County Superior Court decision, so it is final. As to the phasing plan, the court held that the development agreement failed to provide all other conditions of the PHMPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed at the completion of Phase 1. The Superior Court held that Phase 1 must contain a 9 -hole golf course, provide for a spa, sports courts, pool, and water slides, a community center, a recreations center, conference center, staff -quarters, a maintenance building and commercial space. See the March 28, 2019 LUPA Decision, 9-10. The Superior Court remanded to the BoCC the development agreement for further proceedings consistent with the March 28, 2019 LUPA Decision. In a June 18, 2019 email, the developer proposed language to amend the development agreement and revised phasing map to address the issues remanded to the BoCC by the Superior Court. The Brinnon Group made comments to the changes proposed in the developer's June 18, 2019 email during the BoCC public comment period on the morning of June 24, 2019. Staff briefed the BoCC on the developer's June 18, 2019 email on the afternoon of June 24, 2019, including how to address The Brinnon Group's June 24, 2019 comments. Consistent with discussion at the June 24, 2019 BoCC briefing, a proposed amendment to the development agreement that modifies the language sent by the developer on June 18, 2019 is attached as Appendix A. A proposed hearing notice is attached as Appendix B. FISCAL IMPACT: Other than staff time and the cost of publishing the hearing notice, there is no fiscal impact related to the presentation or action. Consent Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Approve a motion to publish a hearing notice and set public comment for a proposed amendment to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Agreement that complies with the March 28, 2019 decision by the Kitsap County Superior Court REVIEWED BY: Philip Mode punt A, .inm ator Date k] BOC C ieffb c�r'�-- From: Carol <carol@aramburu-eustis.com> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 2:59 PM To: jeffbocc "NG RECORD Cc: Rick; Brinnon Group Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR / Golf Resort proposal DA Attachments: 20190712 to JeffCoCommrs.pdf Please review the attached comments and include in the record this letter from Mr. Aramburu, submitted in behalf of the Brinnon Group. Carol Cohoe, Legal Assistant Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu, PLLC 720 Third Avenue, SUITE 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 625-9515 This message may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you received this message in error please notify us and destroy the message. Thank you. LAw OFFicEs of J. RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone 206.625.9515 Facsimile 206.682.1376 July 12, 2019 www.arambundaw.com www.aramburu.eustis.com Jefferson County Commissioners Email: jeffbocca@co.jefferson.wa.us 1820 Jefferson St. PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR: Proposed Amendment 2 to Development Agreement Dear Commissioners: This office represents the Brinnon Group, a nonprofit corporation interested in the preservation and protection of environmental values of the Brinnon area of Jefferson County. The Brinnon Group is a plaintiff in Kitsap County Superior Court in the case that challenged the action of the Commissioners to adopt Ordinance 040604-18, which approved a "Development Agreement' for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. On March 28, 2019, the Honorable Sally Olsen issued her "LUPA Decision and Order" reversing the adoption of Jefferson County Ordinance No. 04-060418 and remanding the matter "back to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for further proceedings consistent with this decision." In her decision, Judge Olsen specifically concluded that the Development Agreement Violated JCC 18.15.135 because the phased development plan did not meet the requirement that each phase be "sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed." See LUPA Decision and Order, pages 8-10. In addition, the court specifically concluded that "pursuant to Ordinance 01-0128-08 a community center is a required amenity of the MPR." See LUPA Decision and Order, page 17, lines 10-13. Neither Jefferson County nor the developer, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP ("PHMGR") appealed Judge Olsen's decision and accordingly it is final and binding on both the County and PHMGR. In an apparent attempt to comply with the terms of Judge Olsen's Order, PHMGR has submitted "Amendment 2 to Development Agreement" (hereinafter "Amendment 2") as proposed compliance with the Court's order. Staff has scheduled a public hearing on the PHMGR proposal for July 15, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. July 12, 2019 Page 2 The Brinnon Group has reviewed Amendment 2 and concluded that it does not meet either the spirit or letter of the Court's order or county regulations and accordingly should not be adopted by the Commissioners. in addition, PHMGR has now decided to change (again) the basics of the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan without any warning or explanation. These latest changes are not consistent with Jefferson County ordinances and the comprehensive plan and should nat be approved by the Commissioners. 1. AMENDMENT 2 DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURT'S ORDER. At pages 16-17 of the LUPA Decision, the court ruled that both the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance 01-0128-08 require the Pleasant Harbor MPR to include a community center. Page 16, lines 2-5. Despite this requirement, the court notes: nowhere in the DA, its exhibits, or appendices, is there any statement or showing of where a community center will be built, what size it will be, what it will consist of, or when it will be built. Page 16, lines 15-19. The Court also cites the FSEIS, "which lists the community center as amain feature' of the MPR proposal." LUPA Decision, page 16, line 21 to page 17, line 1. In Footnote 47, the Court says: The 200 -seat community center further described in the 2007 EIS as "a 200 -seat (10,000 square foot) community center." Exhibit 2007-025- 00105. Again, the Court decision has not been appealed by either the County or PHMRC. Though Amendment 2 purports to comply with the Courrs order, even a cursory review shows it to be inconsistent and inadequate to comply with the content of the Court's decision concerning the requirement for the community center. Under proposed Paragraph 10.1.3, the following is included in Phase 1b: construction of the Golf Terrace Community/Recreation Center and Conference center/spa (including 208 units, spa services, pool, water - slides, commercial space and sports courts) The only change from the original text of section 10.1 of the 2018 Development Agreement is to drop in the word "Community" in front of Recreation Center. Similarly, the latest "Proposed Phasing of Overall Site Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Course" dated June 18, 2019 ("2019 Plan Map"), has a caption on an arrow July 12, 2019 Page 3 pointing to the "COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER + 200 HOTEL UNITS OVER." The facility as depicted on the map shows no individual uses and appears to be the same facility depicted on Exhibit 4 to the Development Agreement approved on June 4, 2018, which did not include a community center. These passing and minimal references do not comply with the Court's order, which concluded that prior references to the community center were deficient because "nowhere ... is there any statement or showing of where the community center will be built, what size it will be, what it will consist of, or when it will be built." 'Further there is no indication how the community center will be a "major feature" of the MPR proposal nor that it will be "a 200 -seat (10,000 square foot) community center" as referenced in the Court's Decision. In considering compliance with the Court's order, and with prior commitments of the Jefferson County Commissioners, it is important to understand that the community center is to be a public facility, designed to meet needs of the community. For example, the website for the Brinnon Community Center, attached hereto as Attachment A, shows the various uses of a nearby community center; Attachment B is a calendar of events at that facility. As seen, a community center offers activities, meals and services to its community, including to seniors and low income persons; Brinnon's center runs a Senior Nutrition Program. The community center is available to rent for a small fee and includes such amenities as commercial kitchens, meeting rooms, chairs and tables, and similar items. These community centers also have staff that manage the facilities. The Commissioners need to take special care to assure that the requirements for the community center are clear and contain sufficient detail to follow through with their commitments from 2008 as specified by the Court. At present, there is no description or depiction of the community center. With no size, function or other specifications in the Development Agreement or Amendment 2, PHMGR is free to set aside just a small room, with no obligation to provide the programs and amenities that are the integral part of such facilities. Because of these obvious deficiencies, Amendment 2 should be modified to include the following in Section 1.3: A community center will be established in the Golf Terrace Community/Recreation Center and Conference center/spa meeting the following minimum criteria and required facilities: a. Minimum size of 10,000 square feet; b. A commercial kitchen; c. Chairs, furnishings and equipment to accommodate at least 200 persons at events; July 12, 2019 :Page 4 d. Sufficient parking, independent of other uses in the building, to meet projected attendance at the community center; e. Separate entrance and signage at the building sufficient to make the community center a "main feature" of the MPR; f. Signage at the intersection of Black Point Road and Highway 101 identifying the community center and other signage providing directions to it; g. Facility rental pricing and uses consistent with other community centers in Jefferson County; h. Funding for maintenance and operation of the facility consistent with other community centers in Jefferson County. It is disappointing that the Brinnon Group, a private community organization has had to sue to require the County to meet its long standing commitments to the public. Because of the recalcitrance of PHMGR, there is need for explicit terms and conditions for the establishment and use of the community center to assure it is a meaningful addition to the Pleasant Harbor MPR. There is a genuine concern that PHMGR, or some future owner/operator of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, will attempt to discourage use of the community center, particularly in light of Statesman's history of not completing other recreational communities (outlined in the Brinnon Group letter to the Commissioners dated April 9, 2018). The Commissioners must recognize their public responsibilities and assure the community center, long promised, will become a useful reality. 