Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout047Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2, zcl6 P:36o179-445o F: g6o*79-445r piancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present Jochems; Present Call to Order at 6:30 pm District 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present Staff Present David W. fohnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Public in Attendance: Seven AunrovalofAsenda: Annroved Annroval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Does anyone want a hard copy of the FSEIS? Four. It's online as well. The reason for this meeting is to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the regulations for the Master Plan Resort at Pleasant Harbor, Either to approve, deny or approve with conditions. MS: I sent out the San f ose Certification that was mentioned in our last meeting as well as a link to the golf project just south of Shelton which was the first San Jose golf resort in the state, I think there's three in the state. With a descriptionoftheproject. Ifound,aslreadthroughtheirregulations,thattheyapplyforSanfosesuchasrestrictions on certain pesticides, there's more of a complete list of the kind of thing I was talking about. Seems like the appropriate level. It's something to look at and talk about. It's not the strongest certification so it might be appropriate for the level that we're considering, I don't know. It's something for us to discuss, I just wanted everybody to see it. Q: We were reviewing how communications will be handled through the portal? A: David Goldsmith's still working on that. There's some issue with a list serve. I'll ask about it tomorrow, CK: I had asked David Goldsmith about the list serve and he was working with Phillip Morley on that. CK: We have some unfinished business, I want to start and make sure I have the rest of the commissioner's dates on the short course on planning. I'm trying to coordinate with the City of Port Townsend and I did get reply's from five of you and one verbal, that worked. I need yours Mr. Sircely. MS: I'm fine with everything. I try not to miss anything. CK: I think out of the four dates that we put forward there's only one date that everyone whose replied so far could do and that was April 13 at 6:15. Kevin and Matt say yes so that's the date. Judy was going to come forward with a date and I called for a response from her Planning Commissioners, to the one date that all of us could do, because the Department of Commerce asks for three dates for them to pick from and we really only have one. STAFF UPDATES CK: We have two Commissioner's terms coming up in March, on St. Patrick's Day, one is Mr. Brotherton, who is not going to do this again. So staff and Planning Commissioner's came up with this card for you. The other is Mr. Felder is planning on returning. Openings will be posted after the date the term ends. Page r of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2cl6 p:36o179-445o F:36o379-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa. us ?? Yes, we're going to inform the Board of Commissioners of the upcoming vacancy and wait for their instructions CK: So after the posting applicants can make application. That's District 3. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR CK: We have a motion on the table to accept the Brinnon MPR regulations as written. We need to continue discussion. I've had some time to think of this process so far from the December drop of the final supplemental EIS to now. It would have been helpful if this process had gone differently, if we had gotten the FSEIS, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in December, with copies to all who needed them. Then if we had spent our Ianuary 6th and our February 3'd meetings on reviewing that and answering the questions that we now have, so that we can get really clear and orient ourselves to it. This is just the main EIS, printed on both sides. It's really quite big. In retrospect, that would have been the way to go. Instead, here we are, we've heard from the people in Brinnon, and we have started deliberations here and still have more questions. We're just getting a draft of the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribes letter to the planning commission and DCD this week and they will be voting on March L4,20L6 to accept this draft letter or not and make it final and available to everyone. CK: I just wanted to say that I feel I'm working very hard to wrap my mind around this very large project and I've heard that from some of the Planning Commissioner's too. I would like to see us move forward with that process of understanding the questions that we have better before we rush into making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CK: If someone would like to make a motion to table the question I would entertain that motion. The motion is to accept the regulations for the Brinnon MPR as written. ? I'd like to make a motion to table it, at least for now, there's a tremendous amount of discussion and we don't have the final concerns from the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribe until March 13th. I move that we table it. LS: I'll second that. DISCUSSION ? I'm curious about the impact. Is the Board of County Commissioner's going to move forward without our recommendation? ? Not at this point we're still in the process of developing a recommendation for them. ? We said to the tribe that we would wait for them and we haven't gotten their final response. Until we receive that, I think it's only courtesy, we're neighbors, to wait and here from them. We can certainly discuss more and flush out more details as we need them, GF: As I understand it, we're in the discussion phase of the existing motion. The discussion phase has no fixed end. We can have that motion on the table for as long and continue our discussions for today or forever. And the motion can remain. Page z of 13 LR: But we do have an amending motion on the table and we need to act on now 6zr Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA q8S68 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2oL6 P:36o379-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us CK: The main motion on the table now is that we move forward with accepting the regulations as written. Now there's a supplemental amendment that asks that we table the motion until we have heard from the S'Klallam Tribe with a final letter and to get some of our significant questions answered. ? : So will we curtail discussion of this topic at this meeting? CK: If we were to go ahead and ask the motion to table the question about accepting the regulations we would continue to talk about the Brinnon MPR. If we keep the main motion on the table, we can continue to discuss weather we will accept the regulations as they are. One of the options is to not accept the regulations at all. ?: We can go ahead and discuss the MPR now. It's already on the table. I think it was very good to get that letter from the tribe, Now we're awaiting their formal response, it's important too, and a response from the County. It's interesting the things they feel important. The way I interpreted it, they said, if this is going to happen, these are things that we'd like to see done to make sure that we don't Iose out, to have measures in place, in case something happens, in terms of contamination. So I'm interested how the County and the applicant will respond to that. It's worth waiting for. I think it dovetails with some of the things that I was thinking of amending. I would consider amending it to say San Jose certification or some other standard that demands a certain amount of accountability and review of processes in landscaping and the high intensity of work done on the land. So I guess the County's response to the tribe would probably frame how I would make that recommendation. So I'm comfortable waiting on that as well. ?: I'd like to address the second motion now Resort. Right? and be done with continue with deliberations on the Brennon ?: I've dug a lot into this. We are charged with the forming the regulations for this development with perpetuity. We've got one chance to get it right. Sorry I don't see this as being a slam dunk fast process. To have the motion on the table from our first deliberation meeting forever, I think it was a little bit cleaner just to table it and then bring it back up when we're ready. ?: So as a matter of procedure, if we table a meeting, we're no longer able to deliberate and tonight's meeting is over. Correct? CK: All in favor of the subsidiary motion to table the main motion. LS: Second. In favor 4 Opposed 5 That motion is defeated. CK: The main motion is to accept the regulations for the Brinnon MPR. ? And we can presume discussions, ? Back to my original point is that we allowed at an earlier meeting, to wait for a formal final response from the tribes, which we should do because we offered them that, and I'd like to hear their comments in full. As they stated the Council would have the opportunity to amend, change, etc. ? The letter I saw was from a technical person to their Tribal Council and it stated here's the issues we have. So at least those things we can look at and talk about. Page 3 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2oL6 P:36o179-445o F:96o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?: I understand their concerns with the shellfish industry and their harvest as well, as other things. Issues like proper pesticide or non- pesticide and issues with grounds keeping and everything else that was going on there. As I recall we had the issues of kettles come up, and how that is effected or not effected. I' m certainly interested in seeing any issues that folks have heard that have come up that we need to discuss. One of the issues that came up was if there was a failure for certain functions within the boundaries, weather or not the bond was sufficient or if the County was requiring a bond. 0f course they are. So that if things, for example, don't go well and we find there's chemicals leaching into groundwater, or what not, there's ways for us to go back and ask that they then utilize bonds to deal with those issues as they come up. Just like with the aquifer, the potable water issue. So it seemed to me that all of those issues were addressed. Df : Yes except in a slightly different way. Bonding is used for developing infrastructure. Roads, sewers, waterlines, that kind of thing. So that you have the infrastructure in place and then if the resort fails, if they're half done or not bond. The issue with the aquifer is monitoring and that's a different kind of mitigation. But they did have a mitigation plan. What the tribe is asking for is above the standard of SEPA. So we've determined that through the FEIS that they're compliant with SEPA. The tribe is asking for a higher standard based upon their treaty rights with the United States Government. So we've determined, their compliant with SEPA, as far as environmental impact. The tribe just wants a higher standard. More monitoring and that's probably not a bad idea. It meets and exceeds the law as far as SEPA goes. And when I read this letter, it's clear from the last that their intention, their action items, be included in the Development Agreement which is a separate entity or document from the regulations. And we're not specifically making a recommendation about the Development Agreement so when I spoke to David Goldsmith about this when I read it, our thought was when we get the final letter, we're going to forward it onto the Commissioners. They're the ones who decide The Development Agreement, and that's where they want this stuff to go. There's conditions in the agreement that would address this if the commissioners choose to accept it. There's an issue there between the tribe and the Sovergn Nation 37:43, and the Federal Government and fefferson County which, they didn't sign the treaty. So we want to let the Commissioners, as the authority for fefferson County to make that decision. You can still recommend that the Commissioner's consider this as a higher standard to the environmental review and impact of the resort. CK: So to clarify, the Developer Agreement, before you put it together, you would look to the commissioner's for direction on what they want to see included and they would send it back to you to develop the agreement and presumably they would act on it. D]: Yes, it's the same process you're going through and we have a draft of that Development Agreement just like these regulations. But that's strictly under their purview and decision making power. It doesn't come before the planning commission, but if there's something in the Development Agreement you don't like, you can make a recommendation for a change or addition. San f ose certification of the golf course, You could put a condition in the Development Agreement that says we recommend that you add that to the Development Agreement as an added protection to the water quality into your recommendations. But if you're talking about something that the tribe is suggesting, they clearly believe that's where it belongs. In the Development Agreement, not the regulations. Mr. Yager: Their recommendation of monitoring would be a Development Regulation? Df : Not necessarily, they're talking about developing a plan, part of that plan is monitoring, and develop that plan with the Developer, I assume they would be part of the monitoring process, to ensure that in fact it was getting done, and was acceptable to them based upon their negotiations with the Developer. Page 4 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTBS Tri-Area Community Center March 02,2oL6 P: S6ai79-445o F:36o179-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?: I want to take you to task on that just a bit because the Developer Agreement expires at a certain point (20 years?) but the development regulations go on for perpetuity. So they need to be in the regulations as far as I can see. ?: Anything that's regulatory by nature is implemented in the regulations. Df : You do have a point. I believe 20 years is the standard we have at Port Ludlow. Most of this is borrowed from Port Ludlow, because that's the only other one here. It's not the same exactly. CK: So if we made the recommendation to put some of this into the Developer Agreement and it expires in 2 0 years, and the developer takes 25 years to complete all the phases of the development what would be their responsibility to the County? ?: It depends on how you write it into the development end. And the wording can be as simple as from the significant completion, then the 20 years starts. You can make it any way you want so you're not short sheeting yourself, LS: One of my big concerns is the wetland impacts, The tribe has brought up that the wetland delineation that the court approved in 2007 has expired. And their asking for a new call which could be different. Df : The tribe has determined that the wetland and Kettle b is no longer under their jurisdiction. That's up to the Core and the Developer. LS: So that could affect the layout of the development. Whatwould happen if they maybe had to offer more mitigation? What would be the upshot? DJ: I wouldn't speculate on that. There's no wetland in kettle C. CK: They're asking for an inventory of the species in kettle b. So because it's not within their jurisdiction, that doesn't mean they're not claiming an interest. DJ: Right, because of their treaty rights. CK: One of the inconsistencies that I found of the FSEIS is in some places it refers to kettle b as impervious and other areas it's referred to as glacial till impervious. MJ: I have in the main document vol 1, chapter 2,page 11 is the first place that I came upon where kettle b is described as impervious, and there's another description elsewhere talking about the wetlands that didn't say it was impervious CK: So the only wetland that is in a kettle is in kettle b. Df : That's the one they want to fill in and create a wetland in kettle c. Which currently doesn't have a wetland. MJ: Section 3.7 there's a description of the wetland in there. I'm pretty certain it talks about something besides impervious soil, it talks about the infiltration in that section. It stated impervious, not semi impervious, I do have some issues, and had a chance to talk to a Certified Hydrologist, and he looked at the reports. He determined that the real water table was at least 10' under the bottom of kettle pond b. He somewhat did disagree with the impervious nature of it. So we're talking about a half- acre of wetland that's two feet deep, that has one acre foot Page 5 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2,20:6 P:36o179-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us MJ; I think the reference to the hydric soils into the bottom of kettle pond b, that wetland area is relatively impervious, well it's not impervious but because of the nature of those soils, let's just pretend all those silts coming down into the bottom over time, become less permeable, that's why it holds water up to 2' deep just on the bottom. As the soil tests have shown all around the site in the soil sampling, the rest of that entire kettle, in fact most of the site is quite pervious. So you take this kettle, the bottom of it has silted up over millennia, that bottom part holds water, but as the rain fills it can then seep laterally and vertically because it gets into the surrounding soils. fust that half acre is impervious enough so it holds water. Kettle c is all pervious soil so when it rains, all that run off runs in there and it just disappears. MJ: I noted that the wetland was created by impact from man, I'll assume that it was in the 90's when it was logged, I will note that it was the USGS topo maps that I reviewed, the most common one was dated 1950 something and it was revised in 1985, it shows no wetland in there, so it's my feelings that the wetland was created by the impact of man. It is a seasonal wetland and a class three. It hasn't always been there. I've felt that the clay deposits from the logging wash down into the bottom, sort of sealing it up a bit. There's still a tremendous amount of water that goes in through the sides. We just took out a half an acre out of twelve acres we still have eleven and a half acres of pervious very efficient impervious soil. So that's one of my issues there. So I kind of think that the other description I was looking at in the wetland description kind of formulates into what you were saying. Maybe it wasn't worded the best, oh or maybe when they talk about impervious they should just talk about the floor of kettle b. But I've got a lot more. Any questions? TB: Assuming that they use them at all, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to change a regulation or do something? MJ: I understand, and the tribe understands, that if kettle b and kettle c are preserved and not modified, I think that's what the tribe wants. And I totally understand that it's an absolutely critical component to the present design. Everything runs into that kettle. All of the surface water, what's not perking back through, in aquafer recharge, what's not going into the other areas, is going back into the kettle. It's my feeling [& I'll cut back into what the tribe says) TB: I'm trying to get to the conclusion to what you've said so far, I understand to what you're saying about the issues. What do we do to address the aquifer recharge? MJ: Very clearly, there's 760 acre feet of storm water coming into this whole development. And it's their intention to increase that to 840 or 804 acre feet, so there will be a net increase of aquifer recharge. That's a good thing. I understand the salt water interference that transitions along the beach and how important that is. So I guess what I'm feeling here is I'm going to come back to monitoring for contamination. That's where I'm at. If the tribes wishes are implemented that's major changes. Because they clearly want to see kettle b and c preserved for cultural purposes in perpetuity for their further generations so they can show their kids and they want access to the sites too. So I'm trying to get around to what other alternatives do we have. And I full well know that if they're not putting their 280,000 gallons Peak Build-out of waste water into kettle b that the only other alternative is that rapid injection thing that we saw at Dosewallips in and by the way that was 25,000 gallons this is 280,000 gallons. It still goes into the aquifer. But where I'm going to is the monitoring wells, which there is a minimum number of Page 6 of 13 total, don't really know how many gallons that it but I think the issue I have is that the amount of rainfall for 12 acre lined pond, goes around the complete circumference, so I've pointed out 100' of fill, that would have to be compacted to some degree, and a liner put in there. I saw that if it comes over the edges of the liner it goes back into the groundwater. It was impervious before, but now it's soaking up water. I also saw the provision for construction of a weir in the event that it really does overflow it goes into kettle pond c. 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES TriArea Community Center March c.2,2cl6 P:860379-4450 F:36o379-445t plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us monitoring wells, and in the Department of Ecology Report, their monitoring salt water intrusion, and their monitoring conductivity for, I assume, dissolved solids. I've got questions about ecstatic column of water and how are they drawing their samples which was not in there. How do you get a sample that is out of the aquifer and not out of a stagnant tube? But what's not there, and I've not found it and you can correct me if you know where it's at: there is no monitoring for the nitrogen and the phosphates that are applied to the golf course. There's no monitoring that I can see anywhere for that. And no monitoring for any of the sewage/people contamination regardless of how. So what we've got here is we've got 280,000 gallons a day into a vessel that contains 60,000,000 gallons. There's a lot of dilution going on here. I think that they're looking for the standard of parts per million possibly. I don't know what the standard is but I didn't find any testing for that. I'm not a big fan of rapid infiltration but I think ultimately we might have to address saving, or not affecting, kettle pond b or c and have to Iook at the waste water again. ??: Do we know ol or can we find somewhere, a Best Practice for monitoring in this situation. ??: The tribe had a suggestion in there. I guess, the first question to me, if I was a research scientist is: what are the chemicals I'm going to look for? Well, nitrates are one of them. There's probably a lot of them. And the second questions is: Is there ambient chemicals already there? I don't think there's any sfudies, I haven't seen anything. The Department of Ecology's only done saltwater intrusion, it's a wonderful report quite lengthy and there are several wells that have been abandoned and I think there's only a total of four that have significant amount of salt water in them. There's a Department of Health Monitoring Station that's at the mouth of Pleasant Harbor but that's looking for bio-toxins and that works in conjunction with regulations with WDFW on shellfish closures. Near as I can tell with that DOH Monitoring station is that there's no chemical monitoring, So what I'm after to protect the aquifer, is that we've got that salt water interference, fresh water interference. The salt water stays low, the fresh water comes in over the top, the whole beach area, and if there's contaminates in that, then every time the tide comes in, they wash down into the Ducca Bush Delta and every time the tide goes out they wash down into the Docci Wallops Delta. It's significant. I don't know what's an unhealthy standard vs. do we want any at all there? So the net result of that is if kettle pond b and c aren't effected during the construction process and I did ask this question of staff yesterday, if we have to change the wastewater and storm-water plans, I asked if that would provoke another EIS process and the answer was if we have less of an environmental impact then no. Good. I'd really like to avoid that too. DJ: Right, I said we'd review it and possibly do an addendum. ??: I would like to have, I think there's twelve action items on that, even though it has to do with the Development Agreement and maybe not Development Regulations, I wouldn't mind a discussion on those twelve action items. Because where we're at is, we don't want to put the developer out of business, we want a workable solution. We want the environment protected and I think we all want that. ??: I think there's also another issue, quickly, Washington State University [WSU), their low impact development work that they've done here in the Puget Sound is considered some of the best in the world. Right now I deal with on a project by project basis, digging holes in the ground, putting in soil amendments, running all of my storm water into the hole in the ground, and then it recharges aquifers, it filters, it does all these great things and you're able to monitor in the material in the rain garden. And that kettle is nothing more than a large rain garden that could very well be eloquently deal with the issue of storm water. I agree that the monitoring needs to be there, I believe that you'll be able to talk to the point, I believe that the list of compounds that they're using in the landscaping, I don't recall have anything with phosphates in it. They provided a list of what and why they're using and I can double check the list. Certainly WSU, has some of the leading minds in this kind of discussion are right here in our back yard, so that might be one resource that we can tap into. I can even make a contact and ask them to come and talk to that point. Page 7 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2,2cl6 p:36o379-449o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ??: l'd been wondering if the DOE is worried about the salt water in the well? And worried about aquifers and water levels, etc. Is that DOE or DOH that monitor contaminants? Df : That would be DOE but it sounds like you're talking about chemicals that aren't being regulated? ??: I understand that the feeling in the documents is: all of the chemicals being applied to the golf course remains in the grass and web of roots. But I also saw where there is engineered into layers of gravel and sand underneath those to allow the natural water to go through. So the question I have is: what's getting washed through? I'm not buying into that it just gets applied and goes away. I think there's going to be some that gets into the ground water How much? What levels? MS: I think if could just summarize, what it looks like is that there's mandatory components, and then there's more voluntary components because of the type of green restoration we see in river is probably would be considered as one of the voluntary components. And then there are a set of mandatory components that falls quite a bit short of what would be considered organic or sustainable. Certification. At the same time it's focused on fish, in particular young salmon. One chemical that I pulled out [that's prohibited) is on our list. Any chemical that I can think of is on that list. There's a lot of them. The advantage of asking the applicant to adhere to a standard is that standard is updated as soon as new products come out on the market, And it's a third party, so it takes it out of the County or publics control to a degree, to be nit-picky. So I think that it would be appropriate to offer an amendment to what's currently on the table, which then can be tabled at the end of the meeting. Regardless of what the Tribe comes up with, regardless of how the County responds to the Tribe, regardless of whether or not they move forward as using kettles as the design, these are still things that we would want in the agreement. Regardless of how the project would move forward, I don't think there's a problem with us sending a clear message that we want the same in State Certification in addition to monitoring of nutrients and contaminants integrated into that. It's prefty basic I think. I think almost everything the applicant has done to date, appears to be in line with the Salman Safe Certification. When you get certified with Salman Safe they actually help you design your project and it appears that this project has been designed with that thinking in mind. Again there's a lot of voluntary components. There's probably some things that could be better, like with any projecq more impervious surfaces. Maybe some holes in roads. They're allowing for the fact that this could be subscribed to by major projects that cause large amounts of impacts. I'm not sure that that's a disqualifier. It's not a shoe in, it's a certification that you have to fight for and work towards. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to save fish. LS: The beauty of using young fish, salmon, is that they are the indicator species, of life. They are among the most sensitive, shellfish and salmon. If you're not effecting young salmon you're doing very well. CK: This Salmon Safe Certification is like an organic label. It actually increases the value of your product. I think it's something that the resort can advertise that they're green and salmon safe. They're right on Hood Canal, they need to be able to say these things so I don't think it's necessarily just additional economic impact I think it could be a marketable future. MS: I think it could be a nice gesture for the Commission to make in terms of letting the process play out and yet indicating that we're not just sitting on our hands, that we're actively thinking about 1. If this should happen and2. If it does happen, how could it protect the public? CK: It's important to note that with the nutrients and fertilizer's is not only the quality but the amount. So in perfect application in theory, it's all used up, So if soil scientists were applying the nutrients to the landscaping at the golf course, that would probably be happening very accurately. It may not be soil scientist that are apply fertilizer. So then the question is over application and it doesn't get filtered or treated out. And it ends up in the Page 8 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2oL6 Pt 860379-445U^ F:36o379-445t plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us aquafer or the canal where balloons and dye offs cause great problems. It's not only the monitoring of the chemicals the contaminants but also the nutrients because they won't be processed out. My personal opinion is we have to address that chemical use at a level that puts all of us in compliance with the needs of Puget Sound and Hood Canal because this is not getting better. We're talking about putting a new small city on Hood Canal. This is a big deal, it's important. It's not to say that we shouldn't also, all of us, at all levels, address some of these chemicals. TB: I'm impressed that the Commissioner's originally said design this so that there's no runoff. And if that works, no run off means anything that they put on top shouldn't get in the water down there. This is a good first line of defense. There's probably no need to put in a 2nd 3rd or 4th line of defense too, unless we anticipate that need. Let's make sure it's the safest we can do it. LS: Given that, the runoff will be infiltrated, ultimately it will infiltrate on site. What is to stop lateral movement and having it still end up down on the shore line? I live at Cape George and a lot of water moves through laterally and we're having big erosion problems because of it so that's something I'd like to understand better, how is that not going to happen? ??: All of the geo technical studies that were done, and just looking at the cliffs on the south side. They're aren't a great number of seeps coming out of those. And the soil samples that were taken, the water moves down, not laterally. Because it's so permeable that it's not driven sideways. ??: Overall it's a pretty decent aquifer recharge area that a lot of places would like to have. ??: Bio-toxins with the DOH Report, Section 3.5-1 reports very few historical closures in there related to bio-toxins with the exception of the beach right off of Brinnon. Basically the Doci Wallops and the Ducca Bush never get closed for shellfish harvesting is how I interpreted that. Let me summarize: There's three pollution sources that I see: There's the golf course with the chemicals on it. There's the runoff from the parking lots, which I'm very clear goes into bioswales or rain gardens which is filtered through the grass into those areas and then the clean water is piped back to kettle pond b or it permeates right there. The third source of pollutants is Section 1, page 18 which is in the tables there, refers to chemicals used in sewage treatment process. Those chemicals they were talking about hauling off the heavy waste off of site, but about any chemicals used in the waste treatment process. I want to know if there's going to be any anti algae chemicals put into kettle pond b, and what the chemical will be. ??: I don't believe that there's any plan to put any anti algae products into the pond. The pond is currently sized as 120,000,000 gallons. That's about 40'. So the pond you're referring to at Port Ludlow is probably quite shallow, and would heat up and promote algae growth. Because this pond is so big, algae won't be a problem. The Sewage Treatment Plant produces Class A affluent, which is just short of drinking water. It's very clear. There's coagulants that you put into sewage treatment plants that helps solids drop out, which are trucked away. There's chlorine residual, which also has to be processed out before it hits the pond. In order to produce that affluent, there's a number of processes that are taking place in the plant. The water quality leaving the plant is tested continuously. Some of the contaminants you're worried about getting into the pond, and then being irrigated out of the pond onto the fairways for the plants to uptake, is where the treatment continues by default, it's not required. When you irrigate it across all of that grass, it helps further improve the water quality going through the soil year round. The Water Quality Testing that DOE is requiring is water quality testing that's required out of drinking wells as well. So those samples that come out of drinking water wells are tested thoroughly at all levels. DOH will monitor those as well, As far as sampling out in the salt water there is a memorandum of understanding that's been produced saying were the samples can be taken in cooperation with the Tribes. And if the Tribe comes up with more sampling stations that they want, fine. That's not an issue. Page 9 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March 02,2ot6 p:36o179-449o F:86o379-445t plancomm @co jefferson.wa. us CK: I would like to continue deliberations on the motion on the table at the Brinnon MPR on April 6, 2016. The next meeting will be on03/16/76 a Comprehensive Plan Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Todd Wexman from Port Townsend: An architect, planner and teacher I've worked alongside sav\ry, Brinnon group members in opposition to Garth Mann's plans to build a rich man's Shang-ra-la alongside the Hood Canal. Much of what I've written on the subject has been scanned for placement on your website. Please take a look. For now let us look back some 15 - 20 years when a couple fefferson Co Planners got together with Brinnonites to talk of their hopes of the town's future. During these events much value was assigned to a natural setting Pregnant with Possibility. For backpacker's, camper's and boaters alike all agreed that the town center, which then as now, might be described as having no their there, was in dire need of imaginative help. All of the above was passed over when corporate home builder Garth Mann burst onto the scene. Having purchased an abandoned camp ground and marina, on prime waterfront property, he cherished plans to build what is now in financial circles as CID. These are corporate sponsored private sub divisions. Often times gated to keep the rebel out, sometimes not. CID's have been around a while but really took off in the 1970's. When financially strapped local governments saw in them a way to add property taxes to their rolls without substantial investments. Here and elsewhere County Commissioners, here and elsewhere moved heaven and earth to promote CID's, bending rules and regulations in the process. Not always smooth sailing for NEPO National Environmental Protection Ordinance, required that every recommendation for future legislation significantly effecting the human environment must include a detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action. It's adverse environmental effects, alternatives to it and the long term resource commitments it would entail. Ostensibly projects that caused too much in the way of a destructive environmental impact would be outlawed after an EIS had proved a point had been revised by a higher authority but this was only implicit and now a days the filing of an EIS is much too often considered a pro form of nuisance. Much to my dismay Garth Mann's company town may well become a reality. An EIS has been helped along by County Staffers to in large part suite Garth's needs. Well, after all, he's paying them for it. Jean Ball from Quilcene: I like to refer to myself as a rabid tree hugger. I've frequently seen fish die offs in south parts of the Sound and I'm concerned about phosphates and nitrates making their way into the waterway. Barbara Moore-Lewis from Snohomish: I built a house in Brinnon and have been in there for about eleven years. We've all took care of our land. Didn't use chemicals, had our wells, etc. Here's this discussion like it's this wonderful alternative with all these chemicals in the environment and in the Hood Canal as if you allowed private homes there it would be worse. That wasn't my experience there. People where very respectful of the land. That's why we lived there. If we didn't want to do that there were other places we could live. And it's really much harder to weed than use chemicals. Phillip Morley: County Administrator: I've got two comments: First: I just wanted to complement the Planning Commissioner's. Once you got past your parliamentary impasse, I witnessed you listen to each other and engage in thoughtful dialogue. So I wanted to complement you for listening to each other and allowing each other the space to ensure all points of view were heard. Secondly: I wanted to go back to an item that was discussed earlier in the meeting and that was the Development Regs vs. the Development Agreement; Certainly under the planning Enabling Act, The Planning Commission has the responsibility and a duty to address the Development Regs but I think it's certainly permissible for the Planning ment, which the Board of County Commissioners, as Page ro of r3 Commission to offer commentary on the Development 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center Mareh 02,2c16 P'.56o379-445o Fi 360$29-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us David has said, they're in charge of ultimately what gets adopted as the Development Agreement but I think they would be interested and welcome, not expecting you to offer comments, but if you wished to, I think they would be welcomed and certainly considered in their deliberations. Brenda McMillan from Port Townsend: I'm concerned about the lack of a bond. There's a lot of earth moving and tree cutting. There is no bond in place that would recompense the county for destruction of land that could happen if the project fails. FOLLOW.UP ITEMS: LS: There is an issue that I'd like addressed we didn't address that the Tribe brought up. That's the elk crossing on Hwy 101 and the path that the Golf Course and other lawns could serve as kind of a nuisance attraction. In Sequim that's a big issue and they have that collared herd that actually turns on those warning lights when they approach the highway. We possibly have to Iook at something like that. Do we need to hear from Department of Fish and Wildlife on the movement pattern or maybe the Tribe has some resources that they know of. That issue the Tribe raised has got my attention. TG: I'm iust anticipating that if the Commission or any set of it's members believes there needs to be increased monitoring, or any type of monitoring, that somehow we need to get some research on what the Best Practice is. I just don't want to get to a place, where the conclusion is this is not good without monitoring and no proposal to deal with it. ??: I'm kind of concerned about the tidal zones around that peninsula in the Ducca Bush Delta down there. Can you ask ifthere's any recent eel grass surveys? I'm not even sure there is but eel grass there, I believe there is and it is an indicator species for the salmon. LS: Where did we leave things with the Tribe? Are they going to present to us? Df : We're meeting with them on 03/L8/L5 with the planning staff and DCD so I can talk to them, and ask them to present to you. ??: Is there any way to get, on the Water Quality Testing, this might be another question for the Tribe, what methods are used and what chemicals are being looked at for and the methodology. And how long are they to continue? Forever? Is there a timeline? ??: I'd like the staffs recommendation on the content of the Development Agreement that should be extended in the regulations. Is there something in the Draft Agreement that should go in Title 17? I believe the Draft Agreement itself had a 20 year expiration. I'd like to make sure, ourselves, what ought to be in the Development Agreement vs. The Regulations. Should it be in perpetuity or is 20 years Iong enough? ??: In the Department of Ecology their recommending 10 years on the Water Quality, ??: When they re-ballasted at the port area down there, the plan was to pave the whole yard but they didn't have the money to. So the ballasted material is a sand & gravel mix and the put French drains in to collect it all. They were required by the Department of Ecology for the tin and copper and all that stuff. Everything was fine for about ten years, they were using Best Management Practices there. The wind was blowing the dust off the tarps. The first effort I believe was a grant from the Department of Ecology. It didn't work. They yanked it out and did something different. Page rr of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2cl6 Pt g6oi79-445o F: B6o3Z9-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us CK: DavidyouguyswillbeworkingonthePublicParticipationPlanforthatnextmeetingon03/76/16. ??: Do we have a scheduled time when we start jumping into the elements of the Comprehensive Plan? We've got to get into the elements. Df : Part of the scoping process which is part of the Public Participation Plan I'm proposing is going to identify what elements need work and which don't. We will talk about that at the next meeting. There's mandatory elements based on law that need to change. You're all going to get a timeline with the schedule on 03/L6/16 and then the Public Participation Plan. TG: This is where we were about nine months ago. We need a Director and an Assistant Director. The schedule as we have it now, allows the Commissioners three months. Last time it was sixteen months. If we don't get more support from the Commissioner's and Mr. Morley, so that they've got more support, so that we've got the support, this isn't going to get done and we're ALL [collectivelyJ going to end up in a jam. We've got to get this thing going. DJ: David Goldsmith was at the last meeting, what did he talk about? Schedule. That it was extremely tight. ??: We've moved up our meetings as a Planning Commission, to get going. CK: It's the perfect storm: No Director, No Assistant Director, the largest development project the County's ever seen, and the Comprehensive Plan. TG: There's no doubt in my mind, that there will be at least one, probably three or four extensions by the State before we get this done. We have a choice. Either we do it the quick and dirty way, or we get extensions. We're not going to do it the way we want to without extensions. I guarantee you we won't get it done without extensions. It's not possible. To involve the public, and release the plan, the way we want to do it, it will be at least a year and a half before our commission is ready to present to the other commission. OBSERVER COMMENT: PM: I wanted to address, as a matter of law, the question of further extensions on the deadline for our Comp Plan Update. The deadline for our Comp Plan is set through by RCW through State Statute. And under the statute there are certain criteria that allowed us to get a two year extension, which was offered us by the Department of Commerce. We've taken that. We're lacking further action by the State Legislature. Commerce have no further latitude to offer us. So at that point, if we don't meet the deadline, then were throwing ourselves at the mercy of the State not to impose sanctions. They don't have the latitude to give us a formal extension without further action by the State Legislature. ??: That's important to know and understand. At least from my point of view, that dictates how much detail and energy we can put into this and meet the criteria. Because if what you're saying is true, and I know how the County Commissioner's work, pretty well, they'll need more time than we've allocated in the Plan. If they have to meet the statutes they will. The question is, how is this organization going to get through what we want to do, in less than a year? So what's that nine meetings? CK: I think there is an option for us. We do that minimum we have to do to meet that deadline. Then we can still do some Comprehensive Plan amendments ahead of having to do them next time. We want to do. So those loftier policy's we want to get at we can take into next year and take the time. The part that's not mandatory, we're not under a sentence to do by a certain time. Page rz of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March cz,2cl6 p: B6oi79-445o F: g60379-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us TG: I'm not upset, I'm just trying to make a point that the rubber meets the road and our minds are not in sync with what we need to have. If the Commissioners are expecting a relatively simple set of ideas and changes, and we give them a Comprehensive set of changes, are we going to be out of sync? CK: No. I'm at the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting often. They are well aware of what we're wanting to do. Maybe we should all meet before our next Comprehensive Plan meeting and propose how we're going to do it. ??: Mr. Morley do you agree that the Commissioners are pleased and supportive of our efforts to make major changes to the Comprehensive Plan? PM: I would say the Commissioners have not asked for major changes. Given the fact that the population forecast are strikingly similar to what they were last time we did a Comp Plan and given that there are no large demographic shifts within the County that we've seen, I don't think there's a large expectation for a major change in division for the future for the County. However I'd say there's also an openness for considering enhancements. I think that the discussion that you're having, it would be a good idea within the next month or two, to have a check in with the board, once you have a better sense of how you might be approaching this. Are we on track? Are we potentially bringing you County Commissioner's something that you will or will not like? So that they can tell us at the front end so, we don't bring them rocks that they don't like, and they ask us to bring them different rocks. Along this lines, Monday, I believe David Goldsmith plans to talk a little bit about the timeline with the commissioner's and about the Public Participation Grant that we've received from the Department of Commerce for this year. It may be a time to listen in, not for dialogue. It will be late in the day. I think two things Mr. Giske is saying are good: 1. a caution of looking at the time you have and your appetite for changes and reconciling the two and 2. at some point soon when you have a better idea of the scope and timing of what you think you're bringing forward is to check in with Commissioner's and say: Here's where we think we're headed, tell us if this is in the right direction. CK: Thank you for your time. I want to say that while the demographics may not have changed, other things have increased their urgency and changed in our community. So those are our concerns with the environment and with the economy and housing. There have been big changes I think like global climate changes we are feeling the urgency. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled tor 03/L6/2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at B:45 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 20L6. Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD Page 13 of 13 (Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 Pt g60179-4450 F:36o179-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6ar Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present fochems; Present Call to Order at 6:30 pm District 3 Vacant: Giske: Present Hull: Present Staff Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Patty Charnas, Director Public in Attendance: Six AnnrovalofAsenda: Annroved Approval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS L.S. I broke my wrist and I'm in a cast for six weeks. K.C. Sorry for being late. Do we have any minutes to approve? D.f. They were emailed to everyone to review I have some here. C.K. It's not on the menu to approve. D.f . f ust take a look at them, if there's any glaring mistakes, email us back. She's having trouble identifying whose speaking. K.C. It would still be good to have last month's minutes in front of us now. Then she can go back and catch up. C.K. I agree with what Kevin's saying and what we really need to have the person that's Wping minutes at the meeting so she can understand what's going on. We were promised that early on, that she was going to come to meetings, and I've never seen her, I don't know who she is. I think that would make a big difference. D.f. Well that's going to be up to the new director. K.C. Has a determination been made? D.f. Yes, it's Patty Charnas Kitsap County. C.K. I was able to participate in the interview process. It was B:00 to 4:00. I was impressed with the process and that we had four strong candidates, before the last person pulled out. And all four of them had a relationship with this area, knew about fefferson County and wanted to be here. I thought that was amazing and I thought it really gave credibility to my spending B:00 to 4:00 there. Knowing that those people knew where this place was and wanted to be here as opposed to they were flying into somewhere and got a rental car and it's one in ten interviews they're doing this week. I was very happy with the process. P.M. Good evening commissioners. Pleased to hear you talking about Patty Charnas. |ust to give you a little bit of back ground on her. For the last eleven years she's been with Kitsap County, most recently as the Division Manager of Planning and Environmental Programs, prior to that she was a Senior Planner for Land Use and Environmental Planning, also with Kitsap County. She previously had served as a Branch Chief with the U.S. Department of the Interior and also as an Environmental Scientist U.S. E.P.A., Region 3. She's poorly educated, with two Master's Page r of eo Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-445o F:36o379-445t plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us t 6er Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Degrees. One in Public Health and Education. She also had previously lived in f efferson County and had two years as Government Affairs to the Director of the Port Townsend Paper Company. That was back in 2000 to 2002. Of relevance to you Commissioner's and Planning Commission Geeks, like the rest of us, Patty managed Kitsap CountSr's present Comprehensive Plan Update Process that they're just completing. She also directed their update of their Shoreline Management Plan, she also had shepherded through the completion of an update and a remand on the critical areas ordinance. So she's done the long range planning and the Development Regulations work but also has worked in what's called current planning which is the permit side of the house. Not building permits but rather Iand use permits. So she had helped manage that and worked in that as well. She is a yellow belt in lean and has been very involved in process and permanent improvement in Kitsap County. So you may recall our own DCD Department has done some training in lean which significantly improved single family permitting in fefferson County. She's well poised to continue that evolution and empowerment of staff to improve its own working conditions and the way the work flows. She's also strong, she did a hand out for my Panel, showing, for example, some of her communications pieces that she's done and also excitedly some metrics that she's helped Kitsap County get posted online to be able to show permit timelines and how close we are to meeting our own goals for turn around. So things like that, that improve transparency for the Department as well as helps align us on the staff side, for what are we shoot for, again it's part of that lean process to empower staff to look at how to take out the silly stuff that we do to do things that are more meaningful, value added work. I'm very excited, her Employment Agreement will be before the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, and assuming they don't leave me hanging high and dry, and approve the agreement we hope for her to join us on Tuesday, f uly 5tt. C.K. The process included a lot of different people from the County. We had the Public Works Director, Ioel Peterson from the DCD, Lance Bailey, Port Townsend's Planning Department Director came people from Real Estate, fulie Boggs, whose a farmer on the Water Conservation District Board and a long time fefferson County resident, George Younst, and this was just in my group and there were four different stations full of people who were interviewing and that was just the people in my station. So I was very impressed with the process. P.M. It's great to see the community recognize the importance of this position and help in this way. We have a very key vacancy right now which is the Planning Manager. That's part of the management team within DCD and over- see's the day to day operations of both long range planning and current planning as well as helps with things like Community Development and Economic Development. You may recall Stacey Preda? Formerly Stacey Hoskins had been our long time Planning Manager but we lost her as she ran for County Treasurer. So we lost our Planning Manager and looked to fill it while Carl Smith was still here and were unsuccessful at that time but have kept that vacant so Patty will now be able to hire her own Planning Manager. ?? Are there any other vacancies? We're going to need some help with the Comprehensive Plan Update. I don't know if that would be a consultant or a new staff. ?? Does the new director have any experience with Comp Plan Updates? P.M. Yes, she's managing Kitsap County's Comp Plan Update C.K. She had a lot of great ideas too. ?? I guess I could email but in the minutes there were two terms that I use that were frequently misspelled or misinterpreted: San fose is Salman Safe and there was another descriptor I used to describe fertilizer when it's made into a pellet it's called pelletized. In the future getting minutes it would be really helpful to have the text searchable so that we can find things easier. Page e of zo Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P:36o379-445o Ft 960379-4451 planeomm@co jefferson.wa.us STAFF UPDATES D.f . We've recruited and authored a position for our new director, Patty Charnas. She's from Kitsap County, she's an Environmental Planner and a Manager. She's going to start fuly 5, 2076. She's going to be in until the end of the month and David will assist her for a few days. D.j. I'm still working on the marketing campalgn for the public participation part in the comprehensive plan update and we'll have something for you next meeting, and we'll have the dates for the roadshow meetings. The photo shoot didn't happen today, it was too hard getting people together so we'll use photo's from people in the community. It should be nice. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR C.K. I want you to know how much effort and conversation has gone into getting us to this moment. Lorna and I spent three hours yesterday at DCD with David W Johnson and David Goldsmith, Brian Smith and sorted out some of the questions that you've seen in the notes of the edited draft of the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort Regulations. So since you've got those, we have now spent a bunch of time trying to see where we are on some of those. You just brought this. ?? I spent a couple hours today consolidating legal's comments with staff to make sure they were reflected in this document. It is a new version. C.K. It does not include the work Lorna and I did yesterday ?? Is this the document that they revised that you then commented on? ?? Yes. They revised the draft, gave to me and I made comments, I gave it to Legal and he made comments, and I consolidated those comments together. C.K. It is my goal that we are going to take an action plan. P.M. You have a little bit of more time you have until Iune 20tt. That was the deadline that was given in the letter from the County Commissioner's. C.K. We have before us, if I were to simplify I've been thinking a lot about the Iogic tree. And the smoothest, clearest path through the logic tree. I really want to find that smooth clear path and not get lost in details and it's important to me that we get something done. One way to articulate where we are: We have the original motion sitting on the table to accept the draft regulations for the PHMPR, as proposed back in February. That's one option, to vote on the regulations as they were first proposed by the developer and are pretty much intact. D.f. We added the additional requirements, 17.60,040 so that anything that isn't covered in this, would be covered in Title 18. This is exactly what we needed in Port Ludlow. So when we're reviewing a project if it's silent some aspect by critical error is silent, Iike Title 17 often is, we would go to Title 18 and that would apply. And then we added enforcement, TT .60.130 because there wasn't a provision for that in Title 77 we wanted to make sure that was in there, So those are the two sections that we added. C.K. So largely what presented plus those additions. Then the next piece, you could say we have one or two more drafts. There's the version of that document that Lorna and I took, with hours of effort, to try to incorporate some Page 3 of zo f 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P: g6o$29-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us of the concerns that have come to light in reviewing and researching this project from my and her points of view and what we gleamed from the public comment, letters that have been sent to the Planning Commission, the DCD and the Board of County Commissioner's over fifteen years, and other Planning Commissioner comments. So that was our attempt to move forward, I know David's been busy with other things. We wanted to have something by the May lBtt meeting but didn't. What we got was the main output from that was the Planning Commissioner's wanted to see those edits go through staff and see them come back to the Planning Commission from staff. ?? What I recall we handed out minutes is tough, and again I'll say it I've been saying it for a year and a half. The Commissioners are responsible for funding us, to have those minutes. It's very difficult to do this business when you don't have them. I specifically asked for the original text so I could compare it to the changes the two of you have made outside of this room. I appreciate the effort but it seems like I still don't have it. I've got your changes and comments on legal's changes and I still don't have the original text and we're supposed to finish this tonight? D.f . The original text is still in here. That's the black that's underlined. The strike through is what they deleted. The blue is theirs, the red is mine and I just have a few minor things. The exemption section 17.60.0605, the marina. C.K. Commissioner, so you know, Word has a function called track changes and it print's out in different colors depending on whose computer it's printing from. Because it assigns the person that's opening the document a color, and then the others. So if you printed this out at home you may have different colors than what is here in the packet. So if you're looking at different colors and it doesn't make sense. L.S. One of the goals I had in mind approaching this is that these would be regulations that would apply to whomever came to the door and wanted to develop a MPR on his site. So I took out references like Statesman and things Iike that. C.K. I wanted to do two things first. One was to articulate some kind of straw poll to tell us where we are because in the past we've struggled to make progress. I want to make progress tonight so we can get to a vote. I assume you've all read this, we got it on Saturday. So I assume you all have some kind of a sense of this document. Weather it incorporates the legal requirements or not we can talk about how those fit into our charge but I'd Iike to get a sense of where we are. Here's where I'm getting: If the general feeling is some majority of us are not on board of these edits, we could be wasting a lot of time and not getting anywhere. So getting a sense of where we all are would be helpful. R.H. I know that my fellow Commissioners are itching for some sort of discussion. I'm in no hurry. I think everyone should have their say here and I'm ok with a straw poll. M.S. I would ask that we do a straw poll really quickly and not talk about it? And check out a couple of issues that are really big issues that we've addressed in here and get a general feeling for where we are? My sense is that there's general agreement on a lot of things and help us go through point by point and figure out how our thoughts fit with the staff comments and I also recommend budgeting our time so that we use the straw poll to figure out what we need to spend more time on and budget our time. C.K. I like that idea thank you. One of our options is to send the regulations in some form to the Board of County Commissioners and say "we weren't able to, and list all the reasons, (constraints of stafl constraints of expertise, constraints of time, we were given a drop dead date that we had no control over, we had other things to do) but we believe that needs to go through some kind of further process before it's done". We could say that, if we just can't get there because it's beyond the scope of what we can accomplish for all those reasons, that's an option. I don't Page 4 of zo I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 01, z016 Pt 860379-4450 Ft 360379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us want to do that, I think it would be better to send a quite clear message. But we could do that and send along a letter that articulates the minority or majority point of view. ?? Let's face it, if we don't finish today we have one more meeting before the deadline. We have until the 15th. Or best opportunity is to stay focused and on point and try to talk as little as possible. C.K. Does anyone feel like they have a clear straw poll question? L.S. Does anyone feel that we're close enough to get there? From this draft document that was in your packet that was presented to you tonight? All in favor? Five yes, Two nay, One don't know. L.S. The kettle ponds need to be preserved in some way for various reasons. Page 4: L7.70.010 All in favor? Five yes. Three nay. C.K. Are we making progress with straw polls or do you want to go line by line? L.S. On the first page, we (David and Staff) only had a differences of opinion where it said: over we did a Binding Site Plan or some other process. My intention was to establish a process that would be binding in some way. I think the public needs an opportunity to: see those plans, know how they were going to be approved, know that any changes would have to go through a process. D.l. My experience with Binding Site Plans is that they establish that. I don't see the point in requiring one because we did the same the through the Master Plan and just a Surveyed Site PIan. And legal doesn't say that we require a Binding Site Plan. P.M. So this may be a case where you make a recommendation of some graphical representation weather it's a Master Plan or whatever that would be incorporated. L.S, Personally speaking I would concede that the end was the important point, not the process D.f . This sections points to both Titles 15 and 18, So this section is silent on something we always apply those Titles. We would recommend the original cast which is in addition to the requirements of this Title or Provision is the Titles 15 and 18. And you added the word shall, it had been May so I could go either way. Shall stays. Strike through the rest of it, ?? So if someone has an objection speak out. ?? DW|T Everyone agrees? Check that off. ?? DWlz and 3 we just reviewed 040 so that takes care of that. ?? DWI Staff agrees that this adds precision? Check that off. ?? DWIS That's in reference to point DWf4, yes? C.K. Do you want to review that with the staff for their point of view? D.l. DWJ5 will be looked at for a staff point of view? So DWf 5 stays with that addition. Page 5 of zo I Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-445o Ft 360*79-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.ug I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 C.K. DWJ6 stays with the added text. ?? DWIT All agree? Yes ?? DWJB All agree? Yes ?? DWlg Wait on this one? Revise or allow? We're all good. L.S. DWI10 We're ok L.S. DWJ11 Ditto, we're ok. L.S. DWl12 OK L.S. DWI13 OK L.S. DWl14 OK L.S. DWJ15 NO. Critical Aquifer Recharge area. We'll come back to this one! ?? lf we change this one, we should change the regulation as well. I wouldn't do one without the other. C.K. Before we move on, let's do a very quick straw poll on EXCLUDING the Golf Course. No Speech's just yes or no. Two Yes, Three No and Three I don't know. Save DWf 15 for further discussion. ?? Will someone please get the facts if the Aquifer is a sole source or not? R. H. Look at Dr. Richard Corner's Report it might be in there. L.S. DWI16 BIG height issue. Coming back to this one with staffs proposed edit[s). C.K. DWI1T We're on page 4 near the top. For clarity, we're OK with that? Yes? OK. C.K. DWJlB I'm not sure why this is deleted. I just substituted language about the boundary line setback. DWf So if it's silent then that means there are no setbacks. C.K. If someone thinls there should be internal setbacks speak up. Are you OK with the edit? K.C. So originally it was that there were no setbacks, internal? Now are we adding external boundary setbacks to that provision? So we keep the stricken out part, and add the additional sentence. And then all structures at least 40' from the boundary lines and adjacent MPR zones, or buildings over 60'. However that directly contradicts our 50', if we decide on the 50' up there so that needs changed. So that's kind of related to #2 that we're putting off. oK. C.K. So we decided we don't care if the text is deleted or not? K.C. It looks like DWI19 is OK. Page 6 of *o 6er Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P:56o379-445o F: 3603Z9-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us K.C. It looks like DWI1B is OK if we just leave it or strike it you guys can decide what you want to do. K.C. DWJ20 relates back to the issue #2 that we're tabling. D.f , No that's the 50' setback from Hwy 101. LS. Did that 60' setback come from one of the 30 conditions? C.K. The question is did I change it from 50' to 60' because it was one of the 30 conditions? D.J. No it's the last one. Minimum building setback from the state on Hwy 101, it was 50' and they changed it to 60'. C.K. It was, we found it in the BOCC's. OK? So we're leaving it. Leaving DWJ20 L.S. DWI21, About the heading I added that: open space, preserves, critical areas, protection zone just to be consistent with the requirement here "The Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting green belts and buffers to include but not limited to a 200' riparian buffer all along the steep bluff, along the south canal shoreline . . . ." I just created a new Section Heading so it was clearer what this section is. D.J. Everybody look at the zoning map on the last page. The zone we're in now is on your last page. That's the green, the 200'buffer. You're expanding it. It doesn't go in that section. We always believed that the easements we're required or part of the development agreement. L.S. That's your position, my position is since we're creating this very special zone, the Master Plan Resort "zone" as were calling it on the Comprehensive Plan designation and anyone that goes in there ought to be able to look at a map and see what their dealing with. I think that we should have those delineated, shown and indicated that they need to be protected on the actual map that goes with the property. Not just in your Developer Agreement. Because whoever comes in here will have to abide by these requirements. M.S. That does not exist in the County map now? D.l, It was analyzed and identified with the Habitat Management Plan and the SEIS. So that can be put on the site plan along with the Master PIan. C.K. But it doesn't get recorded and identified when someone goes into the County and wants to see all their constraints on this MPR site. I think they should be able to see it there. M.S. Are you saying that there are critical areas on this property that are not already designated critical areas? L.S. Designated doesn't really apply when you're talking about critical areas because when a developer comes to the County and wants to develop this piece of property, the first thing they have to do is hire a consultant to go out and find and show all the wetlands and map them. These wetlands have been mapped but they need to be permanently protected with buffers, They say in an easement, that was one of the 30 conditions with BOCC. ?? Is the Ordinance L001728? That's sited in the text. L.S. From my perspective that's not clear enough that you would expect that someone's going to go back and read all these things. What we're trying to do is assure that there's transparency for any developer, whether it's PageT ofzo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-449o Ft g6oi79-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us Statesman or anyone that might come later. That they could come in and look at the regulations and find out what they can do. And because the BOCC requires these 30 conditions, the argument is that they should be in the regulations so that anybody that want's to develop on this property can clearly see articulated what has to happen because these 30 things have to happen. M.S. What I'm trying to understand is are we putting a regulation in place, that forces the existing developer to rework what is or is not wetlands on the property? L.S. I don't think so because he's already met that requirement. M.S. I just want to get the facts, whether we know or we don't know if there are wetlands on the property and where they are. And if we don't know then we must be asking him to do the job over. I'm happy with this if the existing offer is already in place. L.S. I would say he has. Except that what he hasn't done is permanently protect them yet. Because that will all be in the Developer Agreement. C. K. So I answered that question why I changed the title. D.f . No I don't think those belong in that zone if you're talking about this 200' protection zone. This other stuff is general to the other zone, the Golf Course zone too. D.J. The SEIS has a section called compliance with the BOCC conditions. And this is where we went through and identified the conditions. We had notes and the status on how each of these conditions were going to be met. So S says: These easement shall be finalized and recorded prior to the approval of the Development Agreement. And if we're going to have a surveyed site plan that locks the development into place that needs to be in the site plan. C.K. A developer in the future should not be looking at this EIS to find out what his requirements are P.M. If it's been recorded, when he pulls up information about the property, he or she will get that information. C.K. It may not get to the recording. What if Statesman walks away tomorrow? Could someone else come up and know in a very transparent way, without doing six months of research like we did, what they can do on that property? P.M. I guess I'm not so concerned about the amount of research someone might have to do, the requires of the ordinance that designate it and the conditions in the EIS that say how to protect it are there and so whether you put it in or not, any subsequent developer is going to have to comply with that. L.S. My take on that is the public and future developers deserve an easy pathway forward. I've always felt that way. Lay it out, make it straight forward and clear so people don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time. Lay it out for anybody to read. P.M. So one of the issues, is that this is consistent with \8.22, our critical areas regulations. One of the things in developing code is you don't want to be repeating stuff in multiple places. If you have a series of regulations, our critical areas that already address this, we don't want to duplicate stuff here. Page 8 of zo C.K. Well we need to do something to fix that. 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-449o F:36o179-445r plancomm@eo jefferson.wa.us K.C. | 21, we're trying to decide if that language belongs there and what I'm hearing from staff is that it doesn't. D.f . So maybe a new section that includes that language. Yes, I'll help you fix that. No I believe the deletions should remain because those are subject to the open spaces. K.C. I 22 Sounds like that will be part of that new map, correct? D.f. Yes. K.C. DWI23 OK K.C. DWJ24 This language came out of the ordinance but we four all disagreed on whether this measurement came from the top of the bank, but David Goldsmith disagrees. That was the issue. P.M. One of the documents that I think we were looking at was one of the technical reports for the EIS. In any case one of the things that specifically in the ordinance adopting the MPR references a riparian buffer. If you look at riparian that would typically be measured from the edge of the stream, or in the case of marine, the high water mark as opposed to a buffer from a steep slope. L.S. A riparian pertains to of the river or stream. K.C. Do we want to table this one for Iater or do a straw poll now? L.S. I would like David or someone to figure out what is the steep slope buffer or setback requirement on a steep slope of this magnitude and that can give us some guidance. C.K. So do we all agree? Can we live with a 50'buffer and 10'setback? R.H. No I just don't agree with that. 200'will take us well beyond the slope of the bank. K.C. We could ask for a topographic map of that area. I will produce a scaled map. C.K. Oh you're going to come with that, we'll table this and move on. c.K. DWl25 L.S. I think I can cover this one pretty quickly. Where staff said this is covered in 18.22, it is except that again, my point is that before any development is approved for this site, I think the critical areas should be there on the map showing so that anyone interested in property in the future, they can see them on the map. And that's not required on 18.22 until someone comes in requesting to build. I suggest that we should have as much as possible on a map for whoever walks in the door. C.K. It's a gift to everyone to have that delineated on the map. OK so if this section refers to L8.22, it's delineated in 18.22. L.S. Because we already have this information, I think it would be good public service, since we have the information, that it show it on this official map of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. That's all I was trying to say here. This is more about showing it on the map. Not the site plan. Page 9 of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 01, 2ot6 P:36o179-449o F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us D.f . If we create this new section, where we take the critical areas, protection zone and the significant tree retention, make a new section and this could be the Iead section of that section. And you take it out of this open space of .... L.S. Right. We agreed to that already, yeah, that needs to happen. D.]