HomeMy WebLinkAbout019JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF GOIf,TUNITY DEVELOPTf,ENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 9&168 | Web: nvw.o.iefrrson.wa.us/ommuniMewboment
Tel: 360. 379.4450 | Fax 360. 379.4451 | Email : dcd@co. ieft rson.wa.us
Meeting Notes Summary and Follow-up Action ltems
Pleasant Harbor MPR
Govemment-to-Government ("G-2-G') meeting between the Skokomish Tribe and Jefferson County
Meeting date: January 12,2016 @ 10 am
Location: Skokomish TribalCenter, 80 N TribalCenter Rd, Skokomish, WA 98584
ATTENDEES:
David Henera, Skokomish Tribe Fish & Wildlife Policy Representative
Kris Miller, Skokomish Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Randy Lumper, Skokomish Tribe Habitat Policy Analyst
Earle David Lees, Skokomish TribalAttorney
David Sullivan, Chair, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Michelle Farfan, Jefferson Coun$ DCD Associate Planner
Patty Chamas, Jefferson County DCD Director
Philip C. Hunsucker, Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Meetino Results /Follow-up Action ltems
1. Greetinos and lntroductions
o lntroductions 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 Henera agreed that the agenda was appropriate for the meeting.
r Patty Chamas 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 informationalsession of the BoCC
and the Jefferson County Planning Commission on January 16, 2018.
o David Henera stated that he had a few comments to the draft development agreement on a
policy levelthat he expected to discuss.
Log 102 - Page 1 of8
2. Pleasant Harbor MPR Proiect Status
o 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. Henera 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.
o 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 additionalG-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 Jeffercon County BoCC and Planning
Commission.
3. Review and discussion of current draft Develooment Aoreement and attachments (Questions. answers
and discussion of aoreement nanative. hard cooies to be circulated)
a. Overview (Pattv 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
htto://test.co.jefferson.wa.usAA/ebLinkExternal/0/doc/1758577/Paoe1.asox. 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
commercialspace with resort related amenities, and 103 acres of naturalarea 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 lmpact Statement (ElS) in 2002tor the Brinnon Subarea Plan, a
programmatic EIS for this project in 2007, and a project specific supplemental EIS for this
project in 2015 (FSEIS).
2
Log 102 - Page 2 of 8
v. ln 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
Jefferson Coung Department of Communi$ Development used these 30 conditions as a
"punch list" for what the draft development agreement should contain.
vi. The 2008 Ordinance and the FSEIS callfor: MOUs with communi$, 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
tribaltreaty rights and cultural resource protection.
viii. Jefferson County Code 18.15.126 through 135 sets forth localcode requirements forthe
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. lf 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 localcodes 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 Coun$ web site, but the hard paper copies of
the following attiachments 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
3
Log 102 - Page 3 of 8
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 Concem About Develooment Beyond the Current Phasinq Plan.
o David Herrera mentioned that his friends in the Quinault Tribe ftequently talk
about additional development incidental to the development of a resort as being
a potential issue, and point to the Seabrook development. Mr. Henera asked,
what process would be required if the developer want to expand the development
to, say 1,200 units?
o Pattt Charnas responded that EIS's have an indefinite shelilife, so any
additionaldevelopment would have to be measured against the 2007 EIS and
the 2015 FSEIS to determine whether additional mitigation was required. lf the
proposed development would cause additional impacts another supplemental
EIS would be required.
o 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 Treatv Riohts (Section 2).
o Draft development agreement language:
Effectlve 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.
Bulld-Out Perlod: 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
Log 102 - Page 4 of 8
4
a
o
development agreement prior to completion of the project. The draft
development agreement term was drafted to avoid those issues.
iii. Native American Treatv Riohts (Section 4).
o Patt! Chamas stated there are 5 tribes with overlapping usualand accustomed
rights (U &A) in the area of the project.
o 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.
o David Henera 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.
o 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. Washinoton.
Based on what is known as the 1984 Hood CanalAgreement, 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 fln fishing was
covered by the court decisions in U.S. v. Washinoton. Shell fishing decisions in
U.S. v. Washinoton came later. ln the 1984 Hood CanalAgreement, 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.
o 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
federalcourts in the U.S. v. Washinoton decisions.
o Earl David Lees said when the U.S. Navy was doing mitigation in the area, it
recognized the Skokomish Tribe's primacy.
5
Log 102 - Page 5 of 8
. 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.
o Earl David Lees said Section 4.1.2 regarding wildlife management and the
naming of specific tribes should instead be made more generic.
iv. Recoonition of Areas with Cultural Sionificance (Section 5).