2. AMENDMENT 2 PHASING PLAN AND MAP INCLUDE MAJOR CHANGES NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. As the Commissioners are aware from previous comments from the 'Brinnon Group, there was already concern regarding major differences and discrepancies between the prior two master plan maps (Exhibits 2 and 4) attached to the Development Agreement. However, now yet a third master plan map is included in Amendment 2, the 2019 Plan Map, which contains major differences from both the previous two maps. These modifications come without explanation and no indication they have been reviewed by county staff. Several changes are inconsistent with code requirements and should be eliminated from the map. There is concern that there is actually no master plan at all for the Pleasant Harbor MPR — but simply whatever comes into the mind of the developer — considering the unannounced and unexplained changes in the master plan. The revisions and changes include the following: a. The prior two master plan drawings were prepared by architects; there is no architect reference on the 2019 Plan Map. July 12, 2019 Page 5 b. The 2019 Plan Map shows a building in the lower center of the property described as "TERRACE LOFTS: Multi Family Building 312:Units." This is a huge apartment block not shown on any prior master plan maps. The construction of a huge residential building on this site is wholly out of place in the rural setting of Brinnon. c. Just south of the "Terrace Lofts" building described above is another building shown in orange as a Phase 3 property that is about twice the size of the 312 unit apartment block. However, there is no indication of what the building is intended for on the 2019 Plan Map and it is not described in the text for Phase 3. d. The supposed "main feature" of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the golf course, is reconfigured yet again on the 2019 Plan Map. There are numerous dysfunctional features to the latest golf course plan, the most strange of which is the requirement to walk about a half mile from the green on the 5'h Hole, in the far southeast comer of the property, to the tee for the 61' hole all the way over on the west central portion of the site.' It is inconceivable that golfers would play such a course, wending their way through various roads and structures to find the next tee. This careless depiction of what is advertised as the main feature of this "golf resort?` indicates no care for the proposal, just a determination to put something on paper. e. The 2019 Plan Map also shows both Kettles B and C inundated with water in a wholly different configuration than found on the Phasing Plan, Exhibit 4 to the original 2018 Development Agreement. Again, there is no explanation for this substantial change. Though the legend for the 2019 Plan Map says only one of the kettles will be used for stormwater management, two are depicted. It is far too late in the 11 -year review process to leave this question unresolved. f. Exhibits 2 and 4 to the original Development Agreement, from 2015 and 2017, show several wetlands on the eastern part of the site. However, the 2019 Plan Map shows no wetlands. What has happened to the wetlands previously depicted? Have they been eliminated? In sum, the Commissioners cannot approve the 2019 Plan Map given the unanswered questions and anomalies that are present. Amendment 2 does not demonstrate compliance with the order of Judge Olsen because it fails to provide a reasonable description of the required community center 'By way of comparison, it is about a half mile walk along Water Street from the ferry terminal to the Point Hudson Marina. July 12, 2019 Page 6 and fails to provide a coherent master plan for the property consistent with master pian resort criteria. .,Sinter y, J. Richard Aramburu J RA:cc cc: The Brinnon Group 201907xx Attachment A to Brinnon Group Comment re PHMGR Amendment 2 Brinnon Community Center Posted by: nhcccquii I ' °d: «.r; 10, 1(, " Newsletter Sign Up Brinnon Community Center : )144 Highway 101 Brinnon, WA, 98320 The Brinnon Community Center, iocatea on the north side of beautiful Brinnon, has much to offer: • visitor information • computer lab and FREE WIFI! • room rental space for programs and activities • commercial kitchen available for rent • open community forums and events • yoga classes • soup and dinners served through the Brinnon Senior Organization • public restrooms • pool table and more! All community meetings are open to the public at no charge. Come join our events, programs, community happenings, and all the general fun and supportive activities available through our center. Brinnon Visitors Center 306144 Hwy 101 View Map Brinnon, WA 98320 (360) 796-4350 Email: visitorscenter@embargmail.Com Share this: Festivals and Events uu Member Businesses w Visitor Center r Join the Chamber! Imli Chamber Meeting Information FOLLOW ON FACEBOOK! < Share * Like Be the first to like this. Related 2014 Events In "Festivals and Events" 2012 Events Posted in Festivals and Events � Thrasher Properties CATEGORIES Business Directory Things to Do Festivals and Events 2011 Events Penny Creek Properties �> Park Services and Government Blog at WordPress.com. Search V ULA U I A WAST I INGTON' STATE O"WwPerwmAa. ag Click to VisitOlympic Peninsula.org SHRIMPFEST WAS A HUGE SUCCESS 201907xx Attachment B to Brinnon Group Comment re PHMGR Amendment 2 Soup and Supper Club We are still looking for help in the kitchen with set-up, clean- up, and some food preparation. You do not need to be a member of the Senior Organization to lend a helping hand. You do need a food handler's card from Jefferson County Health Depart- ment. This can be obtained on line. Contact Pat Gaul at 360- 301-0019 or Sherry Adcock at 360-796-0454. Saturday had fewer folks than on Sunday be- • cause of the bad weather. Sunday crowd was great! JUNE BIRTHDAYS Jim Aylesworth Penny Coyner Bob Finnigan Shizu Fisher Wayne Schlaefli Gloria Shelton Char Van Lanningham Patsy Wells Cyndy Woodgate Members who join the Senior Organization each year for $5 can have their birth date pub- lished if the request is made on the applica- tion for membership with the Organization. See Page 9 for application The Entrance to Shrimpfest moved quickly so folks stood in line for a short time. A well organized event. REMINDER IF YOU WANT THE CRIER MAILED YOU NEED TO JOIN THE BRINNON SENIOR ORGANIZA- TION. DUES ARE ONLY $5 PER YEAR. MEM- BERSHIP FORM CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 9. DUES SHOULD BE PAID EACH JANUARY FOR THE YEAR Brinnon Crier 1 2 Visitor Center 10:00 - 2:00 '9 Visitor Center 10:00 - 2:00 16 ;attws Day Visitor Center 10:00 - 2:00 23 Visitor Center '10:00 - 2:00 30 Visitor Center 10:00 - 2:00 Brinnon Community Center June 2019 oga 8:00am Yoga :45 am&8:00 am Foot Care Clinic inch 11:00 —1:00 9:00 am Dinner AA Meeting 12:00 5:00 pm 0 11 12 oga 8:00am Yoga :45 am&8:00 am unch 11:00 —1:00 Meeting 12:00 7 Yoga 8:00am 18 19 Yoga inch 11:00 —1:00 :45 am & 8:00 am State Park PMwd8tion r Meeting 12:00 Public Meeting Dinner Spm — Opm 5:00 pm 8:00am Yoga :45 am&8:00 am 11:00 —1:00 AA Meeting 12:00 8:00 am ogari(01:00 sitor Center :45 am&8:00 am -2:00 11:00 —1:00 �M Meeting 12:00 isitor Center 10:00 - 2:00 AA Meeting 12:00 Visitor Center oga 8:00 amt Yoga 10:00 - 2:00 :45�&$:dam Senior Meeting 12:00 Organization unch 11:00 —1:00 Pacific Science Meeting Center 10:00 am Pudic Meeting fpm — 5pm 3 14 Fog Day 15 oga 8:00 am Yoga Visitor Center :45 am&8:00 am 10:00-2:00 Lunch 11:00 —1:00 AA Meeting 12:00 !0 1 su,,w soe 2 'oga 8:00 am Yoga Visitor Center :45 am & 8:00 am 10:00 - 2:00 unch 11:00 —1:00 kA Meeting 12:00 8:00 am ogari(01:00 sitor Center :45 am&8:00 am -2:00 11:00 —1:00 �M Meeting 12:00 jeffbocc From: Chuck Ising <piratechuck@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 1:35 PM Su jeffbocc NEARINGRE Subject: planned resort at Black Point Cop Good Day Sir, I wish to contest the planned resort as a resident of Black Point. IT'S A BAD IDEA! ! Hwy 101 is already a hazard with the amount of traffic on it. Just turning on and off Black Point Road I and many others have been almost killed by the logging trucks in too much of a hurry. The Kettles are a treasure! A golf course??? Really?! another one? What about the chemicals and effluent they will use on it that will run down into our drinking water? Can you imagine the law suit? The the fireplaces, air quality will disappear out here. As residents, our quality of life will be greatly impacted. We moved here to get away from the city. Look at Port Ludlow.. Not looking so good with out water is it? Why DEVELOPERS! All this talk about caring for the environment, global warming etc. One would think about keeping it natural. I could go on and on about the wildlife being displaced, killed, the wonderful quality of the marina gone. Deaths on hwy 101, higher moorage fees, and taxes so we can pay for something we do not want. Just because we are rural does not mean build! There have been many developments that have failed. I present to you common sense. Respectfully submitted Charles Ising 206-384-3143 jeffbocc From: Jim Redmond <jcrredmondl@yahoo.co Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 9:40 AM InkJ To: effbocc _ RECOM Cc: Jim Redmond; Sandy Redmond Subject: Pleasant Harbor Development Project - Full Support! Hello I am writing in support of the development on Black Point at Pleasant Harbor. I am a resident of Jefferson County owning real property in the county. I vote regularly as well. Please approve this project on July 3.5. Brinnon desperately could use this type of economic activity that would bring steady jobs longterm as well as a great boost during construction. As timber and fishing continue to decline, this development will allow for employment to help all residents of Jeff County. And the tax revenue from this development in terms of property taxes and sales taxes should be significant to the County. I see no reason whatsoever for not approving this project. The ground now as an abandoned KOA campground does nothing for the community nor the County. Put it to use!! Jefferson County has been stuck in neutral gear for decades when it comes to Brinnon area needs. Finally do something that helps us all while not harming the environment! Thank you and I look forward to a positive outcome. Jim Redmond Sent from Jim's iPhone jeffbocc From: Steve and Belinda <sgraham002@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 10:49 AM WANG To: jeffbocc Cc: Don Coleman Subject: Re: Support of Pleasant Harbor Resort Attachments: 2019 Swim Days Flier.png; Screen Shot 2019-06-26 at 9.23.22 PM.png; ATT00001.txt > Hello Commissioners, > As a Brinnon resident, I support the Pleasant Harbor Resort development. This project will create a positive economic benefit for local residents in need of additional employment opportunities. I thank County staff for working diligently with the Developer, community and tribe to identify a path forward respecting the needs of all parties and environmental concerns. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently gives back to the community by supporting many community events such as; sponsoring ShrimpFest, providing the swimming pool for community swim days and for swimming lesson for the youth, and the use of their patio for community fundraisers. (See attached) > It is now in your hands and I respectfully request your support of this project. > Thank you, > Steve Graham � � s � > 2 � \ �� T � � « < � - ° . .. f ■ «: , < < � \ « � ¥ � a # ?� 4 � � - � :. ■ �: 2 � � :# ©� * _ « � c ? ■ « � jeffbocc From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Greetings Commissioners, Steve Belinda Graham <sgraham002@yahoo.com> Sunday, July 14, 2019 1:11 PM jeffbocc Don Coleman Support of Pleasant Harbor Resort I - U1, I I Lq Alcoli �If 01 As a Brinnon resident, I would like to express my support of the Pleasant Harbor Resort. I believe with the hard work of the developer and County staff along with the incorporation of many of the community and tribal comments this project will benefit our community. As with any project that increases density, impacts will be felt; however, it appears the County has done a good job in requiring the appropriate mitigation measures. The Pleasant Harbor Resort will create an opportunity for local jobs, many being seasonal for our youth on summer vacation and seniors needing to supplement their income. All the best, Belinda Graham jeffbocc From: cgermaine@comcast.net HEARING Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 3:53 PM To: Jeffbocc Subject: MPR agreement We are writing in support of the letter written by Richard Arumburu LLC to you regarding the current amendment to the MPR plan that has numerous flaws to it. That a plan can so dramatically change in one new addition of a plan with no comments is totally unacceptable. To add more housing units, destroy another kettle, and change plans for the golf course , plus no real plan details for a community center are not acceptable. Also we see in phase one a development of a new utility district with no specifics if this is only to cover the MPR, and how this will affect those now covered by PUD1 at a reasonable rate. We care deeply for our community of Brinnon and chose to live here due to the beauty and concern the community has for the environment. We also use the community center many times a week and know it is a focal point for locals. It is available to all, and attendance to free classes thanks to years of people willing to donate their time and energy, has seen yoga classes grow tremendously, plus locals have taken over feeding meals and soup when Oly Cap stopped this activity. Without it being made clear what a developer will allow, and charge, is not to be approved, as this could change what a lot of years has built up in Brinnon for the community. We do hope you will not approve this current amendment and work on correcting these errors. Thank you in advance for taking these concerns seriously, Cindy and Terry Germaine 1 jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Sent from Mail for Windows 10 bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sunday, July 14, 2019 8:43 PM jeffbocc MPR Community Center BOCC letterjuly 2019.docx HEARING RECORD Jefferson County Board of Commissioners July 14, 2019 This letter is regarding the MPR in Brinnon. The proposed Community/Rec Center seems more to benefit the developer than the local people of Brinnon. There are very few or no details to this project -which seems to be par for the course in how this county manages contracts. Who will actually owns the community part of the Community/Rec Center?? Who manages it? What will it actually have that is open to the "locals"? How will it be readily accessed? Who is paying to build it? I do not see how it will be easily accessed or available to your local constituents that you were elected to represent. There are no specifics or details as to what the community center will have or who will manage it. Will there be charges or fees to use? People in Brinnon have been continually mislead on this project as to its benefits. The proposed Community/Rec center may not be open to them and if it is; there may well be a cost. It is not free or low cost as the one we have now. If it is behind a locked gated community than this is a total joke as the center will certainly not be open for the community to use. Once again -paying for this pie in the sky project is an issue. Tax dollars whether they are grants or local should not be used to the benefit or profit of a developer to sell condos, or homes. I believe that the legality could be challenged. But then we think that is how the board chooses to run our government -by law suits. Will the elk fencing still be in place as agreed upon in prior development agreement? Yes, they do cross onto Black Point. They migrate. Another factor never mentioned is electricity. The PUD 1 of Mason County has written a letter stating that they cannot supply enough electrical power to operate this project. A new PUD will have to be voted on. I like PUD 1 of Mason County. They have reasonable rates and the come quickly to take down danger trees to lines, even if they are on your property -at no charge! When will you, the board of county commissioners, put your constituents first and not the developers? Bill and Roxianne Morris 3262 Duckabush Rd Brinnon Wa 98320 jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, Robert Bindschadler <bobbindschadler@gmail.com> Monday, July 15, 2019 1:25 AM jeffbocc Pleasant Harbor resort development HEARING RECORD I support the resort development of Pleasant Harbor in Brinnon. My wife and I have rented a slip there for the past seven years which has led to many interactions with the marina managers, staff and even Garth, the owner. It is clear to us that these individuals are honest and have the best interests of the broader community at heart. In stark contrast, the Brinnon Group, having been unable to turn enough Brinnon residents against a worthwhile project, are now spreading false statements about it in an unethical attempt to stop it. When lies are all they have left, they are the ones who should cease trying to abuse a system by creating a seemingly endless series of challenges. Enough is enough. Allow this project to move forward. We are eager to see emerge the positive impacts this project will surely bring to the Brinnon community. Bob and Elizabeth Bindschadler, 271 Gustayson Rd. Quilcene ieffbocc From: Richard & Sheila Moore <pigeonridge@embargmai l.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 7:47 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Resort HFANNG PECOZ Commissioners: So here we go again. Another round of hearings totally not needed created by more misinformation and lies from the Brinnon Group. It's time to stop and get this very worthwhile project going. The MAJORITY of people in Brinnon are very much for the project that will stimulate our economy and create jobs for the whole county PLUS generate much needed tax revenue. Please put aside all the false info being put out by this group and get the project going. Thank You. Richard and Sheila Moore, 313094 US 101, Brinnon jeffbocc From: Terry Dolan <saildabob@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 8:17 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Development I understand that the Commissioners are accepting comments on the proposed development. As I write this, we have moved our sailboat to Pleasant Harbor for two months this summer and have had the chance to observe operation of the marina first hand and at close range. One objection raised by the so-called Brinnon Group strikes me as particularly empty. Their contention that the marina is somehow not offered to emergency responders isjust plain wrong. I have personally seen the marina used by the Jefferson County Sheriff, the Mason County Sheriff, the US Coast Guard, and the private emergency responders Vessel Assist. I am unfamiliar with the details of project phasing and which facilities are included with what phases. But the objections dealing with use of the marina by emergency personnel cause me to suspect the Brinnon Group's real objective is not to improve or refine the project, but simply to obstruct it. Terry M. Dolan Aboard sailboat CHATHAM (Home: Bainbridge Island) Sent from my iPhone jeffbocc From: JT Cooke <JT@houlihan-law.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 8:23 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Hunsucker; Patty Charnas Subject: Brinnon MPR Comment Letter Attachments: 2019.7.15 Brinnon MPR Comment Ltr..pdf HEARIh1 a RECOpUr% Dear Honorable Commissioners, Please see the attached letter recommending approval of the Amended Development Agreement sent on behalf of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP. Thank you, JT HOULIHAN LAW H' Tf (J,T,,) COOKE ATTORNEY 206.5471075 i MEC 206. 4 7.19 S VA 253,722-8267 NAOMui www,h*uUhan-taw,covn NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 1 100 Vii. 35'-, Street « Seattle, VIA 98103 July 15, 2019 VIA Email (jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us) Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR Amended Development Agreement Dear Honorable Commissioners: rr ois 0!UL ^ H A N LAW C C., -J,1 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP ("Pleasant Harbor") request that the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") vote to approve the Amended Development Agreement. The Board's decision here is a narrow one. The Board must determine whether the revisions to the approved Development Agreement comply with the Kitsap County Superior Court's LUPA Decision and Order. That is the only issue before the Board. As explained more fully below, the Amended Development Agreement address the issues identified by the Kitsap County Superior Court. The Board should therefore vote to authorize the County to sign the Amended Development Agreement. It is important to note that both the Western Washington Growth Board and the Kitsap County Superior Court sustained the validity of the development regulations and the majority of the Development Agreement against the challenges levied by the Brinnon Group. This is a testament to the detailed and thorough review conducted by County staff to ensure that both the development regulations and Development Agreement complied state and local laws. The Kitsap County Superior Court did, however, find two small issues with the Development Agreement that it believed required correction. For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Development Agreement address the Court's concerns. Pleasant Harbor respectfully requests that Board vote to approve the Amended Development Agreement and authorize the County to sign it. A. Background On June 4, 2018, this Board adopted Ordinance Nos. 03-0604-18 and 04-0604-18 which approved development regulations and a development agreement respectively for the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The Ordinances were appealed by the Brinnon Group to the Western Washington Growth Board and the Kitsap County Superior Court. 