. OK The understanding is this is your recommendation K.C. Straw Poll. Should we strike DWI25? 5 Yes, 3 Nay K.C. DWI26 The trees measuring 10" diameter, breast height. This is in here as Condition W which says: construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10" or greater at breast height dbh. An arborist will be consulted . . . I looked at that and thought can we put this in the regulations? This is my attempt to capture what was said. Strike Open Spaces and Binding Site PIan. So the question here is: Is it appropriate to take one of the requirements from the BOCC and turn it into code or does it live somewhere else? M.S. We don't have a problem with it. I'd like to hear more about the Forest Stewardship Plan. Their working on that in Port Ludlow? There's a concept that that could be a better way of approaching this? D.f . Their required to do a Vegetation Management PIan as part of their litigation L.S. That EIS is pertinent to that one proposal with Statesman only. Someone else can adopt it. C.K. Straw Pole? If this language can stay as proposed with the exception of changing the Binding Site Plan reference to be consistent with whatever we change it to in other areas. In another sub-section. R.H. If it's consistent with the EIS then I'm fine with that. If we put it in another section so we're not changing anything I'm fine with that. So we're not putting any more onus on them (Statesman), but at the same time, we're putting onus on someone that comes along, fif [Statesman) doesn't develop thisJ saying you do need to follow these, we identified this as an issue already. Straw Poll: B Yes. P.M. Let's go ahead and move forward. The County may look at the difference between shall strive vs. shall, in perspective to what kind of flexibility it gives on the site. And whether it's an absolute, you cannot touch or whether it's generally leave them be. C.K. I did go on to say here where there is no alternative to removing such trees. D.f. You didn't say anything about the arborist that would be consulted. C.K. That's not a job for an arborist. If you want to put the arborist in, then fine. So 26 is OK with the arborist. We're going to add arborist. C.K.DWI27 We all agree to make it shall instead of should. L.S. In addition to David's comments, there are comments the public made that are importan! that do need to be taken care of. It needs to read: a kettle is defined as a depression formed on the land surface left by an ice block. Page ro of eo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 Pt 360-379-4450 Ft 960379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us P.M. If it's out of order then you can skip it but I'm wondering why restored was in there because that's a higher standard than technically. C.K. OK so we're scratching restored and we're scratching the word pond and it should read: the kettles are defined as a depression formed on the land surface . . . for all three kettles. R.H. So DWl27 is done, we agreed on that. DWJ2B is a kettle issue that we're coming back to. And sub-section doesn't belong here we're dealing with that. L.S. DWI30 This is David's comment about Scott Bendor and I was surprised to hear it because everything I thought I had read, I believed had identified this as a sole source aquafer. C.K. I thought that where we had Ieft off earlier, we were going to Ieave to research it and come back after staff and planning commissioner's looked at it. R.H. Scott Bender is a professional who did a water study and categorically denies that this is a sole source aquifer, So are we just looking for a contradictory professional evaluation? D.f . You said there was something in the SEIS that say it is a sole source. L.S. That's what we believe. That's what we're looking at. R.H. OK so this needs to be Ieft for later. M.S. I'm interested in the definition of a critical aquifer recharge. And how much of this qualifies as that? C.K, We were given a map by Donna at our last meeting, I didn't bring mine. Anyone bring theirs? I don't think the maps match up. Hers showed the critical aquifer recharge area. Maybe staff can do a comparison? I would say this whole page. DWf 36 is not about the aquifer. #4 one part is covered in 18.22 & The whole Iong first sentence is NOT included in 18.22 & If we scratch the whole last sentence, about the wetlands, are we ok with leaving the rest alone? Do we need it if it's already covered? M.S. The point is keeping Iand disturbing to a minimum is not possible because the plan is to do major amounts. It's not a development without doing this. C.K. OK want to do a quick straw poll? I'm fine with sub 4 minus the second sentence. M.S. Here's my comment. Details of what is going to be done are being minimized (and I don't have them at the moment) so it wouldn't bother me if we had a reference here to the existing requirements that they would have to meet. If they try to say that in the new requirement, that may not be consistent with the existing regulations. D.f. Low Impact Development. We haven't codified that yet but we have done a line in line out that incorporates Low Impact Development. Vegetation of trees, minimal clearing and grading. C.K. So if this read with a reference to Low Impact Development? M.S. I'd just like to make a comment, it's an observation I've made when I was out there, the way they've done Phase A or whatever it is that they've already done, the way they've done the access roads and the parking the way out of the restauran! etc., is in my head is Iow impact. In fact it's costing them more money to operate the way it is Page rr of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 Pt 36oi79-445o Ft 560379-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa. us than it would have been to put in a big parking lot, make the building square, and all the things that people normally do when they build. Cost is the first priority. The thing that seems important to me is not that we generate a set of words that may or may not be compatible with what already exists. It's to control situations like this. That we somehow refer to what already exist. L.S. It doesn't exist. Yes, I'm concerned with what we have isn't adequate. C.K. So my question was on sub 4 on page 5, are we ok with scratching the last sentence, that staff found redundant and leaving the first sentence? In addition, land disturbing activities shall be kept to a minimum? Implying that there's something a little bit more stringent we want done in this very sensitive area. Because that's what the whole intention was. M.S. I appreciate the intention, but I'm not sure we're going to fix it now. I think that perhaps Staff may come up with a better idea with how to communicate with what to say. C.K. Can we leave it? Straw Poll: Yes 5 to keep #4 with the last sentence scratched. Keeping the two shalls. c.K. DWI36 M.S. Does the tribe have a responsibility to state what is listed? It says all important cultural or historic sites that are listed or eligible to be listed. Doesn't this statement put it on the Developer to do what we say here? But it doesn't require the tribe to designate what this should apply to or not. Why wouldn't we ask this to be applied to the specific areas specified? I'm just trying to avoid this being open ended, as a reason for not doing something over a long period of time. Can we ask the tribe to be specific about what they're apply this to? More than the kettle areas? Can we require that the tribe tell us? K.C. What I'm saying is if I'm going to support putting something into code, I'd like to know what that list is and not have it as an open ended item that could come back and haunt somebody. L.S. Can we just add pursuant to JCC 18.30.160 at the end? K.C. Remember this whole area has been pulled out its part of a critical areas protection and significant tree retention and cultural significance and then as part of that we simply state: this IS land that was ceded by the tribes and is part of this treaty. K.C. This is part of the section that we're pulling out of here and maybe part of the new title can be "Cultural Significance" and then # 6 simply notes that local Tribal jurisdiction ceded area Point no Point Treaty tribes. And then recognize the fact that this land was originally ceded by Tribes as part of the treaty. D.f. So it's not a regulation, it's a statement? K.C. Yes P.M. So you're taking out the part that says "All development and land disturbance shall protect/avoid? K.C. Yes P.M. "Pursuant to JCC18.30.160 the County recognizes that the area of this MPR is part of the ceded area of Tribes that were parties to the Point No Point Treaty. Page re of zo All Agreed. K.C. Does anyone else have any other big issues glaring at them? That we can briefly discuss? C.K. Housing Units? We can either put that on the quick list or talk about it now. Mark did some math and he found that the 890 units was 3 times the density of all of Port Townsend. We were trying to come up with a number. 890 units is a big number. It also relates to the number of people and cars. Am I right that the developers offered 400? He's offered to cut it substantially. How about 300? ?? You have 1200 people per square mile. This is 1/3 of a square mile which would be 400 people. So you have 300 units and figuring occupancy is 2 people per unit that make 600 people. There's a little wiggle room there. They didn't intend to be that rigid. The 600 is where I'm at. That 300 unit thing is very important with wastewater and how it's handled, C.K. One of the wastewater concerns is that's about water out of and back into the aquifer. So reducing the number of units is in effect reducing the water in and out of aquifer and the overall human impact. P.M. So Commissioners was there a significant adverse environmental impact as identified in the FSEIS that you are mitigating? C.K. The FSEIS had five options that it examined section by section. They included two no action options. Each section of the FSEIS reviews the impacts of the three original plans/alternatives plus two no action alternatives. Both of the no action options were Iisted repeatedly as less impact than any of the development options. We're not arguing for the no action options, but we are saying those other three options, while still a lesser impact than the previous is still a significant impact. L.S. It does require mitigation. That's what all the mitigation in the document is about. If you say what is the impact? The impact is putting people in their building with all of the accoutrements on this site then all of the mitigation proposed really pertains to . . . . P.M. In terms of standards for storm water management, standards for wastewater management, standards for how you get your drinking water, standards for how you get your roads, but those were all mitigated with the higher population. L.S. Again that is an EIS that proposed mitigation but it's not viable, it's not a permit. It's just an examination of all alternatives, impacts and mitigation. P.M. The reason I raise it is, absolutely you can recommend whatever you want, the question is, as we don't have anything formal that I'm aware of from Statesman or the Tribe to address their treaty rights which are just outside the SEPA process. Under what authority do you have to restrict what had been allowed for even in the Comprehensive Plan to 890 units and that and EIS has addressed at that level. You can do it, I'm just asking under what basis. L.S. This brings up a point. That is: Why this is really a very strange animal. We are literally writing development regulations that we are going recommend to let BOCC for a development that already has his proposal on the table and already been through an EIS process. To us it's really, he has his cart before his horse sort of stufl so it's really requiring us to do some kind of thinking and fancy dancing that we ordinarily wouldn't be doing. For an example, Page 13 of eo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 Pt 36oi79-445o F:36o479-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa. us P.M. Is it a significant adverse environmental impact that requires mitigation? 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 01, z016 Pt g60.329-4450. F:36o379-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Iet's say we were going to rewrite our drainage code and it wasn't the MPR. Well everybody who is vested right now, they don't have to worry about our new drainage code because they're vested into the old code and the new code we're going to write & people are going to come in, with their development applications and they're going to know before they ever come in, these are the new regulations. And we're in the middle of the stream writing development regulations. We're in a very awkward place to be. We're trying to strike this balance of recognizing a lot of resources have already gone into this. Years of resources. That MPR map that says up to so many units. I look at that as if the zoning map said you could have 100 unites except you have all these restrictions, so the actual number in there is way less than 100. P.M. Essentially Title 17 is the new zoning code for the MPR. It may allow for potentially 890 units but then there are the critical areas, the shoreline management acts, the specific development regulations, the overlay of requirements of the development agreement. All of those MAY mean that ultimately the developer does substantially less than the 890 but not through imposition of zoning restrictions, it's the imposition of the environmental restrictions to mitigate the impacts and to recognize the landscape there. P.S. This is very important to me because again it's back to process, right? There's two perspectives here 1. We have to cover the waterfront and ensure that this property doesn't negatively impact the water front. 2. There is a County, a Code, a process in place. Do we have confidence in that or not? If we don't have confidence in it we're going to rewrite a whole bunch of stuff. If we have confidence in the basic process that exists then this regulation should only improve those things which go beyond what exists. And what I'm afraid of is that we're trying to cover it from a broad perspective, all the pieces. We have an Administrator here and a County person that can tell us, as we go, that's covered over here, this is covered here and we're not really doing that. We're trying to make a judgement about what some of us put on paper as to whether it's appropriate or not when we really can't even say whether it already exists or not. M.S. Is there a less formal way that we can tell The Commissioners that perhaps 890 units is too large although we recognize the fact that it's been approved for that number? Perhaps in a Ietter or something outside of this? P.M. My point is if you're trying to regulate the environmental impacts, do so based on what's in the EIS and consistent with our other codes and don't necessarily try to reduce the scale of the project through zoning if you don't have a significant adverse environmental impact basis for doing so. Also recognize at the end of the day you may get closer to where you're trying to get to, or we at the county may get there because of the fact that the consultation with the Tribes and the Developer and the final bones of a Development Agreement are still in play that may in fact scale down the proposal. L.S. That is the underlying philosophy that these regulations should be written without concern for who's coming in and applying so the Developer Agreement is how this is going to be captured. P.M. And my concern is that picking a number, like 400, is arbitrary and capricious that there's not a SEPA basis for doing that. C.K. I have a comment from a lay person's point of view. There is not universal agreement that that FSEIS is a perfect document. It may fulfil legal constraints but if a proposal is made, some part of it is put forward. There's public & tribal comment on that proposal. There's NOT agreement on the impacts of that factor would be. So when mitigation is offered, what is that mitigation against? Which version of impacts is the mitigation against? And what's the measure of that mitigation's success against that case? L.S. And to add to that, again, that EIS is analyzing a particular intense development proposal for the MPR. And if we had done this before Statesman we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's a very awkward position that all this Page r4 of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us work has been done by Statesmen, in good faith, he's been told he's going down the correct road, then at the end of that, after the FSEIS is when we develop the regulations? It's iust awkward for us. And the right number? Because this is code, this isn't mitigation for what's being proposed by Statesman. That's not what these development regulations are. So I don't know why they would have to rely on mitigation measures proposed in the FSEIS because these are development regulations or the comprehensive plan designation. P.M. But you just reduced the density as mitigation L.S. I think it's just reduced footprint to be more in keeping again with the Brinnon Sub Area Plan. The Brinnon Sub Area PIan when it talks about the MPR is very clear to me they did not envision this kind of development. It's very clear to me. They specifically wanted an MPR that would be Iocated at Black Point to be nothing like the size of Port Ludlow. They talked about the camp ground, a hotel/conference center, I really got the strong impression from reading the sub area plan, that still say's draft on it, when you look in our Comprehensive Plan and you go to the Brinnon Sub Area Plan it still says draft on it. But anyway I believe their directions and statements when they talked about the MPR they were not envisioning something this size. They didn't say a unit number so you kind of read between the lines to make that conclusion, but that's a piece of information that should be informing us to make these regulations separate from what the FSEIS says. P.M. So I brought up the point, not to derail your process, but I wanted to just sensitize you to the issue and that's one of the lenses through which I think the department, legal and the commissioner's, will be looking at ultimately what shape this takes. And also again, I was trying to raise the sensitivity ol bear in mind, as you're moving with stuff on what basis you're doing it. Not just for this but also on some of the other things. f ust so you're clear on the basis on which you're posing some of your restrictions. Because that's something that ultimately the County will need to take a very close look at to make sure we're staying on the right side of what's within our authority. So I'm just raising this as a generic sensitivity point I brought it up on this particular issue, I would suggest we don't belabor it. C.K. I keep hearing from Commissioner's and various stafl that specifically the 890 units and the golf course has already been adopted. P.M. The Comp Plan Amendment in the ordinance specifically says: The Comp Plan narrative on page223 which is would be amended and add language below: The last paragraph could read early in 2008 f efferson County designated a new Master Plan Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new MPR is 250 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The marina area that is existing would be further developed to include additional commercial and residential uses. The Black Point area of the new MPR would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, town houses, villas, staff housing and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units. So that's where the golf course and the 890 come from and this designation, bear in mind, was based on a prior environmental analysis that said an MPR there essentially this scope and size could be appropriate and could be mitigated. This is now a SEIS and based on much more specific project proposal. C.K. I don't think I got an answer to my question: The FSEIS is a proposal, it's someone's idea, then there is a process by which there are environmental impacts that are identified and mitigations that are identified, or offered what is the process by which the assessment and the mitigations that are back are deemed to be enough in the FSEIS process? Page r5 of zo , 6ar Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-445o F:36o179-449r plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us P.M. It is a judgement call of when you've determined that an impact has been mitigated sufficiently that it is not a significant adverse environment by SEPA responsible official. C.K. Again, that's that, and this is the Comprehensive PIan Regulations for that piece of property. So what the .County approved in that ordinance as I understand it was: you could, potentially build up to 890 units here, we certainly wouldn't want to see any more than that so rather than approving 890 units I believe that ordinance said no more than, or we can envision maybe up to 890 and the same goes for a golf course. We could envision that perhaps a golf course could be sited here, they didn't rule it out, because it's not an approval to build a golf course or to build 890 units as I understand it. P.M. And then in approving that, they laid out 30 conditions in exchange for approving and creating the master plan resort they laid out the 30 conditions that need to be met. C.K. I asked this question twice yesterday and believe I got a clear answer from David Goldsmith. Is there any legal reason why we can't go beyond the mitigation measures in the FSEIS if we believe that the impacts are significant enough that we need to go further. L.S. Because again we aren't writing this code to mitigate impacts from that MPR, we are writing this code because we believe in looking at our Comp Plan Policies and Iooking at the Brinnon Sub Area Plan policies that list other code requirements, the MPR guidelines from the State, all those things what could reasonably be done on this site, and it is not about mitigating those particular impacts. C.K. My question really was: Is there any legal reason why we can't do more? And the answer I got was no. We believe that this site requires it. And I do believe that. P.M. Speaking hypothetically, I'm not advocating but you can mitigate anything you want. Could 890 units be deemed, ordinance and regulations absolutely allowed for that? Keeping consistent with the Comp Plan? Yes. But you can certainly recommend something less that I would just ask on the basis of what you're doing that on. And I heard somewhat a nuance and different approach that Lorna was suggesting. M.J. Does this project impact the environment? Can anyone in the room say no? Of course not. Then why can't we have as clean and as least amount of impact we can possibly have over and above the SEIS. P.M. My question is whether that infringes on, or if that goes above the conditions in the ordinance that created in the MPR whether we are interfering with a reasonable expectation for the property owners. K.C. I think also suggesting that it impacts the environment where does it become adverse. When you start talking best available science, well I really don't like the look of 890 units. Of course if they look like this 890 unit's maybe it's not so bad, and I definitely like 300 units. But the adverse impact is what I'm looki,ng at. I hear this all the time in my business, you're cutting down trees and it's adverse. Well beaver's cut down trees and they create whole new environments, It's not that the development necessarily deteriorates or degrades the environment because it can improve it if it's done well. Even some of what the regulations do is it tries to steer people to do more good. And everybody wants to take care of it. They want the dear and the birds and eagles. So I think we ought to not be discussing environmental impact as much as where we see either the science or statistics or the studies that say a golf course on top of this particular aquafer can cause this adverse effects. Then ok, how might I mitigate that? Or, you know what? I don't see a study that says it, I see a guidelines that suggest not doing it, but where's the best available science or the study that says it's adverse? fust like with the setback. 