Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout018JJEEFFFFEERRSSOONN CCOOUUNNTTYY DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us __________________________________________________________________________________________ SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning DRAFT Meeting Notes Summary and Follow-up Action Items Pleasant Harbor MPR Government-to-Government (“G-2-G”) meeting between the Skokomish Tribe and Jefferson County Meeting date: January 12, 2016 @ 10 am Location: Skokomish Tribal Center, 80 N Tribal Center Rd, Skokomish, WA 98584 ATTENDEES: David Herrera, Skokomish Tribe Fish & Wildlife Policy Representative Kris Miller, Skokomish Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Randy Lumper, Skokomish Tribe Environmental Planner Earle David Lees, Skokomish Tribal Attorney David Sullivan, Chair, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Michelle Farfan, Jefferson County DCD Associate Planner Patty Charnas, Jefferson County DCD Director Philip C. Hunsucker, Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Meeting Results /Follow-up Action Items 1. Greetings and Introductions • Introductions and greetings were made. David Sullivan provided some opening remarks and summarized the County Commissioners’ process for reviewing a proposal like Pleasant Harbor MPR. • David Herrera agreed that the agenda was appropriate for the meeting. • Patty Charnas explained that the primary purpose of the meeting was to provide the Skokomish Tribe with a copy of the draft development agreement for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) prior to any possible action by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) and before the setting of any public comment period by the BoCC. • Ms. Charnas said she planned to present the draft development agreement using a copy of the main document and a PowerPoint presentation. The PowerPoint was prepared for use at the G-2- G meeting with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) on January 11, 2018, the G-2-G meeting with the Skokomish Tribe on January 12, 2018, and the joint informational session of the BoCC and the Jefferson County Planning Commission on January 16, 2018. • David Herrera stated that he had a few comments to the draft development agreement on a policy level that he expected to discuss. 2 2. Pleasant Harbor MPR Project Status • David Herrera reviewed that Jeromy Sullivan, Chair of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) had reached out for a meeting but that an earlier meeting date had been canceled due to a funeral at PGST. Herrera stated that since the meeting notes for the last G-2-G meeting between Jefferson County and the Skokomish Tribe were published as approved by the Skokomish Tribe, Jeromy Sullivan, that another planned meeting at the PGST with Jeromy Sullivan, PGST was canceled at the last minute. • Patty Charnas gave a status report on the project. Ms. Charnas discussed: o The additional negotiations with the developer, resulting in the draft development agreement and its 31 attachments; those draft documents and additional materials have been made available on Jefferson County’s web site. o The website also has notes from additional G-2-G discussions and meetings between the PGST and Jefferson County. TheG-2-G meeting on January 11, 2018 will be posted o The decision by Jefferson County to make public the draft development agreement now, to enable the January 2018 G-2-G discussions with the Skokomish Tribe and the PGST and give the tribes a first look at the entire document, even before the planned January 16, 2018 joint informational session before the Jefferson County BoCC and Planning Commission. 3. Review and discussion of current draft Development Agreement and attachments (Questions, answers and discussion of agreement narrative, hard copies to be circulated) a. Overview (Patty Charnas). i. The PowerPoint used by Ms. Charnas is located on the Jefferson County web site as a part of the January 16, 2018 Agenda Request at http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/doc/1758577/Page1.aspx. A copy of the PowerPoint was provided to the meeting participants. ii. The project site is a former campground with a system of paved or gravel roads and parking areas. There are 500 plus RV pad sites and buildings with septic tanks and drain fields. iii. The proposes resort includes a nine-hole golf course with a three-hole practice course, 890 residential units consisting of guest rental and worker housing, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities, and 103 acres of natural area preserved. There is a phasing plan accompanied by resource management plans, utility plans and service agreements. iv. Environmental impacts have been assessed in multiple impact statements, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2002 for the Brinnon Subarea Plan, a programmatic EIS for this project in 2007, and a project specific supplemental EIS for