. 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 hat
Section 5 as written to favor the PGST is "revisionist history." Mr. Lees
expressed a concem that the PGST may be seeking to insert this $pe of
statement into a document like this to build an argument for its attempt to
increaseitsU&A.
o Patty Charnas stated the ketUes 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 Henera mentioned that the Skokomish Tribe were satisfied with the results
in the Cultural Resource Management Plan.
o David Herrera reiterated that the Skokomish Tribe believe that covering cultural
resources is the best way to protect them. ln 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 Coung that flooding the kettles is a
good solution for protecting the cultural resources.
o 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.
6
Log 102 - Page 6 of 8
. Philip Hunsucker referred the participants to Conditions O and (k) of the 2008
Ordinance. The Coung 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 resour@.'
o 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 Prooertv (Water Qualitv Monitorino Plan).
o Patt! Chamas stated that the plan for the development is for no discharges of
wastewater, surface or stormwater runoff to the Hood Canal.
o Ms. Chamas 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. Chamas strated that the monitoring
wells would detect chemicals and serve as sentinels or early warning for any
threats to nearby shellfish beds.
o 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 Manaoement (Wildlife Manaqement Plan).
r 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. ShellFishMitioation.
. Patty Chamas discussed the PGST's request for mitigation for shell fish impacts
caused by the development. Ms. Chamas stated that the PGST were requesting
400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years between the Duckabush and
Dosewallips shellfish beds and 1 million clam seed every 3 years for
Dosewallips.
o David Henera and Randy Lumper thought that was a lot of mitigation for the
alleged potential impact of the development.
4. Pleasant Harbor MPR draft zonino reoulations (available on the Jefferson Countv web site)
a. Overview (Pattv Charnas).
i. Ms. Chamas 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 Aftomey
because each of those positions were unfilled for about a year. The Planning
7
Log 102 - Page 7 of I
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 Communi$ 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 assistiance of the newly hired Chief Civil Deputy
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 Coung web site.
b. County's oossible next steos (Patty Chamas). 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 untilafter BoCC action approving a
development agreement and zoning regulations.
8
Log 102 - Page 8 of 8
JEFFERSON COUNW
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUT{IW DEVETOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 I email: dcd @co.jefferson.wa. us
www.co.jefferson.wa. us/commdevelopment
MEETING SUMMARY
Meeting with Members of the Skokomish Tribe, Jefferson County Commissioner David Sullivan,
and Jefferson County DCD
Meeting Date: Friday, November 3,20'17;10 a.m. to Noon; Public Works Conference Room
Participants: Guy Miller, Skokomish Tribal Council Chairman
Joseph Pavel, Skokomish Natural Resources Director
Alex Gouley, Skokomish Tribal Council/Habitat Manager
Kris Miller, Skokomish Cultural Resources Specialist
Dave Henera, Skokomish Fish and Wildlife Policy Advisor
David Sullivan, Jefferson County Commissioner District 2
Patty Chamas, Department of Community Development Direc'tor
Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner, Project Lead
After introductions, the meeting opened with Dave Henera stating that a review of the history of
the Skokomish Tribe in the Hood Canal is important to begin the meeting. Kris Miller opened a
map that displayed the Skokomish (also known as Twana) Tenitory. The tenitoria! boundary line
essentially follorre the Hood Canalwatershed boundary. All of the Hood Canal, its shorelines,
embayments, rivers and lands from the topographical peaks in Jefferson, Kitsap, and Mason
Counties are within an oblong circle wtth the northem extent just south of the Chimacum area in
Jeffercon and the southem extent in and around the vicinity of Shelton in Mason County. The
tenitory map displayed traditional sites for hunting, fishing, sheltfishing, campsites, shared sites,
other activity, and use locations that are recognized in the Skokomish Tenitory.
The history of uses, traditions and activities were described. A key point made was that because
of the Hood Canal's abundant resources, neighboring tribes including the Squaxin, Chimacum,
S'Klallam, Suquamish and others would visit - typically around salmon runs - however, visitors
always recognized they were in Skokomish tenitory. Over time, visiting tribal members manied
Skokomish members and extended families would visit and share the abundant resources of the
area, too.
The Skokomish is a proud tribal nation with a rich history of conducting their affairs wtth
politeness, courtesy and respect. Sharing the resources and allowing intermarrying was part of
that politeness and respect of others.
The Skokomish Tribe is very upset that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) is claiming a
culturally significant history in areas that are Skokomish tenitory. This is particularly the case for
the Black Point Peninsula where the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) is planned
for development. Skokomish members have gone on record with feedback to Jefferson County
conceming the MPR and impacts to Skokomish cultural resources and traditional uses, shellfish
and wildlife. The Skokomish believes their issues have been addressed by the MPR developer.