150' from the ordinary high water mark (in my opinion, Page 16 of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o379-445o F:36o179-449r plancomm @co j efferson.wa.us M,S. I have one comment to you, I remember talking with at least one commissioner when they wrestled with this back when, around 2008. How much a struggle it was, to think about it and consider it. And that happened. There was a lot of internal struggle with it back then. Almost ten years ago, and now we're experiencing it. The can's been kicked down the road and we have to pick it up and do a good job. I think we are doing a good job. I thinll it's really important what Phillip says, about finding the right reasons to make recommendations. I'm sure the Commissioners are listening, but we have to also listen to them, maybe go read some newspapers from 2008 and check out what it was like. And we really have to be very sensitive about not causing any unjust harm to the applicant. Because the applicant has jumped through a lot of hoops and we cannot cross the line and arbitrate. At the same time, I really think that there's a lot of good approaches to it. Like Phillip mentioned the sub area plan. There's different ways of looking at what does Brinnon need, but we've also kind of been there too, so I feel like we're doing a good job. But some of the stuff is out of our control so. L.S. Well I think we are in control. I don't think that adverse impacts or significant adverse impacts or un- mitigatable adverse impacts is what we're dealing with here. We're looking at consistency with existing comprehensive plan policies, a Sub Area PIan, other regulations that might come into play. Those are the things we're looking at and the EIS was to Iook at Statesman's proposal and the impacts and proposed mitigation, I sound like a broken record but what we're doing is looking to see if we can come up with regulations for this site that meet the requirements in the ordinance, follow the directions of the ordinance, and still respect the vision for that community that was created both in the f efferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Brinnon Area Sub Area Plan. And if we can't agree on these specific regulations, and I'm almost getting to the point where I don't see us doing that in short order, maybe we go back to the idea of writing a letter from all of us, and we'd have to all then agree on the letter, that says, here are all ofour points ofconcern. L.S. I'm not going to be here for the next meeting so can I now offer a suggestions for my absence? I go back to the last Comprehensive Plan we went through and the Shoreline Management Program, and one of the things I remember as we began that whole process is Al Scalf said as we began that process: Remember the Code is a tool, it's a tool for the County and for the Developer to use as a vehicle for coming to an agreement on what is the best thing to do on a piece of property. And the zoning gives detailed specifications on where things can go, and how they can go. But when you're creating it, think of it as a tool, don't think of it as an end result. So as you guys go through this and come to a conclusion at the next meeting I just offer those words back. We're trying to create a tool that will make it possible and expeditious for the County and the Developer to do the right thing for the property involved. And we're not trying to write an encyclopedia about what ought to be done with any piece of property. C.K. I want to respond to that. Why is this so unique? This allows someone to go out and buy a property that has little intrinsic value perhaps, and by going through this process, all of a sudden this property allows much, much higher density, much more business type operations than would have been allowed under the R5 zoning rights so there's an incredible theoretical money to be made on this sort of thing. Way more than if just went out and bought a five acre parcel and it was already zoned so it's different than. ?? I don't disagree with you but when I look at this particular piece of property, and what's evolved so far on this piece of property, and having visited what's happened, and having heard how the parties have reacted to the people's concerns, I have a lot of confidence that the process, if allowed to continue, will come out the way you want it to be. And our purpose here should be to decide are there additional parameter's that are so important to the possibility of significant adverse impact, and I'm afraid frankly, that we're trying to treat it as an all- ?age17 of zo when we were first going through that), the thing I never really saw was, yeah, there's an impact, but where's the adverse impact? 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, zot6 P: S6oi79-445o Ft 360-979-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us encompassing environmental issue and what we're going to do is destroy the process that is actually working pretty darn well. L.S. There aren't any development regulations in place and that has to happen. T.G. And it's working without it. L.S. Well maybe we just go away and don't worry about it. ?? So maybe our purpose should be to say, what extra do we need to do? It shouldn't be to rewrite the code. That's all I'm saying. C.K. We aren't rewriting code, there is no code. ?? Ok so what additional tools do we want to give them in order that they can cause the right thing to happen? DISCUSSION: P.M. Ladies and gentlemen I can see that you're getting ready to bolt so I just want to thank you for your thoughtful and courteous dialogue with each other, and even with David and me. And I think you're doing better than you're giving yourself credit for. You've gotten at least half way through I think. So between now and your next meeting, which I understand is just consulting with David, is going to be focused on this issue. It's not on anything else. He will be able to present to you a staff crack at putting and cleaning up what you have given him as direction today and follow up with clean text. We'll follow up on the research issues that you've asked about and I think you probably, with another concerted effort like you gave today, I'm seeing light at the end of the tunnel, I think you're getting close. D.f. One thing to consider are the findings that we need to go through and where we're at. And that's a processing in and of itself. P.M. So another option to gain more time without stretching the time limit, is that you can, if you wish, and if you can gather a fair quarem, is to do a special meeting. C.K. We don't have ten days. Unless we did it on a Friday. One of the arguments with our time is that we've really lost a whole two weeks. When we came in two weeks ago, we didn't have anything from staff, so we really lost two weeks by no fault of our own and I honestly will tell you I want to be done tonight. Logistically if we're going to spend a night doing just findings, assuming that we can get to an agreement by the next meeting, I don't see how we can do that. P.M. Well it's something that I can discuss with the commissioners, and it may also be that we see how you do on your next meeting. C.K. I won't be here on the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Barbara Moore-Lewis Snohomish County. The County Ordinance puts about 30 conditions on the MPR. The FSEIS was to address all of the conditions adequately. The FSEIS did not adequately address all of the conditions. The Port adequately address the conditions related to now,Gamble/S'Klallam Tribe has pointed out how the did not Page r8 of ao a Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P:36o179-445o F:36o379-449r plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 There are likely other conditions that are not met. So the FSEIS is not out of sequence. The FSEIS is incomplete. The Brinnon group suggested several times the County staff prepare a chart of the conditions and how they had been met in the FSEIS. This chart would be used by both County Officials and the public to understand how the FSEIS. Our recommendation was ignored. Accountability by County staff and elected officials for the situation that now exists with the FSEIS requires such a chart and such a discussion so that County Officials and the public can have this important discussion. It's kind of beyond me, why nobody is asking these questions. The FSEIS is incomplete and is not in compliance with the conditions. f ean Ball Quilcene. The bottom of page 4, the kettles 17.70,010 sub b: says a kettle is defined as a pond formed in a depression on the land surface left by an ice block. I think the words pond formed should be stricken so that it reads: A kettle is defined as a depression on the land surface left by an ice block. C.K. So we will strike a pond formed. So it reads a kettle is defined as a depression. f .B. If you read further to the fourth line on that same section it says: Three kettle pond sites on black point inside the MPR boundaries should be restored. I would say that should, should be changed to shall. And another editing thing on Page 5, #L, under 17.70.070 the third sentence is incomplete and confusing. L.S. Where it was left with or better at construction you either or with next item? We're wondering how that got left in because there's obviously some clean up that needs to happen. C.K. That might be my note, to say that we don't know when this thing will be built, it might be built next year or in 40 years and we don't know what the technology will be at that time, so at this point, I think we believe that advanced bio infiltration is. f .B. That whole paragraph is a little kool<y, but the fourth sentence says: "An approved plan for directing untreated runoff away from the aquifer and treating all on site runoff with advanced bio infiltration or better at construction prior to any discharge to the aquifer." It's an incomplete sentence. It doesn't really tell you what the hell it means. Bonnie McDaniel, I'm a retired attorney in Quilcene. I would like to agree with her comment as to L7.70.010, sub b: The word should is a term, and where it says: The three kettle ponds . . .you want to take pond out again. The three kettle sites on black point inside the MPR boundaries shall be restored, preserved and protected. Should is just opening your world to litigation. On page 5, item # 4 it says: Land disturbing activity such as grading and filling shall be kept to a minimum and natural contours shall be followed in locating and designing all features to protect the natural environment uniqueness of this site. No filling of wetlands shall be allowed unless all other avoidance measures have been exhausted and mitigation for the lost function and great value shall be at a ratio of three to one. What in the world does that mean? To me, as an attorney, that says to me this is a way out of "shall" over here to protect the kettles. That's just how it sounds. OK? And what in the world does three to one mean? OK? Is that somewhere the developer goes and comes up with some percentage of reasons to say, "Oh that means I can fill the kettles." OK? And I'm just using the kettles as an example, there may be some other thing but I have no idea what that means. OK? And it concerns me a lot because I just saw it as an inconsistency than other things. f .B. I have one other point of clarification. Under Purpose 17.70.0L0,Page 4,lt says "to protect all critical areas and buffers as well as to provide a natural vegetative buffer." I think that should be clarified. We have designated classes of buffers, Class A is a complete 1000/o screen, it should say what class of buffer is required. FOLLOW.UP ITEMS: Page r9 of eo Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P: 360.ts29-448a F:36o379-449t plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us I6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 so BEFORE YOU ALL RUN OFF, WHAT IS OUR PLAN? OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON THE 06/15 /2016. AND TWO PEOPLE WILL NOT BE HERE FOR IT. SO YOUR ASSIGNMENT IS YOU,RE TO READ FROM l,37 TO IB7. DON,T FORGET THE ISSUES WE SET ASIDE: GOLF COURSE, SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER AND NUMBER OF UNITS. OBSERVER COMMENT: Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 03/76/2016 at 6:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 11:15 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 2016 Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD Page zo of zo ,Jefferson County Planning Commission MHMTINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January o6,zot6 Call to Order at 5:30 pm P:96o179-445o F:96o379-445r plancomm @co jefferson,wa.us StaffPre$ent Garth Mann, Statesman Group, Ltd. David W. Johnson,.Assoc. Planner Haylie Clement, Planning clerk 1 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALI Distrlct 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present lochems: Present Disffict 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present Public in Attendance: Many ApprovalofAgendal Approved Apprqval of Mlnutes: None to approve STAFFUPDATES: NONE COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: ln20L6 the Planning Commission will meet twice a month, instead of once a month on the first and third Wednesday. AttheTriAreaCommunityCenterinChimacumunlessannouncedotherwise. YoucanalwayschecktheDCDwebsite to see any changes. Garth Mann from Statesman Group is the anplicant and he. will be tellinEyou ahout his project: Pleasant Harbor Planning Phase 1A on Pleasant Harbor Resort: We knew when we built it we wouldn't make any money on it but had to get started. That was done through a BSP [Binding Site Plan) that had been in place mrenty years, The Pleasant Harbor and community has been integrated for quite a while. In 2015 we did a study to show how many jobs would be created. The population within a five minute drive of Pleasant Harbor is 491 people. In a fifteen minute drive it's 7,762 and in a thirty minute drive it's 2,597. fefferson Countytotalpopulation in 2015 is 30,635 people. Washington State is a little over 7 million. The population in Brinnon has been declining over the past five years. Compounding the change from 2010 to 2015: The County is increasing in size by r/z of 1% and the State has increased by 7o/0. The median household income in this area is the lowest in the State at roughly $39,000.00 in 2015 while the average income in Washington State is $63,320,00. You can see that there's something not positive in the County with regards to growth. The average age in this County is sixty years of age, the average age in the State is roughly thirty-seven years. So you can see without jobs being created, the County will fade off into the sunset. Negative growth is not a positive thing for a community. It will affect the character or your community. We're planning to create Phase 1B: 0ur plan is to create roughly four hundred jobs in that period, with roughly fifty million dollars revenue for the community. It's at Black Point Rd. and Highway 101. Each Phase takes roughly two years to complete. The community of the Maritime Village Fun Center is for ages four to ninety-four. A Farmer's Market, a Health Food Bistro, and a Community Walk Center also. We have sixty-six one and two bedroom sweets overlooking the harbor for short term stays. A grand total of 891 units, including some for staff housing, A Controlled Pistol Range in the arcade level, with Sheriffs Office, etc. Phase 2: Davenport Community is a successful Destination Resort: It will have one hundred and ninety-one suites, 36,000 sq. ft. of commercial. It has a Health Exercise Center and Spa, Rejuvenation Plus Facility, Golf Pro Shop, Variety Store, Olympia Dining and Steamboat Lounge, Commercial Kitchen, Convention Center, Wedding Chapel and Sports Activities. D^ ] I Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06,2o16 Phase 3: Will provide another opportunity for development with our fifty-two suites. They're designed to accommodate a total of two hundred and eight people. Similar to a time share format. Very well decorated and a nice addition. It will also provide some sort of transportation between Pleasant Harbor and Sea Tac Airport. Phase 4: The completion of everything you see there. The environment gets a lot of press, please see our footprint. We try to maintain as much of the habitat as we can. We're really improving the two hundred and fifty-six acres out there and following the footprint, Our plan for the environment is extremely sensitive. Our impervious footprint is less than t2o/0. A state of the art Waste Water Treatment Plant is a six million dollar plant. It can create class A water from this for our Golf Course and the Fire Smart Program for irrigation. We will improve the design for the well for the quality of the aquifer and will put more water back into it than we take out. We will monitor this per the County as well. We will have no water runoff. We will use a conduit system at the bottom of the reservoir to accomplish heating and cooling. Improvements to Highway 101 and Black Point Rd., and an improvement to parking requirements at State Dock Road. We'll also use dark sky lighting with LED lights. We've reduced the Golf Course, at request, from eighteen to nine holes, We will have public transportation coming to the sight also. A successful resort today has to be year round. We need to attract people from outside the area and work in concert with nature and the environment. David W. fohnson Associate Planner I'm going to cover the regulatory side of this. Specifically what the Planning Commission is being tasked to do as part of the approval process with this resort. There was an open house in 20t4 about this project, with the Environmental Impact Statement. There's Public Review Binders roaming around the room. Please look at them and we can give you copies of them. Mr. Mann started by meeting with us back in 2006 with his plans. SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is a very long, expensive process you have to do with everything. Under SEPA you can take a large project and narrow it down into phases. Phase 1 was a Comprehensive Plan, from rural zone property to a Master Plan Resort property. That was done, and approved, in January, 2008 with thirty conditions, including another (Supplemental) Environmental Impact Statement, (SEIS) and another Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze those two. In 2013 we hired EAE Engineering to write the new EIS. In December 2014we released the draft and had a presentation at the Community Center, etc. At the conclusion of the forty-five day comment period we stopped and looked at them all and we changed the draft, based on the comments, including Alternative #3 (Golf Course, (18 holes to t holes)). We finished on December 9,2015 and have it ready for the Planning Commission. We assume that the final FEIS is adequate for SEPA. The role of the Planning Commission specifically: We need to implement development regulations. We borrowed Port Ludlow's MPR (Master Plan Resort) Development Regulations. This is what the Planning Commission will review and make recommendations on starting in February,20L6. The final element in Phase 2 is the Development Agreement. Under the Board of County Commissioners. It's a legal contract we borrowed from Port Ludlow (with changes) as well. I 6ar Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Pt 360-979-4450 F:360-979-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Page z of 7 1 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January o6,zot6 Pt36e,:329-445o F:36o-379-4+5r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 The Staff Report I've already forwarded to the Planning Commission. This is the first time we've used this code in ]efferson County because we've never built a MPR in fefferson County before. State Law, to Comprehensive Plan, to Unified Development Code and my recommendations and conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENT Until we've adopted the recommendations there will not be a Master Plan Resort. PUBLIC HEARING Phase 2 review process of the Master Plan Resort M0808-00188 for Pleasant Harbor Resort: Roma Call, (with Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe): The proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort Project is within our tribes U and A in an area where we rely on fish. We were not consulted after the February meeting and have had no input on it. We continue to oppose this process. We are concerned about the adverse impacts on our land. The County bypassed our Tribal Consultation Process when it approved the Pleasant Harbor Marina and theyviolated our Tribal Treaty Rights. Barbara Moore-Lewis I'm speaking for the Brinnon Group the 501c3 group. This will impose a burden to our taxpayer's that they aren't willing to pay. Such as the Sheriffs needing to come down here for three shifts every day. I have a documented study that shows all the extra costs. When the Commissioner's approved this, they put on thirty conditions which were good but we have no proof they've changed to them. Joe of Brinnon, Last spring 95% of our kids qualified for free or reduced lunch, It's all because we have no economy here. Just from the retiree's, that's it. We have to create an economy here, This is an opportunity for Jefferson Co. to take a step into the future here. Mr. Coleman: I've been operating a small business out of the marina so this is important to me. Mr. Mann's replaced docks, the fuel system, met and exceeded all State and Federal requirements, storm water management was NON EXISTANT. Mr. Mann's improved the dangerous access road approaching Highway 101. Potable water supply was obsolete. Now it's a state of the art system. Electrical, sanitation, restaurants, etc. f ean Far: I live in Port Townsend zip code, not the city. I'm impressed with all the studies and analysis of this project. We should all figure out ways to approve and move this project forward. Samantha Boing: I'm twenty eight years old, without the Resort and Marina I'd have to move. There's nothing else here for us. We NEED this kind of growth. Darlene Shenfield: Overall we do support the Brinnon group's position including the no action alternative. The reuse of wastewater into water isn't good. It's terribly toxic. You can't reuse it, The pathogens that you think you've killed will come back to life. You can't get rid of the metals either. It's not safe, it will poison the land, animals, children and pets, The State will approve it now but don't. It's still not safe. Page 3 of 7 Phil Best, Hood Canal Environmental Council: Think very hard about the conditions you need for a positive result. Inadequate review time, consider the No Action Alternative, Hood Canal pollution, Brenda McMullan: I've been watching the Brinnon project for many years. The water is insufficient. There's only one aquifer. It will pose severe challenges on using fresh water without seawater intrusion. The mere threat of it should close this project immediately, Monica Fletcher: With Sierra Clubs North Olympic Group: we respectfully request for more time to look at the FEIS and the Staff Report and the MPR regulations that apply to Ludlow but not this area. We want more time for us to respond: wetlands, water availability, fish and wildlife, traffic patterns, sewage waste issues, Denny Schultz: This County has been in economic decline for twenty years. We need something. This will be the largest employer in the County outside of Government. The only other is the Paper Mill. We need this project now. Steve Schibly: I'm the Tourism Marketing Coordinator: This is a game changer that will help with Kalaloch Lodge, Port Ludlow etc. Ken Velbert: My wife and I chose Hood Canal to put our boat in for the rest of our life. We think it's so beautiful but a very depressed area. We're excited about what's going on at Pleasant Harbor. It's out of this world. Please support this, Unknown: The regulation process is bad. Too many road blocks. I was a Planning Commissioner in 2008. We had many meetings in Brinnon and got the agreement on the first phase. Don't cut the Golf Course from 18 to t holes. We need this and more! Steve Walker: The aquifer issue, the issue of traffic. We are deficient in medical services here. Everyone has to be flown out already. The EIS is deficient. We haven't seen the esthetic impacts either. The Black Point Resort will increase poverty not decrease poverty, We'll have two hundred and twenty people laid off after Labor Day every year! George Sickle: I've been a property owner here since I was twentyyears old. Whatwould have happened to the area had they not come up here in the first place? It was disastrous and polluted. Look what he's done here already. Richard Whitehall: The onlyway here is Highway 101 unless you come by boat, How much growth will this produce. You cut the Golf Course back cut the housing in half please. lt will draw too many and the one road can't take it. Rhonda Black: I support the Resort. I've been here for ten years and see NO young people stafing. There's nothing for them. Scott Black ['ve mixed feelings about the resort. I like the green and don't really want it to go. I've seen how bad it can be. Beth Strostern: This is the most beautiful place on earth. We came here in 2000 because of its peace and beauty. The extent of the development will take away what we came to see. We're very concerned about it. I want to know that there are teeth to enforce the promises that were made. Like will the resort employ two hundred people as we were told? I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 P: g60-379-4450 F:36o379-449t plancomm @co jefferson.wa,us Page 4 of 7 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January o,6,2ot6 Roger W: I attend all these meetings and see money being spent on how you can't do this or that, and I see how no one has a job. They get into drugs. Stop preventing the development from trying. I Jefferson County Planning Commission MEBTINGMINUTBS Tri-Area Community Center January o6, zot6 P:360-379-4450 F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson,wa,us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Christina Maloney: I'm an eight year resident of Brinnon and small business owner. The final EIS is a vast improvement from the previous one. The County scheduled this meeting when all the snow birds are gone, because it's winter and didn't give us much time at all to go over this documentation. I'm