206,540a052 ujir E c.v' :206 54l'.1958 e=ax 21i3 i.>:7T .(1:13, rni�€3i�c www. h o u iihan-1aa ,aro ni Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners July 15, 2018 Page 2 On January 30, 2019, the Growth Board issued it Final Decision and Order dismissing the Brinnon Group's challenges to the County's development regulations. The Brinnon Group did not appeal the Growth Board's FDO. The FDO is final and the County's development regulations for the Brinnon MPR are deemed valid. On March 28, 2009, the Kitsap County Superior Court issued its LUPA Decision and Order ("Court Order"). In a twenty -page decision the Court rejected the majority of the Brinnon Group's bases for challenging the Development Agreement. The Court did, however, find error on two narrow grounds. First, the Court determined that the phasing plan violated JCC 18.15.135 because the recreational amenities required to be included in the MPR were not included in Phase 1. Second, the Court found the Development Agreement did not specifically incorporate the community recreation center that was referenced in language amending the County Comprehensive Plan to designate the Brinnon MPR Ordinance 01-0128-08. B. The Amendment Addresses the Issues Raised by the Kistap County Superior Court 1. The Revised Development Agreement Clarifies That a Community Center Will be Included in Phase 1 of the MPR The County ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to designate the Brinnon MPR ("Comprehensive Plan Ordinance") stated that it would include a "restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and community center." The Court determined that referencing the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance in the Development Agreement did not sufficiently compel Pleasant Harbor to construct a community center as part of the MPR. The Court determined that the community center had to be specifically included in the Development Agreement. The revised Development Agreement addresses the Court's decision in two ways. First, in the revised text of paragraph 10.1.3 the Development Agreement plainly denotes that "Golf Terrace Community/Recreation Center" is included in the Development Agreement. Second, revised Exhibit 4 which depicts the general layout of the MPR designates the "Community Recreation Center". The revised Development Agreement complies with the Court's Order. 2. The Amended Development Agreement Includes the Recreational Amenities, Staff Quarters and Commercial Space in Phase 1 The Jefferson County Code requires that each phase of a master planned resort contain "adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the Pleasant Harbor MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed." JCC 18.15.135. The Brinnon Group argued that the Development Agreement failed to meet this standard because no recreational amenities were provided in Phase 1. The Court agreed that the Marina was a pre-existing 1 Pleasant Harbor respectfully disagrees with the Court's analysis. But opted to comply with the Order and amend the Development Agreement instead of appealing and prolonging the appeal period. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners July 15, 2018 Page 3 recreational amenity, but nevertheless concluded that the recreation amenities proposed in section 10.3 of the Development Agreement (golf course, spa, sports courts, pool, and water slides) must also be included in Phase 1. The revised Development Agreement addresses the Court's decision by including these recreational amenities in Phase 1. Specifically, paragraph 10.1.3 states that Phase la includes "construction of the golf course" and "Phase 1 b consists of... the Golf Terrace Community/Recreation Center and Conference center/spa (including 208 units, spa services, pool, water slides, commercial space and sports courts)." Similarly, because we moved the Golf Terrace and Community/Recreation Center to Phase 1 per the Court's Order we also moved the staff housing to Phase 1 to ensure adequate on-site housing. No other phase may be started until these amenities are completed or adequately bonded for. The revised phasing language addresses the Court's Order. We look forward to the Board's approval of the Amended Development Agreement and continuing our relationship with the County and the Brinnon community to bring a high-quality, successful resort to the area. Sincerely, John T. Cooke Cc: Client (via email) Patty Charnas (via email) Phil Hunsucker (via email) jeffbocc From: Bekah Ross <rebekahrossl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 8:56 AM HEARING PTCORDTo• effbocc . Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort My husband and I have been members of the Brinnon community since 1995. Our property is adjacent to the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We recognize that the resort will be an enormous burden on the Brinnon community. The increased traffic alone will be a huge burden, and we expect that entering and leaving our property will at times be a challenge. The golf course will pull water from our water table, and we do not know what impact this will have on our water supply. I will not revisit all the arguments that the resort is overly huge for our small community, other than to note that the community will be greatly burdened and changed as a result of this construction. What will the resort contribute to the community in return? Just a community center. Some seasonal employment. The court noted correctly that the plan does not have the community center as originally promised. The focus today is whether Amendment 2 contains the required community center. We should consider what are the characteristics of a community center? We should look to the common understanding of that term. I did some online research of how that term is used, and the one aspect that is generally understood is that a community center is a public place. Public means us, the entire Brinnon community. Community centers normally can be meeting places that can be used for recreational and educational activities. Sometimes users can be charged a fee, such as if someone offers a class and charges for the class. But the overarching feature of a community center is that it is a public place. This is very different from an amenity of the resort offered to residents or paying guests, such as spa services. I specifically reject this statement and urge the Board not to adopt it as it is directly contrary to the Court's mandate. "WHEREAS, the Board finds that the combination community center and recreation center proposed for Phase I satisfies the requirement of a community center, as the County has three other community centers that also are used for recreation..." This statement makes a mockery of the court's order. The court very clearly stated that the resort must provide a community center. It didn't say that this is optional, or that it doesn't have to happen if there are other community centers available to folks in Brinnon. A community center is part of the quid pro quo for the burden the resort will impose on Brinnon. On a practical level, why should be Board adopt language that will just end us back in court, as this statement is basically saying, we don't care what the court ordered us to do, because we don't think Brinnon needs a community center? I am mindful that the resort will not do anything that it is not required in writing to do. Therefore if it is not required in writing to provide public access to its so called community resort, this will not happen. The so called community resort in Amendment 2 is not a community center as that term is used in normal parlance. The definition of public amenities in Amendment 2 does not even include the term community center. It says: "10.3 Public Amenities and Access: Public amenities and access are those facilities and improvements that provide resort related activities and services. The Pleasant Harbor MPR, at a minimum, shall contain the following resort amenities (1) a 9 -hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; (4) pool; and (5) water slides. Those amenities shall be completed in Phase 1 and made available to members of the general public for a fee to be established by the Developer." None of those listed amenities include a community center. In fact, it just talks about resort related amenities. It is all well and good that the resort would offer residents and paying guests nice amenities. But the judge said, wait a minute, there's supposed to be a community center as well. I can understand why the developer might not want to build a community center. It would cost more. Designing a real community center would further delay the project. But requiring an actual community center not only is required by the court's order, but it is only fair to the community of Brinnon, which will be hugely burdened by this development. There should be a study with input from the community on what we expect and want from this promised community center. I would want a place to meet others with similar interests, play games, attend classes. Maybe others in the community have different ideas. The space should be large enough for the types of activities typically offered in community centers. Frankly, our existing community center in the ground floor of the defunct motel would no longer serve the needs of the small town Brinnon would become once the resort is built. Our new community center on the site of the resort, not in the defunct motel, could be a great benefit to us all. 1 also want to voice my support for the comments made in the July 12, 2019 letter of Richard Aramburu to the commissioners. I am very troubled that there seem to be changes made to the plan map, as pointed out by Mr. Aramburu. It is unclear whether the map, as re -drawn, possibly not even by the architect, is sufficient. This is very important because the map indicates which parts will be built first, indicated by different colors. There are some residences that are called Golf Vistas. Some of those Golf Vistas are smack dab against the boundary we share with the development. It's important, because if the development never goes beyond Phase 1, and those residences are supposed to be in Phase 2, I would not have to worry about high concentration residences right on my property line. If the developer goes by the text of the amendment, that Golf Vistas can be built in Phase 1, and chooses to build Golf Vistas that are blue on the map, not just the purple Phase I ones, we have this high density residential development without any of the recreational or community development, as required by the court. The map is important and should be studied by an architect and planning staff before the amendment is approved. Sincerely, Rebekah Ross PO Box 129 Brinnon, WA 98320 jeffbocc From: Victoria Starr Marshall <Victoria@3rdactmagazine.