this project in 2015 (FSEIS). v. In 2008, Jefferson County passed an Ordinance that allows the PHMPR to be developed under 30 specific conditions. Some of these require consultations with area tribes. The 3 Jefferson County Department of Community Development used these 30 conditions as a “punch list” for what the draft development agreement should contain. vi. The 2008 Ordinance and the FSEIS call for: MOUs with community, life safety, service agencies and groups; workforce development; cultural resources management; wildlife management; water supply management; water quality management; surface and stormwater management; greenbelts and vegetation management; and, other specific mitigations. vii. Throughout the project history there have been numerous valuable tribal consultations that have improved the project including: Reduced number of residences, golf course reduced in size, grassy areas reduced, updated water quality monitoring plan, additional protection of wildlife (including elk fencing and safe removal), and language specific to tribal treaty rights and cultural resource protection. viii. Jefferson County Code 18.15.126 through 135 sets forth local code requirements for the preparation, content, criteria for and the approval process of Master Planned Resorts, including development standards and development agreement stipulations. ix. A development agreement provides clarity, specificity and predictability for large developments while providing longer-than normal timeframes and vesting to existing local code. x. If adopted, the development agreement will be the “envelop” around the project, where subsequent permits will be required. The development agreement will: be the principal vehicle to ensure compliance with all required conditions, define phases for the build out and establish the term and scope of the vesting period. The development agreement articulates development standards, relying on existing local codes for stormwater, critical areas, land division and site development. The draft development agreement includes additional requirements where compliance with each of the 30 conditions in the 2008 Ordinance is spelled out in detail. xi. A public hearing on the draft development agreement would be required and it will have to be adopted by a Jefferson County ordinance or resolution. xii. There are 13 chapters to the draft development agreement and a table of contents provides a guide to what those chapters include. The draft development agreement has 31 attachments and a list of attachments provides a guide to those attachments. All the attachments are available on the Jefferson County web site, but the hard paper copies of the following attachments were provided to the participants: Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Wildlife Management Plan and Phasing Plan. xiii. A more detailed discussion of portions of the draft development agreement focused on, the provisions related to the Effective Date, Term and Build-Out Period; Native American Treaty Rights; Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance; Protection of Water Quality Outside of the Property, and Wildlife Management. b. Discussion, questions and answers. i. The Skokomish Tribe’s Concern About Development Beyond the Current Phasing Plan. 4 • David Herrera mentioned that his friends in the Quinault Tribe frequently talk about additional development incidental to the development of a resort as being a potential issue, and point to the Seabrook development. Mr. Herrera asked, what process would be required if the developer want to expand the development to, say 1,200 units? • Patty Charnas responded that EIS’s have an indefinite shelf-life, so any additional development would have to be measured against the 2007 EIS and the 2015 FSEIS to determine whether additional mitigation was required. If the proposed development would cause additional impacts another supplemental EIS would be required. • Philip Hunsucker stated that the draft development agreement limited the developer to the phasing plan and that as long as the draft development agreement was in place, the developer would be limited to 890 units. Also, all the mitigation measures required in the draft development agreement would continue during the term of the development agreement. ii. Effective Date, Term and Build-Out Period; Native American Treaty Rights (Section 2). • Draft development agreement language: Effective Date: date of Board adoption approving the Agreement. Term of the Development Agreement: from the effective date to five (5) years after the end of the build-out period. Build-Out Period: twenty-five (25) years from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases as described in Phasing Plan, whichever is later. • Patty Charnas stated that a lot of thought went into this term of the draft development agreement. Ms. Charnas acknowledged that there was disagreement about whether the term should be a set number of years, but explained the thinking behind the provision. • Ms. Charnas stated that the developer wanted the term to be 10 years, but County staff was mindful of the problems with the development agreement in Port Ludlow which arose out of the term of the development agreement ending before build-out, potentially freeing the developer from the requirements of the development agreement prior to completion of the project. The draft development agreement term was drafted to avoid those issues. iii. Native American Treaty Rights (Section 4). • Patty Charnas stated there are 5 tribes with overlapping usual and accustomed rights (U &A) in the area of the project. 