surprised about the discussion concerning the displacement of businesses (included in the former EIS drafts) isn't in this one. The former one said it wouldn't displace any businesses but it has displaced two, one of which is mine, Kayak Brinnon, and he also chose to compete with me which has resulted in a 60%o decreased family income. I can't speak for the other business owner, but I can tell you she was forced to shut down and liquidate, These actions, along with many other, have caused a great distrust with this company within the community. They will increase population from797 people to close to 3,000 people. That's a25oo/o increase. I and many others enjoy this area because it's remote. If you add 2,000 people, it will impact our lives greatly. I also am concerned because over 250 low wage workers will be laid off each fall, letting our State Welfare System, Oly Cap and local Food Bank pick up the slack. The final EIS says 52 apartment houses will be built for the workers, In summary, I opt for scenario B, Marion Murdock: As a longtime resident and property owner, I have concerns: traffic effects, controlled storm water overflows, ecological integrity, local water resources, economic impacts on local businesses and infrastructure, Traffic greatly increases every summer. The traffic study done was proved to be inadequate including only intersections. I've witnessed a number of accidents and the proposed development would only add to this problem with no expansion of the highway. Also concerned about the overflow of the grey water retention ponds. The wetlands in this project area are classified as Category II and provide high levels of wetland functions and are difficult to replace. The 2006 Wetland Functions Analysis not only used methods not up to date with current Washington State protocols but didn't include a professional rare plant survey. They're uncommon in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal area and the No Net Loss Policy dictates that these wetland resources should be maintained. The current project contains no plan for maintaining biodiversity of the remaining wetlands and does not provide adequate mitigation for the loss of wetlands and their ecological, biochemical, hydrological and habitat functions. The FSEIS says there's enough water for two years of development and after that another well can be drilled, I wonder what everyone feels about that with the possibility of salt water intrusion. It seems odd that the 2007 draft stated that they wouldn't displace existing businesses but the first thing they did was open another kayak rental business displacing the existing and professionally run one at Pleasant Harbor Paddle. Rob Mitchell: Once again the FSEIS has been dumped on the Planning Commission and our citizen's right in the height of our Holidays. We must require another additional review period. The same problems with the DSEIS persist and remain unsolved traffic, water availability, a neighborhood water plan which does not protect current homeowners. Noise and air pollution from an open pit mining operation and massive cut and fill. Disposal of large volumes of bio solids, use of sewage treatment plant recycled water which does contain drugs and chemicals not removed. The loss of peace and tranquility before and after construction. Overcrowding on our limited trail systems, rivers and shell fish areas. The late addition of cutting the Golf Course from eighteen to nine holes which only cuts construction costs. The late addition of scenario B in the no action alternative does not. The Brinnon Sub Area Plan is not developed enough to seriously consider. It's full of vague and false negative impacts. The costs to all current residents and tax payers, the lack of adequate emergency services, the traffic costs to working commuters, commerce, tourism, and added pollution in the Hood Canal Watershed. Degradation of our only maior highway and secondary roads. This directly negatively impacts our health and safety. The high number of poverty level jobs straining our taxpayer funded social services. This will increase our property taxes. An MPR at Black Point is the worst possible Iocation for future sustainable growth not only in Brinnon but for the entire Olympic Peninsula. We should not hand over our last best resource for the developer's gain. The DSEIS was inadequate, the FSEIS was also inadequate therefore the conclusion is to opt for scenario A the no action alternative. )oanie Hendricks: I've been at all of these public meetings and still say this project is way too big. Think about removing one million cubic yards of earth and vegetation, then getting five inches of rain. Think about what that will do to our shell fish beds. Page 5 of 7 5zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January o6, zot6 P:360-379-4450 F:36o379-449t plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us I'm a larva department manager for Taylor Shellfish and I really care about what's going to happen to she shellfish beds out there. Where I work we hire people from Port Ludlow, Port Townsend, and Sequim because we aren't getting local people applflng. Same with other businesses in this area. There's a lot of self- employed people in this area. Because the scope of this project is so large, and I think it's detrimental to the environment I would suggest the no action alternative. I have letters from my family and some neighbors to give you. Kathy Ackerman: When this first started I was a no. I thought it was too big and noisy and the pollution. Now I'm much more encouraged. I love the idea that it's done in sections. Then more meetings before another section. I'm still concerned about people's water quality and quantity in wells. But I think the planners and County Officials and Statesman have done a wonderful job working and working this over and like I said it will be done in stages which I think is the best approach. Britney Edwards: I have three young children and my biggest concern is their development. The school is great here but beyond that the opportunities are nonexistent for recreational activities. For basketball, dance or swimming I have to drive at least forty-five minutes. After talking to Pleasant Harbor Marina, they're looking at opening the pool to the community, as a membership. That's a huge opportunity. When my kids get older they'll need a place to worh even part time, and a place to recreate with their friends, We love the idea of having more options and a place to go and understand why it's taking so long, as we'd like to see a minimal impact on the environment as well. We appreciate everything the Statesman Group has done so far and we're excited to see the rest come to fruition. Sesial Culp: I support the idea of the project. Two concerns: traffic, and what the COUNTY will do about alleviating itandthesecondisthatthewaterstudieshavebeenwelldonelH0PEwewon'trunoutofgroundwater. Iseemany attractions to this project, I've heard the Resort will have a walk in Medical Clinic. I think you're going to get other medical professionals moving here to accommodate that increased population, and I think the people that already live here are going to benefit from that. And I want more medical personnel around here as well because I plan to retire here soon. In short the pies going to expand, economically, and everyone's going to get a bigger piece. The existing businesses will have more business. It's not just the resort it just works that way. In short, change is inevitable, and it's either going to be a continued deterioration of this community or taking the first step toward the new future. It's our choice. Eleanor Safar: I'm turning this research in about the Olympic Park Glaciers, The decline of them changes the streamflow, the snowmelt reducing the supply of water for the many competing uses and demands causing far- reaching ecological and social economic consequences. We all understand the tremendous trend towards this region and the use of the water with this resort. To add this huge development to this mix poses a long term transformation of the forest landscape. Global warming is a reality. Look at development of Suncadia on Snoqualmie. They've been in bankruptcy because of the economy now they're trying to take the two towns they vested in use of this project and they're still in litigation because the developer decided to renegotiate their contracts. If you think this is going to be easy, it isn't. Suncadia was once a 5 star resort, now it's a 3 star, and that's what happens when things get bad, they say they're going to do a lot of good things for you, but look at what does happen. Suncadia is a pretty good example of what I thinkwill happen here, though I hope that's notthe case. Peter Vales: I'd like to urge the Planning Commission to recommend additional time to review this proposal. The scale and location of this project right on Hood Canal, make a potential for a serious and irreversible damage to the environment. The devil is in the details in the mitigation measures and having a review period over the Holiday over something that's been in the works for ten years is simply not adequate. As an example, my comments made on the draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement we simply asked that a letter from Dr, Richard Horner dated2007 who commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement be attached and reviewed as part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because he raised a number of issues with storm water. Page 6 of 7 I 6zr Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January o6, zot6 pt g6o-?i79-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us In response to this, "thank you for your comments the 2007 AEIS was found to be adequate and therefore it is assumed that the issues raised in Dr. Horner's letter were addressed in sufficient degree". So in other words, because they were blown off in the EIS they should be fine in the SEIS. So, furthermore that letter from Dr, Horner was not included with my comment letter in the response so it doesn't appear in there. And I'm going to ask the Planning Commission to include it now and I'm giving you a copy of that. One of the issues Dr. Horner raised is with the massive expansion of traffic along 101 and the hundreds of thousands of additional car trips, what the impact of that would be in terms of storm water impacts from automobiles. There's a big section in here on that. His conclusion with the FEIS was: Concentration of toxic materials such as various metals and road run off is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life, the FEIS is an incomplete and thoroughly inadequate document not addressing these impacts at all, So here's his letter to the Planning Commission. Phil Benstead: Everyone's worried about the increase in traffic. When the Hood Canal Bridge was built it pretty much decimated most of the businesses along the canal here, I don't think a little extra traffic is going to be bad for business for anyone. It's going to be good for all the businesses along the canal. As far as poverty goes, I was just talking to Mike and Elyse that run the Food Bank. They're currently servicing up to 900 families. Why are so many using it? The other day someone mentioned the Sheriff and that the Resort wasn't going to pay for that. I would personally pay to have an extra Sheriff here because I'm tired of the drug dealer's running up and down our streets, I'm tired of kicking the people out that are making drug deals. The field over bythe Marina now is being used as the Iow life's furniture deposit depot and the park has thousands of visitors each year, I haven't seen the elk being disturbed at all. Let's bring this project, I support it, Catherine Brinnon: I know all the technical stuff has been addressed, however on a personal note; most of us moved to this area because we like rural. We knew we had to drive a distance for anything. Kids never have like rural and always fled to the City, If you want to live by a Resort, go buy property by one, don't screw it up for the rest of us that are here for the rural. If anyone brought written comments you can turn them in now. I'm going to allow them to be submitted until the February 3,20L6 meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. You can submit them to the DCD or you can bring them on February 3rd. At that point we will stop taking them. The public testimony is now closed, Deliberations will take place on February 3,2016 in Chimacum at the Tri Area Community Center. At the regular first Wednesday of the month meeting of the f efferson County Planning Commission. We will deliberate, then we will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will have another hearing so you will get a chance to talk to them before they make a decision. Thank you. FOLLOW.UP ITEMS Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 02/03/2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 9:04 pm day ofm1 I Ar approved this rP 20L6. Page 7 of 7 I ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Absent U Felder: Present Koan: Present Public in Attendance: Annroval ofAsenda: Approval of Minutes: District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present Jochems; Present Call to Order at 6:30 pm District 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present Staff Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Eight Approved Minutes [in mass) were approved. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS A copy of the new sign ordinance is here for all of you. Joel wanted to make sure you all got a copy. AIso there's guidance to create findings and a recommendation. This is a standard guide/worksheet that we use, in the Planning Commission, to guide us through the findings that are necessary to develop as you develop your recommendations that become part of the final ordinance for adopting UDC amendments for the development of regulations. Please review it, I've added some things I think we'll need, like the memo on tapings etc. So whenever we get to the point where we are going to develop a recommendation we will go through this process and follow this guide. AIso, you requested a satellite image of the black poignt peninsula at nighq I've provided this for you in black and white. Including a map showing the boundaries that were approved under phase 1 of the resort. I'm still working on the Public Participation Plan (the PPP) for the Comprehensive Plan Update. It's not done and won't be done by our next meeting on 02/77 /76 and I won't be here for that meeting. Joel will be here and will have the timeline for you with my updated draft of the PPP. STAFF UPDATES We've hired Teresa Smith to transcribe the minutes. Interviews will be this Friday for the Assistant and Associate Planners. DELIBERATIONS FOR BRINNON MPR CK: On fanuary 06,20L6 approximately LZB to 150 people were there at the Brinnon School to offer their commentary on the MPR. We can now have deliberations of the Brinnon MPR. LS: What are the specific decisions we need to make for deliberations? Does it include the Developer Agreement? Dl: Yes, you've been emailed it. Specifically it's Title 17, Article 2 (The Development Regulations thot will apply to the Resort) thatyou need to make a recommendation to approve, deny, or approve with modifications, to the Board of County Commissioners. You have to recommend either approval of this new code or denial or approval with conditions. Then we'll develop findings based on your recommendation. Those are standard, based on the Comprehensive Plan and changes in it. These are requirements we have to do to satisfy GMA under State statute. We've offered the S'Klallam Tribe an extended period of time to consult with them. Their Tribal Council is meeting on February B, 20L6 on how to proceed on their consultation with us. We'll reconvene this meeting next month with Page r of 15 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February og, 2016 Pt S6o379-44io F: 36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 p:96o479-449o F:36o379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us whatever results, directions, qdditional research or questions that may come out of this. After meeting with them last year, they may want additional monitoring for the shell fish and water quality which may show as a proposed amendment or a conditional approval in the development agreement or put in somewhere in the approval process. Matt had sent me an email with questions about pesticide use on the Golf Course. So we're exploring those onswers ?? One of the things I got out of it at the hearing, is that it's been going on for so long, I used to work in Brinnon. You can see that reflected in the way of what people are asking for, what their negotiating for and it was interesting to hear the tribe asking for more monitoring and to hear the opponents talk about perhaps Plan B, say if the funding dries up. It seemed like a significant concern. What happens in terms of keeping it a good vibrant place if there's no operating capital, or at least keep it protected. And there's some other things that came up in the presentation that were helpful, insightful and interesting but I haven't seen any written materials so those were the questions related to those. How evenly divided the whole room was, in a way was striking, and it's been that way the whole time. Mf : I'd been made aware of the "kettle ponds" issue with a letter from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe dated December 16,2015. I've been here since the 70's and never heard that term before. It's where during the ice age that large blocks of ice melted and made an impression in the ground. One of them (B) is 120' deep, and [C) is close to 100' deep. The archeologist report refers to them as evil, I certainly don't agree with that. My gut feeling is that it's very possible they used these holes in the ground for a religious purpose, as indigenous people. An archeologist, per se, is more looking for artifacts, an anthropologist would be more qualified to address is there or not a religious significance to these holes in the ground. The proposal calls for filling kettle pond B with waste fill and creating a small pond with a liner to be used for waste water and storm water is to be stored and later reused for landscaping. I'd be bothered if it is proven to have religious significance and is buried. And I understand kettle pond C is to be cleared of all trees and a wetland created as mitigation for burying a wetland in kettle pond B. I got a chance to go down there. I think at least it's a glacial topographical peculiarity and I think kettle pond C is a very large aquafer recharge area. Let's find an anthropologist to back that up and I'd like to see both kettle ponds [B and C) set aside and preserved as conservation and wildlife area. Along with conservation of the beach area to the south. It's in mitigation that 200' of the southwest shoreline be included in that, but the land trust wants some up lands. I can't speak for them as they look for each individual proposal, but I know that they wanted some uplands included when they were asked about this back in 2007 or 2008. If the Land Trust isn't interested in it we could require them to sei aside a conservation. It's only mitigation on a piece of paper, it's on a main mitigation list, Ietter O or something like that. DJ: It's a condition that the commissioners put on the Phase 1 approval. That the trust be satisfied before they sign off. CK: But if the land trust wasn't interested then they'd have to find another party? Dl: We would just require them to set aside a conservation easement. The County would. With your idea of not filling it in, what else could be done with them? Is there a recreational use? Mf : The brush is very thick in there, in the majority of C. In the southern end there's a nice alder bottom of firs and stuff. The whole northern sides of the bowls are very brushy and picturing it 50 years from now, I'd like to see it reforested better than it is presently but I think Olympic Air Authority would have an issue if you to burn it but that's really probably what it needs. It's very steep ground and that is a challenge. I'd like to see it zoned into a forested area and maybe if an anthropologist says yes, it is indigenous then maybe you can set up a 23:23 drill system down in there. By my estimation it's 900 to 1,000' north to south from the top of kettle B and 500' east to west and 120 to 150' deep. It's a very big very deep hole and it's so unique that regardless of indigenous people or not I'd like to see it saved. If you can go down in there and make it a cultural center or an education trail or Page z of 15 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03,2016 P:36o479-449o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us whatever. If you can utilize it to draw people in that would be good. It's an intricate part of the plan, I know. And I apologize for that. Was that proposal in the original EIS? DJ: Yes it's a very important key element in the whole scheme. Although, the Planning Commission, and in pqrticular Henry Worth had a real problem with filling in ony of those kettles, as you do, and the Commissioners came up with the condition that the filling in of the kettles be reevaluated and at least one of the kettles (C) be sqved. Kettle B has the wetland and Kettle C is where they wanted to make the new artificial wetland on top of. Mf : Yeah but for the public, we're talking about a 100' deep hole that doesn't back any water up, because of the glacial orientation, and it self-drains. That, to me, is about as nice of a natural aquifer recharge area that you can imagine, I know that it's a major fall back and regroup and I also would encourage, since we know that the old EIS is in concept, but we also know that things can change. I'm for Phase Development with Environmental Review with each Phase, as it changes. I absolutely defer to an expert, an anthropologist. Absolutely. And I'd still like to see the resort go in. Kettle B is about four times the size as Kettle C. ?? We can recommend that they review the Kettle Plan. Suggesting that Kettle B be more appropriate for preservation. If kettle B is a better example for an aquafer recharge then we can suggest they reconsider it. M|: There is no water in it kettle pond B. But my map from 1950 to 1985 shows no wetlands down in there and I believe that there's enough clay and siltation when they logged it in the 90's that they kind of sealed it off. I got into there, in the wettest time of the year and I'd say the water's no more than 3' deep. It's definitely dry in the summer, but it is a wetlands, there's willows and stuff CK: And so it's OK to fill in a wetland as long as you create a suitable mitigation plan, that's what they have to do. MJ: And kettle pond C they would have to put a liner in it, itfs a smaller geographic area. Dl: I think that B was selected because of the volume. Mf : Well it's also very adjacent to the area where they're doing the most cutting. There's no transportation necessary for fill, you just shove it off the edge. It's too steep to get scrapers or dump trucks into it. And I understand the bulldozer part and the financial and the development part pretty well. We're talking a lot of money, They want to do it as easily as they can. CK So past this approval, what are the next steps of approval? Once they have their agreements with the utilities and the schools and building permits. Dl: They need some kind of development permit to divide the site up. Some kind of binding site plan or boundary line adjustment. That's after the Development Agreement. CK; Do we ever see this again? Or is this our one touch? It's a really big plan to me. Its 890 units. More than half of Port Ludlow. And this process is our one touch of this. We'd be approving the entire thing. I'd like to see more granularity, done incrementally and not only monitoring the stages but with a feedback loop. See them put in 100 houses then get a review. We're right next to Puget Sound. We're already having a hard time reversing fnot minimizing it) our impact on the Puget Sound and now, right on the Hood Canal we're going to put 890 more houses? More granularity with incremental developmen! phases and monitoring to analyze the impact, with a feedback Ioop Page 3 of 15 9r;o L a8u6 ppotls al \ulqlI '6unsq puoqtppD Jol\sD o1 6uro6 st aErt atfi puo quu4lcta^a $q oJ sarnsDaa uoqodrltru asaql ilD s,alaql [qm sSorll puo uaddDq ppot l tDtll awnssD ppot auo tlprruDN 'araqi punorD llD puD Ktorysa aql 'oato auq aroqs aqJ 'Dqap qsnq o\)np at$ otut p0 ol11lo Kon ,(uo s,ataql{1 'satout ralow aqt wqi [om at11 't11ota117 'uodo[ ur a1o1d nuutp o uo dn pua pqu astnocllo0 strll ol pauddo siuauinu aql wltl a1Essod Ktar s,11't10noq1 p^al roryrapw o u0 to lq1noql uaaq +ua\Dq WW squltll awos s,aralll yg 't11soy1 {o 1q0noq1 uaaq soq quupttaaa tsowlv 'puDl aql paptd 01 sarnsDaru uono1tltw aW il,f iuaddorl ot 6uto0 s,loq/A1no mo{ s6u1t1l forvr rlcrynlo srural ur 'au) ol patalut to s,loqJ 7uawdolad,ap auo$ s,alaql puv iut op I alq o1 0uro0 taql ato nt *rog ilnJ q 0uto0 taql ato l4rnru lAoH 2oD o1 0uto6 {aql ato daap / oH 'uttop puo dn 0wo0 6urpot6 puo paaow qltoa to tol V 'asJnoJ 11o6 aql n pqllo ltod afinq V T a1Dut o16n{apcs utDira) o ot dn I p6 ol a^Dq no; 'ssan1 tru s,wtlJ 'ap)s sttll 0u1op at,,(aqt trlrvr sSoql uaqt Lford ut 0ut6wtqto aruDtlr o sDt! tDrll alocs {o pwl lDtlt tol o0 to p4toru lo put\ tDtll irorliD ro 'astnocllo0 D pllnq o1 iuto? at,no[tt asnocaq ado4cod D s,J!1ou ruJ puo 'luoctlddo atfi puatap ot araw 1t1 '1utdotspuol pua q61q Ktan s,11 2cndwt lDtuawuolt^ua pnualod aqllo sru)at ur fiutppnq atp so luocyfru1rs tllonba porulo sD luawap astnoc fio6 aql aas I 'putw ut loql daay al ruLp luoltodtut s,il suJnuol aql paw ol fiutttl puo cryqnd aql q iutualsylo swJal q pru JaAa aAJ ndolaaap nt1lo ,fuo uDql alow auop sotl'/Aou\ 1 so tot so 'luoctlddo aLtJ tle '8urqlou Jo IIe aq] puE azrs aqt lnoqe uJaf,uo3 rnor( areqs 1 o5 'r{ervre oB arvr puv 'teq].rog a8els aql tas aA 'sasnoq 008 se dueru sE aq plnor fplue.rg teqt ueld a1r5 Surpurg E 01 araq ruo.r; drunf ol papaau s,leql aseqd aJou auo aqdeur reqr rq8noqt aql tno alnJ l,uplnom a/\ a{rl sruaas lsotule 1r 1ng 'q8norql Euro8 uaaq seq slqt leq/!