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 10:32 AMHEARING �To: jeffbocc; Greg Brotherton Cc: David Marshall Subject: Comment for Pleasant Harbor Resort Meeting today Dear Sirs & Madams, It is my understanding that you are holding a public hearing this morning to determine whether or not the Proposed Amendment 2 to the development agreement by Pleasant Harbor Marina And Golf Resort, LLP is in compliance with the court order by Kitsap Superior Court on March 28, 2019. Unfortunately, we are not able to attend, so please accept this email as our public comment. We have read the Proposed Amendment 2 and it appears to us that it is in compliance with the court order in both spirit and letter. We have also read the letter submitted by the Brinnon Group, and we do not agree with their findings. We urge the Commissioners to approve the Proposed Amendment 2, and to remove this final barrier so that this long-awaited project can proceed. Thank you for your consideration, Victoria Starr Marshall and David Marshall 81 Canal Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 1 jeffbocc From: John Holbert <johnholbert@startmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 2:06 PM To. jeffbocc RFAPINr,Cc: Greg Brotherton FCOPD Subject: pleasant harbor resort Dear Sirs; I am a resident of Brinnon for the last 20 years. I would like to encourage you to grant the permit for the resort at Pleasant Harbor. The community needs the economic boost and jobs. The owners of the marina and Black Point property have proven themselves to be good neighbors and stewards of the environment in the years they have operated their business here. John Holbert jeffbocc From: TKdesignbuild <tkdesignbuild@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 3:41 PM To: jeffbocc HEARING; Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project FC0 Board of Commissioners: I am sending these comments related to the Pleasant Harbor Resort Development. My name is Tim Talbott. I am a home designer and builder and live in Pleasant Harbor in Brinnon. My company, TK Design/Build, has been in business in Brinnon for the past 9 years. I have been a licensed general contractor since September of 1972. My wife, Kimberlee, the "K" in TK Design/Build, is also a designer as well as a real estate broker working with the Windermere office in Brinnon. For the past ten years we have been working together in both the real estate and building endeavors mainly in the immediate Brinnon vicinity. When we came to Brinnon nearly 10 years ago we were excited to learn about the plans to develop Black Point. We were told that permits were just months away and that the project would be breaking ground in the very near future. As we have watched the process drag on over the past years we are appalled at the lack of performance of the county in resolving issues and getting the project off the ground. We have watched the developer give more and more concessions to the county, some of which we believe diminish the value and potential of the project far beyond what should reasonably have been expected of him. When someone invests that kind of money in a project, follows all the rules and requirements as he has, it is very disturbing to see the project being held up over and over by people who just don't like the plan and don't want it to happen. It is time for someone to take a stand and either give a yes or no to the project. I believe that after this long it is nothing short of malfeasance on the part of the county and should be dealt with accordingly. Tim Talbott TK design I build Tim and Kim Talbott PO Box 550 1 Brinnon WA 198320 - 0550 Office: 425.818.0954 1 Tim: 425.785.1246 1 Kim: 425.785.1025 ham: //www. tkdesign-build.com/ tkdesign-build. com/ 'HEARING #ECO�l6'c��r�t /kcu✓e- leis is" Barbara Moore -Lewis 96 CC % Pleas 4n 1-pk Ybsr PO Box 572 D/I wu rlrr) Brinnon, WA 98320 The 2008 Jefferson County ordinance required a community center as part of the MPR. The 2018 development agreement did not include the community center. It did include a recreation center to be built sometime in the next 45 years. The Brinnon Group argued successfully in Kitsap Superior Court for inclusion of a community center and for it to be in the first phase of development. Attorney Rick Aramburu has submitted a letter about the requirements for a community center. I would like to remind the Commissioners that it took private citizens of the County, spending their own money, to enforce promises made by the Commissioners years ago. The least they can do is to take the necessary step to make the community center a reality if the MPR is actually built. I wish the commissioners could have been at the LUPA hearing. If/when there is another, it would be good to attend. It was very different than the Growth Management Board hearing; the judge asked very pertinent questions, sometimes questions that county really had no answers to. It is my impression that the county is reacting to her decision with both denial and arrogance. HEA pINr RECOIm From: Andy Visser <andy@connectionseap.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 7:59 PM To: Greg Brotherton; jeffbocc - Subject: Foot dragging on Pleasant Harbor Dear Greg and Fellow Jefferson County Commissioners, Please support the development at Pleasant Harbor. The potential for growth, achievement and pride in our little community is so important both now and for future generations. I have tried to understand the objections posted on a certain website opposing this encouraging plan and find most of the comment puzzling and less than coherent: ° The comments about 'public-private funding' leaves me puzzled. I read no requests for public funding nor do I understand the allusion to some incestuous connection to OlyCap — this project is free enterprise at it's best. ° The comment about services available in a center for the community "sometime in the next 45 years" seems absurd given the publicly available written plan. ° A comment about the waste water treatment plant as though it was not completed early on makes no sense ° I've been informed that the comparison to another project in Canada is meaningless. The two projects by this reputable firm appear to be very different in nature Many of Brinnon's good citizens will support this great opportunity. Thank -you for your public service and the opportunity to comment! Andy Visser LMHC 395 Lee Way Brinnon WA 98320 Cell: 712.540.7448 Certified Employee Assistance Professional Connections Inc. Employee Assistance Program www.connectionseap.com 712.476.2889 SUPPORTING a HEALTHY and PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY in the WORKPLACE Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: J Hal Beattie <jhalbt@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 8:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Comments on Proposed Amendment to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort I reside in Brinnon. My property adjacent to the proposed resort. The proposed amendment does not comply with Judge Olsen's order, because it basically says that the resort does not need to provide a community center because there are already 3 community centers in the county. But Judge Olsen did not not say that a community center is optional, and she did not accept the argument that the recreational and spa facilities of the proposed resort could satisfy the requirement for a community center. Instead of forcing this issue back into litigation, which the county would clearly lose and would likely be liable for attorney fees or other penalties for taking a frivolous position, the County should in good faith enter into an agreement that includes an actual community center at the resort. I note also that the existence of the current aging Brinnon Community Center in the lower part of a former motel that is defunct purportedly due to failing construction and the presence of asbestos. The present center should not be deemed a substitute for the resort's obligation to provide a community center. I also note that if the resort happens, the center of gravity of Brinnon would change, because the resort will have facilities and retail space that will dwarf the existing center of Brinnon. Therefore, it should not be assumed that Brinnon folks would not go to the resort property to enjoy the amenities of a community center. We would gladly enjoy the facilities of a pleasant and appropriate community center. The County has only this opportunity to negotiate the basic features of the community center, as there would be no leverage in the future to require the resort to provide additional features. This is a responsibility the County should undertake only after carefully considering the wants and needs of the Brinnon community. What should be the features of a community center appropriate to the size Brinnon will become after the resort becomes a reality? (Quaint, small and rural Brinnon will no longer exist). This process should not be unduly rushed even though the resort plan has been so many years in the making. The developers were well aware of the requirement for a community center, but chose not to include it in their plans until ordered by the court. I suggest the formation of a study group that includes members of the Brinnon Community. The study group should determine what folks in Brinnon want and need in this new community center, and also to study and consider the features of other community centers in communities of similar size. At a minimum, the resort should provide at least what the existing community center has: such as a kitchen, space for meetings and activities, parking, maintenance staff, and staff to calendar events, meetings and classes. The folks of Brinnon might have other ideas: space to display local art, games, rooms to access wifi, or after-school projects. After the study group completes its work, County staff should negotiate with the developers a community center that meets the requirements of the court's order and the needs and wants of the community. John Harold ("Hal") Beattie PO Box 129 Brinnon, WA 98320 Hal from iPhone effbocc From: Ruth Dunham <ruthdunham@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Community center in Brinnon This is in response to the meeting held Monday about the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan. WE NEED A SEPARATE COMMUNITY CENTER IN BRINNON. Not one associated with a high priced resort. I am a member of the Yoga Ladies of Brinnon and we use the Brinnon Community Ctr four days a week. I am in favor of the resort, lets get moving on it! But leave the Community Ctr out of the plan. Ruth