5 • David Herrera stated that the Suquamish Tribe also have U & A, but must ask permission of the Skokomish Tribe before exercising those rights. • Randy Lumper said specific tribe names should be eliminated from the draft development agreement because it is clear that the Skokomish Tribe have primary U & A rights in the project area. • David Herrera stated the Skokomish Tribe did not want to put Jefferson County in the middle of a dispute between tribes and suggested the Skokomish Tribe could help Jefferson County with changes in language that could avoid this. He offered that the Skokomish Tribe’s Tribal Counsel, Earl David Lees could work with Jefferson County on language. • Earle David Lees said the Skokomish Tribe has primacy in the project area. That was decided by the federal courts in a 1985 decision in U.S. v. Washington. Based on what is known as the 1984 Hood Canal Agreement, the Skokomish Tribe would not exclude other parties to that agreement, including the PGST, from fin fishing or shellfish fishing in the project area. However, the Hood Canal Agreement only covers fishing—and at the time it was written only fin fishing was covered by the court decisions in U.S. v. Washington. Shell fishing decisions in U.S. v. Washington came later. In the 1984 Hood Canal Agreement, the Skokomish Tribe never agreed to impart with mitigation, never agreed to cede any upland primacy. The Skokomish Tribe continue to have primacy for hunting and cultural resources in the project area. • Philip Hunsucker stated he was familiar with the Hood Canal Agreement and agreed that it only covered fishing rights, but that as to what that meant it was less than clear. Mr. Hunsucker also said he was familiar with the history of the PGST in Port Gamble spanning about 150 years, but also connected to the larger historical Klallam Tribe. Finally, Mr. Hunsucker acknowledged that there where peer reviewed historical pieces written on the Twana that showed that they were living in the project area in permanent locations for thousands of years and that these peer reviewed historical pieces had been accepted as true by the federal courts in the U.S. v. Washington decisions. • Earl David Lees said when the U.S. Navy was doing mitigation in the area, it recognized the Skokomish Tribe’s primacy. • Earl David Lees invited Philip Hunsucker to the February 7, 2018 meet and confer session at the Skokomish Tribal Center on allocation of fishing in the Hood Canal. • Earl David Lees said Section 4.1.2 regarding wildlife management and the naming of specific tribes should instead be made more generic. iv. Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance (Section 5). 6 • David Herrera stated Section 5 should be deleted altogether. Mr. Herrera stated that the Skokomish Tribe believed the efforts by the PGST were part of a larger effort to re-write history and gain a larger U & A than they were entitled. • Earl David Lees stated that the PGST’s area of primacy is at the top of the Olympic Peninsula, ending at about Port Townsend. Then, the Chimacum Tribe had primacy below that to the present location of the Hood Canal Bridge. Below the Hood Canal Bridge, the Skokomish Tribe had primacy. Mr. Lees stated that Section 5 as written to favor the PGST is “revisionist history.” Mr. Lees expressed a concern that the PGST may be seeking to insert this type of statement into a document like this to build an argument for its attempt to increase its U & A. • Patty Charnas stated the kettles were discussed in the 2008 Ordinance. The language in this section was drafted to address the requirements in the 2008 Ordinance about kettles. Recently, only the PGST has been commenting about the Kettles and claiming spiritual, religious and cultural significance of the kettles. • Kris Miller recalled that she had done work on this issue years ago. Kris noted that the cultural resource management plan received Skokomish approval because it protected incidental finds. • David Herrera mentioned that the Skokomish Tribe were satisfied with the results in the Cultural Resource Management Plan. • David Herrera reiterated that the Skokomish Tribe believe that covering cultural resources is the best way to protect them. In the case of the kettles, Mr. Herrera repeated the Skokomish Tribe’s position stated at the last G-2-G meeting between the