\Jo puDI 'lvrarlal leluauuoJrnua puu aseqd JoJ sA olle lEql ssaJoJd e s,a;aql VdgS Japun :S'I 'slqr a{II luaurdolazraP xalduoo E alpueq o1 aoeld ur $lJaqJ pue smarlar q8noua aAEq altnJr eJns a>lpru ot Surfrl aJ,al aJaI{ oS :eZ 'unoJ nuadn5 aq ppol 1Dttl lutql I tle elsal aql JoJ lnq'slql JoJ sI aJaql ^ ou{ I sal :s-l 's1r.1l tol ssacotd paddo uo n ataql :[q eauo aJaql sl ZuEId alrg Surpurg e ro; leadde aqt sl lEqA 'ur aruoJ r(gsea tsoru plnor sleadde aJaLIM s;t d14ue.tg pu" uy q8tarvr 01 aruo 8rq s,rrlqnd aqr SI slql 'SIg aqt SI srql 'ssaJo.rd aql SI slql asnef,aq sr luecrgru8rs s,ll uoseal aqt tng :S'I 'sarnpaoord aJe asor.lJ 'lr qJleru 11am dpard r{aql ued lsou aqt roJ puv ;8urop daqt are teq/!\ puv essal Jo tua8uuts a;ou r{aql aJV ZUd Surtsxa aqt q1^ areduroc faql op rvtoH ;alenbape suoqeln8ar asoql eJV :sr ltAou le lool plnoqs a/v\ leq/v\ oS 'atup e le aratd e 'Sutsodo:d a.re daql teq/n tE >lool IIr/v\ arntnJ aqt ul aldoad q3lqll^ [q salnr aql aq plno/lr tl '/!\ou asn ^{ue Suurordde Jou aJ,anA 'palordde aq plno^ s8ulql JaqunJ asoqt qlrq^r JoJ suoueln8a.r aqt dllelseq sr ^ ou anordde 01 pa>lse aJ,alvr Surql aql oS cZ 'slualuaJJur ur penordde aq plno^\ sueld alrs Surpurq aql puv 'papuoq sr 'aseqd Jalaleq/v\.ro; 'arnlcnrlse{ur aql oS '}a{JEIU aql uodn paseq lno sasnoq Jraql plrnq daqt ueql 'palaldruoc s,lr lpr{l aJnsua ol JrJpala aqt Jo IIE Jalel 'Ja/\ as 'spBoJ s,leqJ 'palalduror s,lr treql aJnsur ol aJnlf,nJlse{ur aqtr IIB JoJ puoq ol aleq daqt uorsrlrpqns e op ,{aqt uaqm o5 'sar{ r{1a1n1osqy :{q ;Surpuoq tuarJlJJns roJ luauarrnbar e aJaql sl lpalalduroo tou speoJ aqt qty\ auop sasnoq 0S a^eq faqt JO ifeme qlE&l pue dn d11aq sao8 radolenap aql gl suaddeq teql 'tsrl >lJaqr e Jo tJos auos r{ll^\ ueld alrs Surpurq aqt tE ut q8tarvr ol flrun1roddo aqt aleq op suazurf, aql ssanB I Zaup ur lurod leq] lE IEap auop E s,ll ssal Jo aJolu pue pJEMJoJ oE ol luaurdolalap aloql slq] JoJ a8els aql Suqlas aJ.al\ oS :suoqsanb palelar aneq pue suJaf,uof, asoql aJeqs I :S"l sn'B/vI uosJeJJa['oJ@ urruoJueld r9bb-6lt-o9E:g ogbV-6lt-ogt td groz 'to drenrqag JalueC .(lrununuoC uaJV-rJI SgMNIIAI CNIIflgIA[ uorssrturuo3 3uruuu14 .,Quno3 uosJeJgef g9tg6 y14 puasu^roJ uod 'ls uBPueqs rzg 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February og, 2016 P:360-379-4450 Ft 560379-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us encourage the applicant to take a very strong look at the minute detqils of what people use on golf courses. And perhaps make it a condition that what works in Florida or Utah or Los Vegas doesn't work here. I think the applicant's recognize that otherwise they wouldn't be going through this process. Because it's a beautiful place, and that's part of the market value of the resort, because it's beautiful and pristine and even if it has been cut up and redone. The other reqson I think it's importont is because it's a closed system according to the plan. The kinds of things that go into that system are of greater consequence, maybe than they would be if they were just injected into the ground. ? By closed system means it will keep everything in there and just recycle it and not get out? DJ: The intention is to keep all of the nutrients there. I believe it's actually stated. That the intention is to enter into a cycle to the south. ?? At this point we have these regulations to pass on and approve or disapprove. How would you change those regulations? DJ: I'm not exactly sure whqt the wording would be. There's a couple of things, I've written about some of these types of pesticides before. A couple that come to mind they're called persistent contaminants there are some that are more persistent than others. In particular, there's one, Synthetic Parathyroid that's extremely toxic to fish and is available over the counter in a lot of places and is present in most Califurnia streqms now. When I wrote about this, for a job I had a couple of years ago, it had just hit the open market in Caltfornia and it was already in all the streams. We should really look at this. On the directions it says: Spray fungicides preventatively, rotate your chemicals, check your ph levels. ?? Those sound like things we can put in the regulations. The concern I have is that no matter how good we make the restrictions on constructing this, we don't have any control of what they do after they construct this. And we actually have no control over what most people do. Dl: I would wager that you're wrong. And that we could encourage the applicant come up with basically a farm plan. It's basically farming. To come up with a plan that's something that doesn't include persistent contaminants. The planners have already stated that they don't want to over fertilize. There's some that are worse than others. ?? What do you want to do with this thing we've got to review? DJ: Get very speciftc and get all of that consultant language out of there. The Tacoma consultant that prepared this thing took a bunch of stuff from golf course best management practices. And what I'm saying is those "best mqnagement practices" don't really apply here. They're extremely outdated compared to what the average Iandscaper who lives in Port Townsend and works for $15.00/hr. does. ?? Is there any sort of standard that we can ask the reviewers in the future to look at or incorporate? Is there something from California or wherever you've seen it that we can adopt as a standard to be used here? Dl: I don't know of any existing standards. Obviously I write for organic standards all the time, I'm not here to advocate organic. ?? It seems to me that the applicant has shown intent to be responsible to the environment. He hasn't named insecticides or fertilizers but he's shown intent to be respectful of the environment and shoreline. I'm not sure that it's good to name insecticides because they change. I think the intent is there, and if he's operating in good faith in the past then I have no reason to think he won't continue to operate in good faith. Page 5 of 15 6er Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 Pt g6oi79-4450 F:56o379-445r plancomm @co j efferson.wa.us CK: It might not be this developer. ??: lf I can mention the marijuana laws. When the state came out with the regulations for growers, they had a list of herbicides, and pesticides that they didn't want you to use because they were initially harmful to chemists, They had a prescribed list. But they've changed it quite twice since they've put it out and we don't want to be responsible for doing that. We're not monitoring it. We'd like to find some agency that does that on a regular basis to set standards, like ecologists so we don't have to do that. How do we control it? CK: At a minimum they'd have to meet ecology standards, I think we're talking about going beyond that. We'd have to find an agency organization, somebody that works with these things. Audubon International has environmental management practices for golfers I'm not familiar with this but they do exist out there. MS: There are some things, (fertilizers), that are better or worse than others. Am I correct that there was a plan to use afftliative manure product? Did I see a photo of that at the hearing in Brtnnon? ?? It was sterilized compost products applied to the ground. I wouldn't call it utilized, perhaps it was. I didn't catch the company, but they've been putting it out for some time now. ?? lf we put something in the regulation, it has to be something that is authoritative, from someone who knows what they're doing and requires very little maintenance from our part. So it appears in the regulation, don't use this stuff. Dl: That could go in here but we have to be really clear and specific on what it is. And is that just the golf course or the whole resort? LS: It needs to be for the whole resort. I can't envision how they're going to avoid any kind of runoff into Hood Canal. It's a large area and it slopes downhill. To gather runoff and what not. I also know that you don't gather all the runofl it's very difficult to do. I worry about nitrogen, additions to Hood Canal where they already have huge problems with nitrogen overloading. ??. Is it a matter of practice or scale overloading? Both? Df : Thts has already been addressed. But the way that I see it is, there's o continuum between fast, and high intensiLy and slow, and low intensity. Fastyou buy more chemicals, you buy more inputs. Slow, you take more time, you hire more labor. If there's someone picking dandelions . . . But the thing is do we want someone whose paid $8.2S/hr. spraying consistent contaminates? Responsible for doling it out? ??: What if you make a more generic statement, something like "the applicant will refrain from using herbicides because they shall be harmful to fish"? And just leave it at that. CK: Here's the Environmental Institute of Golf. I've got to believe that some of these regulations exist out there. Something that we could refer back to. They're all a part of this association because if they look like they're "green". ?? Our problem/concern here is Hood Canal and the shoreline, and most golf courses in Kansas don't care about that. We want the rules that apply to this kind of heavily fished and shellfish area. Dl: And??? Brought us 55:53 the best management practices. And I'm saying that there's a lot of considerations in there and they're not up to the standards of what we're used to. And it's easy to fix that. Page 6 of 15 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 P:36o379-445o Fi S6o*79-445t plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us ?? l'm just saying something generic like, nothing that harms fish or point to some specific list of things that they can't use. CK: They already can't use something that harms fish MS: We could name synthetic pyrethroids and unecktanoids. The County uses one gallon in ayear. Maybe we could use the county to come down. ?? 56:57 and it needs to be kept up to date and we in the county probably don't have a seal to do that. ?? In the letter from the S'Klallam tribe, (l assume this is on an annual basis) they said they were concerned about the residents from the project going in and taking there shellfish. And they claim anywhere from 13,000 to 21,000 lbs. of Manella clams, and anywhere from 13,000 to 48,000 lbs. of pacific oysters from the duck- a- bush alone. Now let me give you a little bit of experience from my boat days. I've been down to Pleasant Harbor a few times working on boats. Now the docks there are loaded with oysters. You don't see that at Port Ludlow, at Port Townsend, there's water quality issues, you don't see it at Port Hadlock. That's the only place I've seen it. From a Marine Mechanic's standpoin! there's money to be made in salt water, because it's so corrosive. You can have a boat parked at Pleasant Harbor and have oysters growing on the propellers. These oysters in that harbor are extremely prolific. They're probably some of the best growing climate in the world possibly. And you want to be real careful to protect it because once you lose it, you lose it. CK: Or if they become contaminated and not good for human consumption then that could be viewed as a violation. ?? This exact area would be developed, over the last year by the applicant, and so far, as I understand it, it's better than it was. ?? Since I've been here working on boats since 1994, I worked back down there with Chuck at Pleasant Harbor and he was the first one to do some dock rebuilding, he said that all his studies were showing that most of the fecal contamination was coming from the other Pleasant Harbor Marina, not his marina. And we're talking about live a- board on boats. That's all part of it too. CK: I think that's part of what the other's mean about this is the scale. Not just the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Which is a problem everywhere. The concentration is a problem. And the way that we're all talking about it is that it's a fact. It's a fact that it's going to happen, that it's a problem, it's a fact that were going to have some kind of impact and we'll be lucky to scale it back as much as we can and I'm concerned about that way of looking at it. To say well . . . I'd rather say is this the right thing in all these ways? Using all this criteria, including the environment? If we want to protect the environment should we put all these houses here? So I guess I'm concerned about the idea that this is just sort oi assumed that this will go forward and we'll be lucky to restrict them in whatever ways that we can and then we'll appeal to their good nature and awesomeness to follow through and it scares me. ?? Most of you know I'm a macro thinker. I feel very strongly that we need to do whatever we can to protect the Hood Canal from whatever needs to be used. So I'm anxious to have the right people deal with that. At the same time, I'm very concerned that we've created a situation that's focused on both sides. And we wind up with a half assed development that can't succeed. And we wind up with something sitting there that now we'll have to deal with it because it's on the use? And I haven't heard anybody say anything about it being successful. So I'm thinking there's a balance here that says these things have to be done in order to protect the environment and these are the people that want to depend upon to tell us what has to be, and I don't know who those people are. Then on the Page 7 of 15 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 Pt 960:379-4451U^ F:36o179-449r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us other hand, this process is already been used at a golf course with 18 holes or 9. If I'm a golfer and I want to go to a resor! I'm not going to go to a t hole resort. It's not going to happen. And I don't have any idea of what the impact of the success of this golf course is going to have, because nobody's going to go there to play golf. People are going to go there for other reasons, the golf course is just a secondary thing to do while you're there. So I have nothing that tells me what's it going to take for this to succeed? Other than golf, I'm going to assume it's going to fail. And now ask yourself what we have on our hands if it fails. Because when a development fails, it doesn't matter what the rules, regulations or agreements were. Now this is a developer that's done everything necessary, in my point of view, to satisfy the requirements to get the thing there. Who has helped him decide what it's going to take to succeed? CK: Presumably he's a smart businessman so one would think he's got You don't make an investment like that. . . LS: Oh my, there's failed resort's all over the place. business people advising him on that end ?? Maybe it's too late in the process, I don't know, but . . . there was no discussion last week about that. That these five or six things have to work out, and I can't vote on this without knowing this. I don't care what the vote is, I'm not going to vote because I don't see the marcel decision. I see a lot of detail decisions about this and that and so forth but I don't understand the marcel. CK: Can I speak to this? I'm thinking about this a lot and been a little hesitant to bring this to the forefront in the beginning because in some ways, I'm not sure whether it's our charge to figure out whether their business plan is a good plan or not but it has effect, and that's your point. If it fails then what? I did a girlfriend spa trip down to Alder brook Resort which is down at the base of Hood Canal at Union. This resort has been there since 1913. Has had many different iterations and been close to failing over and over. This is a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful location right on the water. Couldn't be lovelier. Overlooking the Olympics, water all in front, and historical significance. Fairly close to shopping in Bremerton. I asked a lot of questions. One I asked of all the people working, and they all had time to speak to me because it was quite slow, I asked them all if they were local. Only one woman was 10 minutes away. She said everybody else that she knew there were from all over. Port Orchard which is 40 min away, Shelton, Hoodsporg Bremerton, Tacoma. She said because of skill levels, they had a hard time finding local people that were skilled labor. So that whole question of . . . it's almost a mean thing, from my point of view. When you're talking about jobs and the hook is thrown out. It seems mean because when you're talking about a community that's very desperate for economic growth to promise jobs . . . because it's not necessarily guaranteed. If Alder Brook Resort after 102 or 103 years, which is now owned by a Microsoft person who came in and saved it, I suspect there's an influx of cash as opposed to. So that resort's been saved, not busy in winter, not hiring locals, not a full time concern year round, and they told me that people come and say where can we go shopping? What's there to do? And there is a golf course nearby. So I'm suspicious of this business plan and have reason to believe and add to that with all of the changes in management at resorts that I've seen in this area for all kinds of reasons. I'm worried about the business plan. That's why the granularity, seems like something that we could do to say, let's give you a sandbox to play with. But some way to say Ok, how's it going? Does it make since to continue forward in terms of the Hood Canal? ?? That's a good concern but it's not our concern. We literally have nothing to do with the business plan. The guys wants to spend a lot of money in building it. I'm not interested in digging into their business plan. What I am interested in is what limitations are going to keep them from being successful? And how do we deal with those? C.K. But that's not our job either. Page B of r5 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES TriArea Community Center February oB, 2016 P:36o379-445o F:36o379-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?? Maybe it's not our job but what I don't want to see is a bunch of empty buildings. And unintended as it might be, what's going to prevent that from happening? LS: That's all or concerns ?? David didn't you say this was going to be stage development with the first buildings built only along Hwy101? And then stopped if it didn't turn out to be profitable? DJ: Yes, qnd that's the thing. Thqt's really the task, is the first phase because it's mixed use you've got commerciql development on the ground floor, you've got residential units (66), you've got a family fun center, you've got zip line activtty, you've got recreational activity, it's right along the highway so your conceivably pick up tourists along Hwy 707, and they're going to stop and see it and enjoy the marina, there will be activities down there. So that's his plan. And then I think he's going to judge whether or not it's going to be feasible to go ahead with the subsequent phases based upon that one. LS: Well what happens with the property if he decides, OK I built these Motel/Hotel Units but nothing else looks like it will pan out. He's got the option to sell off the property? It's already a Master Plan Resort Designation, what else could happen there? Dl: A new owner with a new plan. CK: Or they could pick up the plan that exists... ?? How many acres is that there? Dl: 213 I think. ?? How was it zoned prior to this? DJ: Rural residential 1 to 5. Thqt's why these regulations have to be enacted because otherwise you're building a resort with residential development standards and you can't do that. ?? If this thing fails what we have is space for something like 50 houses. And if we make it so hard that it fails, then it will probably revert to something Iike that where they build individual houses and there will be no control over what something will go in the ground. There won't be any controlled run off and it will basically go into the water. No permits. Dl: There would be no centralized control of the wqste water. ??: Thisisprobablythecleanestitwilleverget. Ifitwasn'there,inthefuture,we'dhave50morehouses. My choice is Iet him go with the best practice he's thought about and put a lot of controls in here on who's going to watch the environment in the future as they build their thing. Or doing nothing looks like it's probably going to be worse on the environment and trying to control it. At least there's someone here who knows what they're doing and try to do it professionally and to use best management practices. Whether you like the houses or not it's probably the cleanest environment we'll ever see if they succeed and do it well. CK: That is a very important point. The no action option does not mean development will not happen there. That's very important to know that. It's not going to reverse the national park if we don't go forward. Page 9 of r5 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 P: 860-579-4450 Ft 360179-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us ?? Is there a group or watch agency or could be used, or called, to approve of the chemicals they're going to use? Dl: Say for example, there are high standards set by the county, and the manager of the greens knew that they couldn't just go to the store and buy something, but there ore lists for the organic industry. So there are lists. The 502 stuff is reloted to that. But if you want to go for a high standard, that's real easy. Just tell them they can only use what organic farmer's use. ?? It's already been looked at by the Indians. They have more time to look at it and care about it than anyone else I know of. They have biologists that know what works and what doesn't. Let's just go to them. Dl: That's another idea.. ??: We don't want it to be someone who just stops things from happening, but we want it to be someone who knows what they're doing. CK: There is a Washington Toxic's Coalition who might have some advice on this. DJ: I want to respond to what he said too. You're asking what someone's motivation for getting into this. What's the profitability? And what are the main selling points which I haven't heard anybody mention yet, is that when people are buying less houses their more likely to get into a time share. When the economy is down people are more interested in maybe sharing, and the time share thing is extremely popular, there's a demand for it. That's a big part of the model. What I'm saying is, qs the economy gets worse that gets better, relative to other vacation houses. And that's one ofthe advantages. CK: I think as people cut back on their budgets, letting go of the memberships in the time shares is one way they economize Dl: We're getting off topic here, is there any other issues that are burning? ??: I have a question that complements what Tom said. I recently visited down there, and I obviously have a fair amount of history going back into the 90's, and what it was looking like and I've watch the progression and they've dumped I don't know how many millions of dollars into it very recently.. How many units are in Phase 1? Sixty six? I see the improvements they've made here in the past year, as complimenting Phase 1, as it all working together, interconnecting. That's showing some wisdom. And some long range thought. Without jeopardizing millions and millions of dollars on something that might fail. So they need the latitude to develop Phase 1 and to develop their marketing and see how it goes, so I don't know if there's any way we can delay Phase 2 because our job is to just say your zoning looks good, go with the whole thing. I don't see any way we can diwy the two up. CK: So to clari$r for all, you're using the terms Phase 1 and Phase 2 differently than Garth used them. We're at the end ofPhase 2. Dl: For Garth, Phase 7a is the renovation of the marina. Phase 1b is the Maritime Village on the highway. It's not the same os what's in the SEIS. LS: And does it include the Golf Course or not? Dl: Phase 2 is the Golf Course. ?? Can we give our blessing to Phase 1a and b without Phase 2? Page ro of r5 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA gBg6B Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 Pt g60179-4450 F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Dl: Absolutely butwhatyou really need to do is decide whether these regulations are adequate for Phase 7, 2, 3 and 4. LS: What if we say we want to defer on that? You say we need to. Why do we need to do that first? Dl: Becouse it's in the Jefferson County code. Thatyou need to make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to either Approve, Deny or Approve with Conditions these Development Regulations. CK: So if we wanted to get back to this diwying up concept, we have to deny? Dl: No, you can approve these with conditions or you can make a recommendation that the Commissioner's look at a possible different scheme for phasing or some other way. Butyou need to either opprove, deny or approve with modifications. One of the modifications could be a new section on herbicide or pesticide use on the Golf Course. You could. There could be a section on Golf Course Management. ?? OK, so the Golf Course isn't going to happen until after Phase 1 is operational? ?? David, where is the Sewage Treatment Plant? Is that in Phase 1? DI: No, Phase 7 is going to use large onsite septic until Phase 2 whey they develop and build the full treatmentfacility. ?? Ok, that's another safe guard. If that's adequately done, then they have the option of ripping and installing the sewer pipe. I'm seeing their logic here. Dl: You all really need to read the SEIS to get a full understanding of what they're proposing to do. That was your homework and you should have done that, to make important decisions. If you don't have time to do that, I have CD's I can give you, you can load them on your computer, or you can come by our office and borrow our copy. It looks like that's whatyou really need to do. CK: We have to a certain extent. It's a lot though. Dl: I know, but this is a complex project and it requires that ?? I move that we approve the regulations as proposed. ?? I second that. CK: I don't think we're there. Everyone slow down. DJ: I want to make sure everyone's vented their concerns because I want to know clearly whatyour issues ore and address those. I'd like to see q consensus. CK: We've given them a whole bunch of work to do, we're not there yet. Dl: I was hoping for a dialog on any lssues that you heard at the Planning Commission and any issues that you want me to research and come back with at the next meeting or communicate with you via email to satisfy your concerns and then we could talk about possibly resolving those. Page rr of 15 ??: David I thought our charge here was to approve or disapprove Title 17? 