Dunham Brinnon Resident effbocc From: downtime79@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 11:18 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Greg Brotherton; Patty Charnas Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR comment Attachments: comment letter PHM -MPR 7-16-19.pdf Commissioners, Attached please find my comment letter regarding PHM MPR. Thank you for your time and consideration. Don Coleman Green Mtn. Lane, Brinnon 206-724-2482 Honorable Commissioners, My name is Don Coleman, resident of Brinnon since 2002 Brinnon Group and others. HEARWG '0 I would like to address some current objections stated by the The Brinnon Group falsely claims the Developer of the Pleasant Harbor MPR does nothing for the community and cares only about himself. Here is a short list of things the Marina currently does, with full support and encouragement of the Developer: • Sponsor Brinnon School event "movie and a pizza" monthly from Oct thru April. (been doing this for 6+ years) • Second year partnering with Brinnon Parks & Rec. offering the Marina pool on Wednesday mornings 8am until noon, from July 10 -Aug 28 for local children. • First year partnering with YMCA and Brinnon School providing access to the Marina pool for swim lessons • First response for water emergencies within the Harbor and central Hood Canal • First response for environmental emergencies (fuel spills and vessel sinking) within the Harbor and central Hood Canal • Services offered to the community include fuel for marine vessels including community, Sheriff, Fire/EMS, Coast Guard, Navy for Jefferson County and surrounding Counties • Collaborated with WDFW for invasive tunicate study and removal. Providing access and support to gov. agencies, Tribes, and volunteer organizations. • Multiple donations to support local non-profit activities (such as school events, Shrimp Fest, Fire Dept. Dose Dux and so on) • Provided manpower from Marina staff to help with improvement projects at the Brinnon School There is no reason to believe the developer will not continue to support the community in the future. False accusations and unsupported speculation do nothing to encourage more community involvement. The Brinnon group states the developer does not have any money and will not build. The fact is the developer has invested millions to improve the Marina, which was originally part of the MPR but more recently rebuilt under the existing BSP. The developer agreed, without argument, to downsize the plan in order to meet concerns of excessive developpment and to comply with the new shoreline management plan. Improvements needed to be made to protect the environment, provide safe working conditions, and provide improved services to community and visitors. The work was completed with little or no recognition from local news or anyone outside of the marina community. I will add that this is all done with private money, no government funds other than a state parks grant to expand the marine pump -out system. As stated above, the developer has consistently changed the plan to meet concerns of community and Tribe. Now the Brinnon Group is saying the developer doesn't know what he wants to build because he keeps changing the plan. How insane is that, to demand changes then complain because changes are made? Since the Brinnon Group claims to be a local group and demands to know what the developer will do for the community, is it not fair to ask what the Brinnon Group has done for the Community besides delay a project? Have they created any jobs, helped the school, created or improved any services or contributed to help the existing community center? Perhaps it doesn't matter, but how many in the "Brinnon Group" actually live in Brinnon? Respectfully, Don Coleman Green Mtn Lane, Brinnon effbocc From: Ellen Jenner <ellenj@olympus.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 12:57 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: importance of Brinnon Community Center Dear County Commissioners I am Ellen Worthington Jenner, a yoga teacher in Brinnon at the Community Center. I want to remind you that our present Community Center is vitally important to our rural community. It is at the heart of the Brinnon Community and the meeting place for community dinners, celebrations, soup lunches, craft sales, rummage sales and 6 yoga classes a week. Brinnon NEEDS our Community Center as it is now serving our community, no matter what facilities The Statesman Group build in the future. Realistically many members of our community would not be able to afford activities at Stateman's facilities or even feel comfortable going there. Thank you, Ellen Worthington Jenner eTTDOCC ii pw it u>tn fir " From: JT Cooke <JT@houlihan-law.com> 11 1W Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 6:18 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Hunsucker; Patty Charnas Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR Attachments: 2019.7.17 PH Comment Letter.pdf; Brinnon School PTO - swim.pdf; Brinnon School PTO - Home.pdf, Thanks Community Swim Days Sponsors! - Brinnon Parks & Recreation District.pdf Dear Honorable Board Members - Attached are supplemental comments provided by Pleasant Harbor that address some of the common comments and concerns we heard during the last public hearing and from third -parties. Thank you for considering these comments. JT R HOULIHAN LAW 'ofl N 35'' Strew • Seat* e., WA 98',173 JOHN T. UT) COOKE ATTORNEY 206.547.1075 DIRtCr 206.547.1958 FAX 253 722-8267 MoWLr www.houtlhan-taw.com NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise- the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 1 U� HOULIHAN LAW, P.C. JOHN TUT)Co(' HEARIN n s,# t 't SeattleWA 98103 July 17, 2019 VIA Email (jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us) Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR Amended Development Agreement Dear Honorable Commissioners: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP ("Pleasant Harbor") takes this opportunity to respond to comments and concerns about the amendment to the Development Agreement. Utility District It has come to Pleasant Harbor's attention that members of the public believe that Pleasant Harbor is forming an electrical utility because of the reference to "utility district" in the amended Development Agreement. Pleasant Harbor is not forming an electrical utility. Pleasant Harbor does intend to form a water and sewer district. State law requires that a public entity own and operate the sewage facility (with limited exceptions). WAC 173-240-104. The reference to utility district acknowledges that a public entity must be formed to own manage the sewer system for the resort. Community Center We are aware of the Brinnon Group's position that the amendment to the Development Agreement does not, in its view, meet the Court's Order. The Brinnon Group is wrong. And, its claim that this Board abdicated its responsibility to the public in approving the Development Agreement is baseless and demeans the hours of hard work spent by County staff ensuring that the Development Agreement complied with the 30 conditions, incorporated conditions from the environmental review and otherwise complied with state and local law. The amendment to the Development Agreement clarifies what this Board and everyone else understood at the time the Board approved the original Development Agreement: that the recreation center included the "community center" by providing space for community members to play, exercise www.houtihan-taw.com Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners July 17, 2018 Page 2 HEARING% RECrORLD and meet. Unfortunately, the Development Agreement did not include the words "community center" which resulted in the Court's decision. The Development Agreement included all of the aspects for a community center but the name. For example, the Development Agreement identifies the list of amenities that will be made available to the public for use (including the pool and spa services). See Development Agreement at Section 10.3. Likewise, section 3.2 of the Development Agreement defines the Master Plan to include the components articulated in the FEIS and FSEIS. Appendix S to FSEIS notes that the recreation center will include 9,200 square feet with four separate conference centers for up to 400 people which must be made available for public reservation. These services provide a space for the public to commune whether for recreation or to discuss matters of public interest. These amenities must be provided during the first phase of construction leaving no doubt that they will be part of the resort. Moreover, the communal attributes of the resort go beyond recreation and meeting space. The MOUS with Jefferson Healthcare and the Jefferson County Sherriff s Office require that Pleasant Harbor provide space for these agencies further strengthening the communal component of the proposed development. In short, the County insured that the Development Agreement has all along provided for a "community center" even if it did not name it as such. The amended Development Agreement cures the technical omission of the phrase "community center" in the Development Agreement and is compliant with the Court's Order. Pleasant Harbor responds to the Brinnon Group's allegation that Pleasant Harbor is recalcitrant and will "attempt to discourage use of the community center." The allegation is baseless, desperate and, more importantly, reflects the Brinnon Group's disconnect with the Brinnon community. Pleasant Harbor has a well- documented history of looking for ways to offer its existing amenities for community purposes. For example, Pleasant Harbor has repeatedly made the existing recreational amenities and services at the marina available for public use including, but not limited to, the following: • Partnered with Brinnon Parks and Recreation to open the existing pool at the marina for local children on Wednesday mornings through the summer months; • Partnered with the YMCA and Brinnon School to provide swim lessons at the existing marina pool; and • Sponsored the Brinnon School's monthly "Movie and a Pizza" event for the last six years.' Contrary to the Brinnon Group's unfounded accusation, most people that work and live in and around Brinnon know and appreciate Pleasant Harbor's demonstrated commitment to the Brinnon community and particularly its youth. The Development Agreement includes minimum requirements for a community center. Pleasant Harbor has a demonstrated commitment to the community that goes beyond the minimum requirements for a community center in the Development Agreement. ' Postings of the open swim event and swim lessons are attached. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners July 17, 2018 HEA RM G,Page 3 Finally, it is our understanding that some members of the public are concerned that the existing Brinnon Community Center will close with development of the community center at Pleasant Harbor. The space and activities at the resort are intended to supplement, not supplant, the existing services offered by the existing Brinnon Community Center. New Site Plan The site plan presented with the amendments does not change the resort proposal. The Brinnon Group manufactures changes where none exists. Indeed, the Brinnon Group's argument that the Development Agreement does not provide a "master plan" was raised by the Brinnon Group in its challenge to the Development Agreement and, along with the majority of its other arguments, rejected by the Kitsap County Superior Court: Petitioner argues that the depiction of facilities of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and depiction of them on land use maps are inadequate, inconsistent, and ambiguous, such that the DA and incorporated documents fail to satisfy JCC 18.15.125(l)(b) and (d). The Court finds that [the Brinnon Group] has failed to meet its burden under any six of the LUPA standards of review, as to the DA's alleged violation of JCC 18.15.125(l)(b0 and (d). Development of the master planned resort will continue to be refined and adjusted as additional site information is prepared and plans developed. As the Kitsap County Court concluded, there is nothing in the JCC that requires a definitive outline of precisely where each structure and improvement will be located. This makes sense when you take the time to think about it. Additional survey and site work will help inform development of the resort to best meet the 30 conditions, the terms of Development Agreement and otherwise design a functional and attractive resort. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, /s/sent w/o signature to avoid delay John T. Cooke Encls. Cc: Client (via email) Patty Charnas (via email) Phil Hunsucker (via email) 7/16/2019 Brinnon School PTO - Home IL Oki PTO Meeting Minutes, Thursday, May 992019 BRINNON SCHOOL PTO • FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 Call to Order by: Liz Gilbert at 3:3opm Attending: Lisa Johnston, Liz Gilbert, Sara Gearhart, Heidi Budnek, Elizabeth Frantz, Julie McEdwards, Britney Edwards and Alicia Simmons. Review of Minutes from Previous Meeting: Minutes for March were not read. Principal's Report (Trish): Not available. Vice President's Report (Brittany): None submitted. Treasurers' Report (Sara & Liz): None submitted. Committee Reports: PTO Volunteer Appreciation Lunch— will be held at the Pleasant Harbor Marina on Thursday, May 23 from 2:3opm-4:3opm. There will be pizza, pop and cake. On -Site Enrichments - Reptile Man: AWESOME! Well received by the students. This event was presented to Brinnon free of charge. After School Clubs — Movie Makers no update. 4-H no update PTO Storage- Liz has been researching our options for PTO storage. One of the options is $5,000 and meets Trish's requirements of moveable and nice looking. She has decided against looking for containers, most are well worn and would need sprucing up to be presentable. Lisa offered to discuss renting a unit through Johnston's Realty. The preference is to have storage on site for easy access during events. We are looking for an unit that is https://www.facebook.com/notes/brinnon-school-pto/pto-meeting-minutes-thursday-may-9-2019/2166065680168260/ 1/3 7/16/2019 Brinnon School PTO - Home 1ox20. It was suggested we open the need up to the community to see if here are any more options. g�cz Fundraising: World's Finest Chocolate sales — finally SOLD OUT. Garage Sale — this will be postponed to this summer. Proceeds will go towards a PTO storage unit. Marketing: We are currently using the BSD website, FB updates, Meet the Teacher, Open house (and other school events), Newsletter, Brinnon Crier, The Bugle, flyers around town and email updates to communicate with parents and the community. We are looking for any additional ideas or suggestions. Upcoming Events: Looking ahead at next year's calendar: October 25 — Fall Festival (an early release day) November 14 — Vendor Fair? (date is not set in stone) December 18 — Winter Program January 6 — Coffee Bar for staff upon return from winter break March 20 — Talent Show (an early release day) April 17 — 34th Annual Auction and Art Show (This is conferences week. Generally conferences have been on W & Th. Concern that they may also be on Friday. Teachers will not attend the auction if they have to have conferences on Friday.) May 4-8 — Staff Appreciation Week Announcements/Open Floor: - No announcements Next PTO Meeting: September. Date TBD. https://www.facebook.com/notes/brinnon-school-pto/pto-meeting-minutes-thursday-may-9-2019/2166065680168260/ 2/3 7/16/2019 Brinnon School PTO - Home Meeting adjourned 4:15Pm Minutes submitted by: Alicia Simmons, secretary 5/14/19 prfijP!�]G https://www.facebook.com/noteslbdnnon-school-pto/pto-meeting-minutes-thursday-may-9-2019/2166065680168260/ 313 7/16/2019 Brinnon School PTO added an event. May 9 s Brinnon School PTO - Home WED, JUN 12 Swim Lessons at PHM Pleasant Harbor Marina Brinnon, WA Health https://www.facebook.com/BSDPTO 1/1 7/16/2019 Thanks Community Swim Days Sponsors! - Brinnon Parks & Recreation District Brinnon Parks Et Recreation District Search this site Navigation Announcements > Home Thanks Community Swim Days Announcements Sponsors! Calendar Directory posted May 29, 201 9, 4:15 PM by Brinnon Parks [ updated May 29, 2019, 4:16 Gallery PM About Agendas, Minutes & Regulatory Thank you Port Townsend Rotary for your generous donation to Documents the Brinnon Community Swim Days. The support of Port Townsend Rotary and Pleasant Harbor Marina allows Brinnon Parks and Recreation to provide free community swim days for our youth. The free swim days will begin July 10th and continue each Wednesday morning in July and August at Pleasant Harbor Marina. More information to follow... Again thanks Port Townsend Rotary and Pleasant Harbor Marina. Sign in i Recent Site Activity, ; Report Abuse ; Print Pagg i Powered By Google Sites www.bdnnonparksandrec.org/announcements/thankscommunityswimdayssponsors 1/1 jeffbocc From: Miriam Murdoch <mimimurd55@gmail.comO-AN- � Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 7:12 AM "P To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR It's a shame that The Brinnon Group is having to foot the bill for a qualified land use attorney to assure compliance with the Brinnon sub area plan, the Kitsap Superior Court decision on the appeal to the MPR and policing the inconsistencies of the developer's plans. Please use the advice of Mr Aramburu the attorney, he's been paid for by our citizens concerned with the future of the environment down here in south county. Sincerely, Miriam Murdoch. 98320 Sent from my iPhone effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, MARIA MENDES <maria.mendes@snet.net> Wednesday, July 17, 2019 8:36 AM jeffbocc Pleasant Harbor MPR :-n � ift � ' Once again The Statesman Group have proposed an inadequate plan. This time in response to the LUPA Decision and Order issued by the Honorable Sally Olsen in Kitsap County Superior Court regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR. After reading The Statesman Group's submission it is clear that the Developer has not proposed an adequate community center that would serve the public. There is not sufficient information in their proposed amendment to address community needs. In short, it inadequately attempts to answer the letter of the Judge's order, ignores the spirit of the order, and thus fails. The Brinnon Group has provided more detail regarding the community center, and the map discrepancies. I support their analysis. As a reminder, I have mentioned in previous comments that The Statesman Group's proposal does not adequately address the environmental and traffic impacts. The data on which the original proposal was based had become and is now seriously out of date, and this new proposal affects the analysis. The latest proposal just adds to the original deficiencies. It is time for you as Commissioners to seriously address the needs of the community and the environment with regard to this proposal, and to have the Statesman Group do likewise. Sincerely, Maria E. Mendes 11 Danbury Court, Port Townsend ra From: Jim Boldt <duckabushcommunications@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 8:39 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: pleasant harbor development Folks, I am writing to support a swift and affirmative action for the Pleasant Harbor Development. Please keep in mind that the people involved in this project have bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns of citizens and Jefferson County. I have personally met with them and my opinion is that they truly are sensitive to rural environment into which the development will be constructed and operated. The need for jobs, the lack of accommodations for any visitors to the area, and the environmental issues have been hashed over, now, for years. It is time to recognize opposers for what they are; for them it is not about how, they still would not support the project under any circumstances. Please look at the effort that has been made to accommodate legitimate concerns, and approve the project. We need this type of facility in south Jefferson County and north Mason County. Thank you. Jim Boldt 40600 Hwy 101 North Lilliwaup, Washington 98555 253-797-1617 "The STAND a person takes on an issue is usually determined by where they SIT for dinner!" Please consider our environment before printing this document. The information contained in this message and its attachments is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. This information may be privileged and confidential in nature and protected by law, including litigant contractual matters and copyright. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please delete the message with its attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank you. ieffbocc x� Ilk 1, . From: Samuel J. Phillips <sphillips@pgst.nsn.us> '. Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:37 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Roma Call Subject: Master Planned Resort Attachments: Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement Amend ment_PGSTcomments_071219.pdf Hello, Please accept the attached comment letter on behalf of Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We understand the comment period was extended until 4:30 pm today. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you. Sam Phillips Environmental Scientist Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Office: 36o-297-6289 Cell: 360-265-4711 H PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE SARIN P Pl% m NATURAL RESOURCES SOURCES DEPARTMENT Ir 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 July 12, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Sent by email to jeffbocc0co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, We are writing in support of the inclusion in Amendment 2 to Development Agreement By and Between Jefferson County, Washington and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP Relating to the Development Commonly Known as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort the requirement to "Build waste water treatment plant" in Phase 1a, prior to the construction of residential units. The previous agreement included a requirement for a LOSS drainfield in Phase 1, but made no mention of a water treatment plant in subsequent phases, even though the LOSS drainfield is described as a "wastewater treatment plant back up system". Given the lengthy build out period allowed under the development agreement, it is prudent to require the waste water treatment plant upfront, in Phase 1a. In Section 10.2, Preliminary Facilities, the Development Agreement states "each phase must design adequate preliminary facilities to serve the phase" and in 10.2.2, Wastewater Treatment System "A sewer system with sufficient capacity to accommodate the waste discharge for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval". This language should be corrected to identify the wastewater treatment plant included in Phase 1a, and not simply describe sewer facilities under the heading of Wastewater Treatment System as it is currently written. We are concerned this ambiguity would allow the Developer to defer construction of a wastewater treatment plant in favor of a LOSS drainfield that would risk impairment of water quality in Hood Canal. During discussions between the Tribe, the County and the Developer, the Developer stated that a Membrane Bioreactor plant would be the primary water treatment plant. There is no mention of the level or quality of treatment in the Development Agreement. It is important to consider that the MPR intends to use recycled wastewater for golf course irrigation, and advanced treatment is necessary for this use. Therefore, we propose the agreement include specific treatment standards necessary in a wastewater treatment system capable of beneficial reuse, prior to commencement of Phase 2, in which the golf course is completed. More specific language in the development agreement on the wastewater treatment plant is necessary to ensure the MPR is a fully integrated planned unit development and to ensure that each phase can stand alone. # PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Sincerely, Sam Phillips Environmental Scientist Natural Resources Department Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Julie ShannonNn, f A From: Philip Hunsucker Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:31 PM To: Julie Shannon Cc: Patty Charnas Subject: FW: Extended comment periode for PHMPR Development Agreement Attachments: Revised Comment on DA 7-17-19.docx Julie Please add the attached to the hearing record. Thanks. Philip Philip C. Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorne s Office P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9219 (direct) Fax: 360-385-0073 All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. From: Rob Mitchell <duckabushrob@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:18 PM To: Patty Charnas <PCharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Extended comment periode for PHMPR Development Agreement Patty, Phillip I tried entering this on the County website and it's seizing up. Please include this comment in the PHMPR extended comment period which ends at 4:30 PM today. Thanks, Rob Mitchell 7/17/19 Rob Mitchell 4246 Duckabush Rd. Brinnon, WA Board of County Commissioners Dept. of Community Development Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Comment Period on PHMPR Development Agreement The Development Agreement for the PHMPR was remanded because of sloppy work. The County has allowed the developer to dictate the terms of the agreement which only benefits the developer and does nothing to protect the county's interests or its citizens. The latest working text of the appendix to the development agreement, once again, does not match the supporting document, the Phasing Site Plan. That plan is also deficient in not having an Architects identification or title. There is no way to verify its accuracy. The text does not state the features or amenities that must be included in Phase 1. The most glaring is the Sewage Treatment Plant. The LOSS (septic drain field) is inadequate for the number of dwellings and amenities. The term Community/Recreation Center does not indicate what will be built. In the original Development Agreement the time frame for a phase to be considered competed subjects Brinnon to indefinite period of construction disruption. This latest Phasing Plan shows features that don't exist in any of the EIS's upon which BoCC approved the PHMPR. The most glaring are the two large structures in the lower left which are labeled "Multi Family Buildings" of 312 Units". The filling of Kettles B and C with waste water from the sewage treatment plant. There is no way to verify the total number of residential units to see if the cap of 890. � +�• wn -Cop: Over the more than 15 years that I have analyzed the PHMPR EIS's I'm astonished how vague it is. The constant changes of concept alone are a red flag. This is a developer who defaulted on the Pine Ridge Development of Invermer, BC. He proposed some 300 homes and a Community Center. He built approximately 30 homes and asked for the surrounding community to pay him to build the community center. He has a petition form on the sales website to build it. www.discoverpinerid_ge.com Through the thousands of communications from public records requests its apparent to me that this developer has constantly changed what he is proposing, never expected to be held accountable by Jefferson County. The county allowed the developer's council to direct BoCC and DCD in the process from the beginning and continue to this day. It took us citizens thousands of hours, many researched and documented comments by many highly educated professionals to alert the County of these errors. It took taxpayer's own money to sue the county that we pay for to correct the errors. Sincerely, Rob Mitchell Consent Agenda JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Leslie Locke, Executive Assistant DATE: July 1, 2019 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. re: HEARING NOTICE: Second Quarter 2019 Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments; Hearing scheduled for Monday, July 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Various County Departments have requested increases to their 2019 budget. Per RCW 36.40.140 the BOCC must hold a public hearing regarding the proposed budget changes. This agenda item is to approve the public notice only; the individual changes will be reviewed at the public hearing. ANALYSIS: These budget changes are intended to improve the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the requesting departments. The Hearing Notice will be published in the Leader on July 3 and 10, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Provided in Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution to publish a notice for the hearing set for July 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers. REVIEWED BYE ~� IV ~ :* lthil p Morley, unty dministrat9i Date STATE OF WASHINGTON Jefferson County IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING NOTICE } FOR PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET } APPROPRIATIONS/EXTENSIONS FOR } RESOLUTION NO. VARIOUS COUNTY FUNDS } WHEREAS, various Jefferson County departments have made requests for supplemental budget appropriations/extensions for their 2019 budgets; and WHEREAS, the increased spending in such requests are funded by additional sources which were not anticipated at the time of preparing said budgets; and such sources include unanticipated revenue received from fees, or grants from the State and Federal government, or proceeds from the sale of bonds, or budgeted but unexpended monies from the prior budget year; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Board of County Commissioners that a need exists that could not have been foreseen or contemplated at the time of preparing the budgets for 2019. The following identified revenue and expenditure amounts are to be added to the various Funds. Expenditure amounts in excess of revenues listed shall be appropriated from the unencumbered balances and represent an extension of the Fund budgets listed: GENERAL FUND 001 -XXX -XXX AMOUNT FROM 001-068-000 COMMUNITY SERVICES 001-080-000 DISTRICT COURT UNENCUMBERED PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 001-180-000 FUND # FUND NAME FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND 001 -XXX -XXX GENERAL FUND 001-068-000 COMMUNITY SERVICES 001-080-000 DISTRICT COURT 001-150-000 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 001-180-000 SHERIFF 001-240-000 SUPERIOR COURT 001-250-000 TREASURER 001-261-000 OPERATING TRANSFER OUT $ TOTAL GENERAL FUND $35,342.50 $ 179,118.00 $ 179,118.00 $ 214,460.50 $ 1,864,265.00 $ 396,688.00 SPECIAL REVENUE/CAPITAL/ENTERPRISE/INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 108-000-010 $ 11,772.50 $ (4,500.00) $ 9,495.00 $ 16,789.00 $ 9,471.00 $ 194,000.00 $ 194,000.00 $ $ 4,604.00 $ 1,657,976.00 $ $ 179,118.00 $ 179,118.00 $ 214,460.50 $ 1,864,265.00 $ 396,688.00 SPECIAL REVENUE/CAPITAL/ENTERPRISE/INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 108-000-010 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION $ - $ 15,000.00 109-000-010 NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL $ 41,835.00 $ 41,835.00 127-000-010 PUBLIC HEALTH $ 98,659.00 $ 91,193.00 131-000-010 CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY $ 67,972.00 $ 67,972.00 143-000-010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $ 80,930.00 $ 80,930.00 155-000-010 VETERANS RELIEF $ 15.00 175-000-010 COUNTY PARKS IMPROVEMENT $ (24,000.00) 180-000-010 ROADS $ (6,707.00) 199-000-010 JEFFERSON COUNTY FAIR $ 515.00 401-000-010 SOLID WASTE $ 350,710.00 $ 300,117.00 $ 650,827.00 501-000-010 EQUIPMENT RENTAL $ 681,463.00 $ 350,000.00 TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $ 418,682.00 $ 1,187,827.00 $ 1,282,757.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that supplemental budget appropriations/extensions be considered for the above noted funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held on the extensions and that said hearing be held in the County Commissioners' Chambers, Courthouse, Port Townsend Washington, on the 15' day of July, 2019, at the hour of 10:00 a.m., and that notice of said hearing be published in the official newspaper of Jefferson County, and that at said hearing any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the extensions. APPROVED this 1St day of July, 2019. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway, Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 2 of 2 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Kate Dean, Chair David Sullivan, Member Greg Brotherton, Member