Skokomish Tribe and Jefferson County that flooding the kettles is a good solution for protecting the cultural resources. • Randy Lumper expressed the concern that if the kettles are accepted as culturally significant to the PGST by the State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), they could become forever associated with the PGST, even though the kettles are on land historically within an area of Skokomish Tribe’s primary U & A. Mr. Lumper suggested to Kris Miller that perhaps the Skokomish Tribe also should apply to have the kettles declared culturally significant to the Skokomish Tribe. Kris Miller agreed this is possible. • Philip Hunsucker referred the participants to Conditions (j) and (k) of the 2008 Ordinance. The County views the Cultural Resource Management Plan as complying with Condition (k) of the 2008 Ordinance and recalled that the Skokomish Tribe participated in the development of the Cultural Resource Management Plan. Condition (j) states: “Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource.” 7 • Randy Lumper suggested that if Jefferson County were inclined not to delete Section 5, then perhaps Section 5 could be amended to make clear that the Skokomish Tribe has primacy. v. Protection of Water Quality Outside of the Property (Water Quality Monitoring Plan). • Patty Charnas stated that the plan for the development is for no discharges of wastewater, surface or stormwater runoff to the Hood Canal. • Ms. Charnas also stated that the plan had been improved to use monitoring wells that were previously only to be used to test for saltwater intrusion for monitoring of chemicals that could affect shell fish. Ms. Charnas stated that the monitoring wells would detect chemicals and serve as sentinels or early warning for any threats to nearby shell fish beds. • David Herrera pointed out that if there is a problem detected, under state and federal law, the developer would have to fix the problem. vi. Wildlife Management (Wildlife Management Plan). • Patty Charnas discussed the improvements to the wildlife development plan. The principal improvement is the addition of barriers to elk migration, including a fence. vii. Shell Fish Mitigation. • Patty Charnas discussed the PGST’s request for mitigation for shell fish impacts caused by the development. Ms. Charnas stated that the PGST were requesting 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years between the Duckabush and Dosewallips shell fish beds and 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips. • David Herrera and Randy Lumper thought that was a lot of mitigation for the alleged potential impact of the development. 4. Pleasant Harbor MPR draft zoning regulations (available on the Jefferson County web site) a. Overview (Patty Charnas). i. Ms. Charnas also used the PowerPoint to discuss the draft zoning regulations. ii. The Jefferson County Planning Commission spent over six months working on draft zoning regulations. The Planning Commission did this without the benefit of a director of the Department of Community Development or a Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney because each of those positions were unfilled for about a year. The Planning Commission also worked without the benefit of having a draft development agreement to which they could refer. The Planning Commission recommended zoning regulations to the BoCC, which were accompanied by an 8-page issue letter. iii. After Patty Charnas was hired as the new director, staff at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development carefully reviewed the Planning Commission version of the PHMPR zoning regulations and the Planning Commission’s 8-page issue letter. This was done with the assistance of the newly hired Chief Civil Deputy 8 Prosecuting Attorney, Philip Hunsucker. Then, the zoning regulations were revised so that: Redundancies and repetitions between the two were corrected the Planning Commission version did not conflict with existing adopted standards already in code; Development standards could focus on zoning for MPR and allow development agreement to address conditions and mitigation measures; and, items that could not be legally defended were corrected. These changes are explained in a staff memo that can be viewed on the Jefferson County web site. b. County’s possible next steps (Patty Charnas). The possible next steps are: BoCC can set a date to hold a public hearing on the development agreement and zoning regulations and establish a public comment period, likely 60 days at the request of the Department of Community Development. The County would accept written comments and oral testimony from affected tribes and the public. The County would provide a response to the written comments and oral testimony. Then, the BoCC would hold deliberations at an open public meeting before taking final action. Development permits would not be accepted until after BoCC action approving a development agreement and zoning regulations.