Log 99 - Page 1 of 3
During the environmental impact assessment of the MPR, the Skokomish conducted a site
review and analysis with Dr. Alison Brooks, WA State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO).
With respec{ to the kettles located on the MPR site, the Skokomish are satisfied that there is
nothing to suggest that substantial cultural or religious practices, including burial sites occuned
in the kettles or that rare or tribally important plants exist or were harvested in the kettles. The
edges of the kettles are where there is higher likelihood of culturally significant finds. Those
resouroes are subject to the MPR's cultural resources management plan. The Skokomish tribe
does not take issue with the history of PGST visiting the area - including the kettles - but
strongly disagrees with PGST's claim of a PGST+ulturally significant use or traditions in the
kettles since it is Skokomish teffiory not PGST, The Skokomish Tribe believe in certain
respects that using the kettles to hold water as is being proposed by the Pleasant Harbor MPR
permanently protects the culturally significant resources form discovery and impacts. When
asked about whether the SHPO would consult with the Skokomish Tribe about the PGST
application for traditional cultural property designation, the Skokomish tribe expects the SHPO
to consult with them. The Skokomish see PGST as attempting to rewrite history and are
confusing intermittent visitation to areas like Black Point with established Skokomish uses,
traditions, village activities. The Skokomish have primacy in the Hood Canalsince it is well-
recognized Skokomish tenitory. The PGST cultural resource claims are something about which
the Skokomish are very concemed.
The Skokomish recently completed a culturalsurvey of the entire Hood Canalshoreline, which
documented Skokomish histories and uses in Hood Canal shoreline areas, beaches and bays.
The Skokomish wish to get along with their neighboring tribes and to manage tribaltreaty rights
in a fair and equitable manner wtth the PGST, Klallam and S'Klallam tribes regarding fish,
shellfish and wildlife/hunting and conceming culturally significant areas and resources. The
Skokomish were surprised to leam that PGST claims that the Duckabush and Dosewallips
shellfish beds will have increased harvest pressure from the MPR that will negatively impact
what the PGST claims is7io/o of their shellfish harvest. The Skokomish are dismayed that
shellfish management practices are not being followed and stated that the PGST has no greater
claim on the shellfish resources than the Skokomish tribe. The Skokomish dispute the issues
PGST is claiming regarding the environmental and harvest impacts to adjacent shellfish areas
by the MPR.
The Skokomish stated their intent to put in writing the facts and issues discussed during this
meeting. Further, they will share documentation with Jefferson County that they submitted to the
Navy conceming primacy in the Hood Canal. A Navy mitigation fund is shared with PGST
however; the Navy does recognize Skokomish primacy and provides a larger share and favored
nation status to the Skokomish. This affects how any federal permit, fund, license or grant may
have to conduct tribal consultations in the future.
Jefferson County is deeply aware of and respectfrrl of the Skokomish presenoe in south county
Jefferson County and the Skokomish Tribe wish to continue to work together on shared issues
such as comprehensive planning, resouroe management, environmental protection and
community development. lt was mutually agreed that it is a good idea to maintain
communication and periodically meet together.
3
Log 99 - Page 2 of 3
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN]TY DEVETOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
3@-379-M50 | email: dcd @co.jefferson.wa.us
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
AGENDA
Meeting with Jefferson County Commissioner David Sullivan, Jefferson County DCD, and
Members of the Skokomish Tribe
Meeting Date: Friday, November 3,2017
Time: 10 a.m. to Noon
Place: Jefferson County Public Works Conference Room;
623 Sheridan Street; Port Townsend, WA 98368
lnvited:
Guy Miller, Tribal Council Chairman, Skokomish Tribe
Alex Gouley, Habitat Manager/Tribal Council Member, Skokomish
Dave Henera, Fish and Wildlife Policy Advisor, Skokomish Tribe
Kris Miller, Gultura! Resources Specialist, Skokomish Tribe
Joseph Pavel, Natural Resources Director, Skokomish Tribe
David Sullivan, Jefferson County Commissioner
Pafty Chamas, Department of Community Development (DCD) Director
Michelle Farfan, DCD Associate Planner
1. Welcome - Commissioner Sullivan
2. Round-table Introductions
3. History of the Skokomish Tribe in Hood Canal
4. Discussion:
a. Skokomish Tribe Topics of lnterest: Natural Resources, Economic Development,
Human Services, etc.
b. Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
c. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan update
5. Wrapup and Closing Remarks
Log 99 - Page 3 of 3