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February og, 2016 p: 3603Z9-4450 F:36o379-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us CK: But we clarified at the beginning, we are not required to do this at the end of this meeting. LS: And we owe it to the tribe to let their comments or feedback come in before we do anything. Dl: We're still in consultation with the tribe. LS: And I want that feedback. CK: And we've been talking about the whole environmental details, a section that we don't even have Dl: I intend to introduce an amendment. CK: I feel we're not ready for a vote. Help me. Do we go ahead and vote? Dl: Well we could introduce a motion and second it but we wauld have to go through and expand and develop the ftndings and develop the recommendations. So do you want to make a motion to recommend that we approve these as is? Thatwould be your motion. Then someone would second. Then we would have a discussion on thot. Then we would have to go through and develop the findings. We don't have enough time tonight and would have to continue next meeting, bring the motion back up and continue. I would like to see that we air all the r'ssuet then I can address the issues as best I can, then we can proceed with the motion and the recommendations. CK: I don't want you to feel unheard but I also am very concerned about this important moment. ??: It is, but the way we've done it in the past, we have a set of regulations to approve and we have a motion to discuss it, and then approve it. And when we discuss it, we go section by section. During that section by section discussion we find things that we don't understand, that we postpone, that we add onto but it gives format for discussion that leads us away from this aimless wondering through it that we've been doing so far. It gives us focus. CK: I disagree. Here's where we are. Its 7:59 if we went with that path we would not conclude that path today. I would argue that were not there yet, That we've asked for information we're going to provide some information and need input from the tribes. Df : /f's not that we can't approve this now, but I feel it's better that we wait and hear these l'ssues. LS: Can we offer a friendly amendment? I'm not sure it's legal to do. Could he change it to a straw poll if we have to go forward with an amendment? ??: He's not asking for a vote now. Let's understand process. The vote could come four weeks from now. The point is, what are we discussing? Are we discussing this generic event? Or are we discussing the regulations? The best way to discuss the regulations is to go through them one at a time so it's a part of a motion of a motion. That's all he was saying. Dl: l'd like to add two things to my one main point that I brought which was the pesticide/fertilization regime. The other thing I'm interested in is my understanding of some form of monitoring of the bulldozing and stuff will happen. I'm curious about what that rs Is rt legitimate? If the tribe can be invited to be involved if they really want to be or if the county's invited to be involved. Page rz of 15 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February oS,2ot6 P: S6oi79-445o F: S6o3Z9-445t plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us ??: No the county is supervising that. The Public Works Dept. DJ: It's hard to scrape and watch. ??: I saw that the developer was responsible to have somebody present during excavations, (l assume continually present) that was under the direction of the archeologist. Doesn't have to be an archeologist, could be a student intern, but they were required to have someone present. DJ: There was some language in there that said until it was deemed no longer necessary. CK: It's B:03. I'd like to get comment from the public and then at the end, I'd like to get a really clear list to David about what we need in terms of research or work or a site visit. PUBLIC COMMENT Roma Call, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. I hope to help with the comments. We are planning to go to the tribal council on Monday. Some of the brief overview of some of the issues we're bringing, then the council will be making a decision about how they'd like to respond. Please, out of respect for the tribe please don't make any votes or approvals until you've heard from the tribe and the council's had a chance to respond. They would appreciate that. I appreciate the commissioner's discussion about the Kettle Ponds. There is a concern about them being a cultural resource and our anthropologist would very much like to look into that and be able to respond. They're very rare and have a particular species of plants and amphibians in them that you don't have in other places. There's also religious and cultural significance in them. We have concerns about the water quality and aren't comfortable for one being used as a storm water pond and it's not accurate mitigation for the wetland impacts. AIso about the shellfish, the increase in population of people in the area will impact the tribal shellfish harvesting. The ground disturbing activity that is part of the cultural resource plan. I believe the Snohomish Tribe sent a letter that they wanted to be part and invited when that happens. The Port Gamble Tribe didn't reply yet but that is an interest that they would be invited to attend when there's ground disturbing activity as that's when you can see if there's culturalresources there. That would be important to be invited when that happens. We're concerned about the contaminants. Especially the Phase 1 b, which has commercial and residential facilities on 101. We're concerned about run off going into the hood canal that has a lot of contaminants due to the increase in vessels. Even if the applicant is taking care of that on the site, there's a lot of traffic that's coming on the highway from other areas and that isn't being addressed as far as the run off. Weather there needs to be some bioswales or something to protect that area where it's draining into the Hood Canal. Those are just some of the issues we have we have just to give you some idea and we are going to try to have something in writing and aim to get that to you for the next meeting and let you know what the council's decision is. Barbra More-Willis 18414 43.a St NE in Snohomish County. Thank you all. I'm very much impressed with everyone at that table. You're a very good example of what citizens should be. This woman has been the high cleater for Sahara Club and my neighbor is a back country ranger for the Parks for 20 years, and we got lost in that Kettle. We got led by the seasonal ranger ofmany years and he took us up there! Craig Peck 77402 40tt Ave East, Tacoma: I'm the Civil Engineer for this project. Those grating plans you saw are mine. Sewage collection, storm collection, water system they're all mine. At the outset in 2008 the board of county commissions required that this development not allow direct run off from the Golf Course into Hood Canal. So that million cu yds. of material were now moving makes a big dam along the south side above the cliffs that makes all the run off that now runs over those cliffs into the water, it turns it all around and the entire Golf Course is runs back into the kettle or in the area of what is now fairway 6 that dam makes the water run back away from the cliffs into a pond and it is pumped back to the Kettle pond. The 12 acre pond. So your concern of pesticides and fertilizers Page 13 of 15 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 P: S6oi79-445o Ft S6oi79-445r plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us running off the Golf Course and into Hood Canal cannot happen. It is physically not possible because everything is turned back inside. Which was a requirement of the initial approval of this MPR. I've also worked at Salish Cliffs down by Shelton the Golf Course owned by Squakson Island Tribe. They're not interested in having their fishery damaged by Golf Course activity. The Golf Course Superintendent is very cautious. If you look into it, Salish Cliffs has been reviewed by Salman Safe which is an organization that Iooks at Golf Courses and certifies that they are safe. Salish Cliffs has runoff directly into streams that flow directly into the sound. There's no prohibitions like you have here. Where run off isn't allowed to go. With respect to monitoring of grating. The State of Washington Department of Ecology requires grating permits from EPA. So before you can start any grating you have to install all the storm water and erosion controls that are monitored 24 - 7,365 days a year by a certified erosion control specialist. He's either hired or he's part of the contractor's team. He has to sample water, sample run off, send reports to DOE constantly. It's a state law. EPA has assigned DOE to monitor it. It's a requirement of any construction in Washington State. Grating doesn't ever happen Willy nelly, the County inspects and the Engineer in charge of project is also required to inspect it. That's me. Those are points I heard, that I wanted to make sure you were aware, that IS IN the SEPA document. It's all there. So if you have any questions, get them to David and he'll get back to you. Kimball f aheem. As far as contaminants, I'll refer to my 502 lists that you may find helpful. Omri & Picul lists that we refer to. There's a great deal of info you may find valuable. This looks to me like a case of potential jobs vs the environment. I'm glad I'm not making the decision. ThaCs a tough one. I see some potential for some disaster, and jobs are important. I don't have an answer for you. Filling in a wet Iand and creating a new wet land are what my grand- father would refer to as horse hockey. Rare species don't just get up and walk to other locations. The earth doesn't support that kind of meddling, not well anryay,l think the Kettle ponds need to be scrutinized further for the geographical and historical uniqueness. Oyster populations I find to be very important, as well as other fisheries and critters of the sea. At the meeting in Brinnon Mr. Mann said they are imputing more water into the aquafer that they remove. Someone please explain that to me, I think it defies the laws of science. I don't understand that statement. As I was reading the handout for tonight I notice something, this MPR will allow you to put an B0' building, 20' from your property boundary. Why can I put an B0' building next to the MPR property boundary, but I can't put a marijuana plant 20' from the property boundary I have to move it 25' from the property boundary and have an B' fence. So I'd like to know how that makes sense. If you can enlighten me on that issue. Mike f erom e 284 Commemorate View Dr. I'm right next to the MP community. My observations from tonight, this is more of a comment, but I feel you people need to do more homework. It seems like 3 maybe 4 of the people with the green signs were prepared to deal with the issues before. I agree that all the pesticides and all that are very important. Certainly trying to come up with a comprehensive list before something's developed I think is fool hardy, I think there's experts better suited at it than me. I would suggest that you have them report what they are putting down on it and decide if we need to legislate against that. I don't see this as a discussion about jobs vs the environment. I think it's a critical way to protect the environment that we do have. I'd encourage some economic development in a community that need it. And I'm talking about ALL of Jefferson County. Weather the resort is successful or not, a lot will depend on if time shares work but if you look at Van Cover, and Seattle, there's a lot of people that need a place to live. fefferson Co has a potential to be a great resource except that it doesn't have a road to get into it. And that's the filter for the development in this area. Not property, the environments, having things viable or important to do, it's an entirely different type of development than Alder Brook, I think it's incumbent on you people to proceed and decide on whether the regulations are adequate or not. FOLLOW.UP ITEMS Next meeting is March 2,20L6. David Wayne fohnson's been making notes all night. I'd like a site visit. And Garth had said that all we need to do is arrange that. Page r4 of r5 ?? Please do that on a Thursday or a Friday t 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center February 03, 2016 P:36o179-445o F:36o379-44ir plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us Someone asked about an anthropologist report. We have an archeologist report not anthropologist report. The tribes going to take that piece. CK: Who would we talk to about the idea of recharging the aquifer? ?? The question would be, percentage wise based on surface area, of the significance of aquifer recharge in Kettle pond b and c. That's a question for Scott Fender. CK: An integrated pest management plan, info on green golf courses. ?? I can Iook into it. In Cali they have to very frequently test their compost. There are pesticides that can stick around a long time. Long enough to make it into streams. So I understand that it's filtered towards the middle, but when we're talking about a persistent contaminant that remains viable for 2 or 3 yrs., that's a different ball game. Also we have to think about bees, birds, there's a lot of ways contaminants can travel. Even though it's completely closed looped, and is probably the best design that $ can buy we should think very carefully about that. CK: Does anyone else have anything they need from David? ??: Is it appropriate within the process to have the tribe present their findings to us? We don't know if they'll be ready. DJ: If the intention is to have a closed looped system, I don't understand why it couldn't happen with a smaller pond as opposed to a twelve acre one. ??: Again, it is a planned design component for this picturesque little lake, in front of this housing development or whatever you want to call it, the conference center and I knew that well when I said we need to save Kettle Pond B, I knew that. It's a big deal isn't it? To say we've got to preserve Kettle Pond B, now what do we do with all the dirt and now where do we put our holding pond at. It's a completely new design. ??: You're tryingto take 250 acres of ground and put itin a 12 acre pond DJ: And the treated water from the Waste Water Treatment Facility is going to go in there as well. It's class A, it's been treated. It's going in there as well as the storm water and that's used for irrigation. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 03/02/2016 at 6:30 pm atthe Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at B:32 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 20L6 Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD Page 15 of r5 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2,2oL6 Pi B6oi79-4450 F:96o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present Jochems; Present Callto Order at 6:30 pm District 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present Staff Present David W. fohnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Public in Attendance: Seven AuorovalofAsenda: Annroved Approval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Does anyone want a hard copy of the FSEIS? Four. It's online as well. The reason for this meeting is to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the regulations for the Master Plan Resort at Pleasant Harbor. Either to approve, deny or approve with conditions. MS: I sent out the San Jose Certification that was mentioned in our last meeting as well as a link to the golf project just south of Shelton which was the first San f ose golf resort in the state, I think there's three in the state. With a description ofthe project. I found, as I read through their regulations, that they apply for San Jose such as restrictions on certain pesticides, there's more of a complete list of the kind of thing I was talking about. Seems Iike the appropriate level. It's something to look at and talk about. It's not the strongest certification so it might be appropriate for the Ievel that we're considering I don't know. It's something for us to discuss, I just wanted everybody to see it. Q: We were reviewing how communications will be handled through the portal? A: David Goldsmith's still working on that. There's some issue with a list serve. I'll ask about it tomorrow. CK: I had asked David Goldsmith about the list serve and he was working with Phillip Morley on that. CK: We have some unfinished business, I want to start and make sure I have the rest of the commissioner's dates on the short course on planning. I'm trying to coordinate with the City of Port Townsend and I did get reply's from five of you and one verbal, that worked. I need yours Mr. Sircely. MS: I'm fine with everything. I try not to miss anything. CK: I think out of the four dates that we put forward there's only one date that everyone whose replied so far could do and that was April 13 at 6:15. Kevin and Matt say yes so that's the date. fudy was going to come forward with a date and I called for a response from her Planning Commissioners, to the one date that all of us could do, because the Department of Commerce asks for three dates for them to pick from and we really only have one. STAFF UPDATES CK: We have two Commissioner's terms coming up in March, on St. Patrick's Day, one is Mr. Brotherton, who is not going to do this again. So staff and Planning Commissioner's came up with this card for you. The other is Mr. Felder is planning on returning. Openings will be posted after the date the term ends. Page r of 13 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2oL6 P:36o379-449o Ft g60*79-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ?? Yes, we're going to inform the Board of Commissioners of the upcoming vacancy and wait for their instructions. CK: So after the posting applicants can make application. That's District 3. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR CK: We have a motion on the table to accept the Brinnon MPR regulations as written. We need to continue discussion. I've had some time to think of this process so far from the December drop of the final supplemental EIS to now. It would have been helpful if this process had gone differently, if we had gotten the FSEIS, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in December, with copies to all who needed them. Then if we had spent our fanuary 6th and our February 3.d meetings on reviewing that and answering the questions that we now have, so that we can get really clear and orient ourselves to it. This is just the main EIS, printed on both sides. It's really quite big. In retrospect, that would have been the way to go. Instead, here we are, we've heard from the people in Brinnon, and we have started deliberations here and still have more questions. We're just getting a draft of the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribes letter to the planning commission and DCD this week and they will be voting on March 14,2016 to accept this draft letter or not and make it final and available to everyone, CK: I just wanted to say that I feel I'm working very hard to wrap my mind around this very large project and I've heard that from some of the Planning Commissioner's too. I would like to see us move forward with that process of understanding the questions that we have better before we rush into making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CK: If someone would like to make a motion to table the question I would entertain that motion. The motion is to accept the regulations for the Brinnon MPR as written. ? I'd like to make a motion to table it at least for now, there's a tremendous amount of discussion and we don't have the final concerns from the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribe until March 13th. I move that we table it. LS: I'll second that. DISCUSSION ? I'm curious about the impact. Is the Board of County Commissioner's going to move forward without our recommendation? ? Not at this point, we're still in the process of developing a recommendation for them. ? We said to the tribe that we would wait for them and we haven't gotten their final response. Until we receive that, I think it's only courtesy, we're neighbors, to wait and here from them. We can certainly discuss more and flush out more details as we need them, GF: As I understand iq we're in the discussion phase of the existing motion. The discussion phase has no fixed end. We can have that motion on the table for as long and continue our discussions for today or forever. And the motion can remain. LR: But we do have an amending motion on the table and we need to act on now Page e of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March oz,2ot6 P: B6oi79-445o F: g6o3Z9-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us CK: The main motion on the table now is that we move forward with accepting the regulations as written. Now there's a supplemental amendment that asks that we table the motion until we have heard from the S'Klallam Tribe with a final letter and to get some of our significant questions answered. ? : So will we curtail discussion of this topic at this meeting? CK: If we were to go ahead and ask the motion to table the question about accepting the regulations we would continue to talk about the Brinnon MPR. If we keep the main motion on the table, we can continue to discuss weather we will accept the regulations as they are. One of the options is to not accept the regulations at all. ?: We can go ahead and discuss the MPR now. It's already on the table. I think it was very good to get that letter from the tribe. Now we're awaiting their formal response, it's important too, and a response from the County. It's interesting the things they feel important. The way I interpreted i! they said, if this is going to happen, these are things that we'd like to see done to make sure that we don't lose out, to have measures in place, in case something happens, in terms of contamination. So I'm interested how the County and the applicant will respond to that. It's worth waiting for. I think it dovetails with some of the things that I was thinking of amending. I would consider amending it to say San f ose certification or some other standard that demands a certain amount of accountability and review of processes in landscaping and the high intensity of work done on the land. So I guess the County's response to the tribe would probably frame how I would make that recommendation. So I'm comfortable waiting on that as well. ?: I'd like to address the second motion now and be done with that and continue with deliberations on the Brennon Resort. Right? ?: I've dug a lot into this. We are charged with the forming the regulations for this development with perpetuity, We've got one chance to get it right. Sorry I don't see this as being a slam dunk fast process. To have the motion on the table from our first deliberation meeting forever, I think it was a little bit cleaner just to table it and then bring it back up when we're ready. ?: So as a matter of procedure, if we table a meeting, we're no longer able to deliberate and tonight's meeting is over. Correct? CK: All in favor of the subsidiary motion to table the main motion. LS: Second. In favor 4 Opposed 5 That motion is defeated. CK: The main motion is to accept the regulations for the Brinnon MPR. ? And we can presume discussions. ? Back to my original point is that we allowed at an earlier meeting, to wait for a formal final response from the tribes, which we should do because we offered them that, and I'd like to hear their comments in full. As they stated the Council would have the opportunity to amend, change, etc. ? The letter I saw was from a technical person to their Tribal Council and it stated here's the issues we have. So at least those things we can look at and talk about. Page 3 of 13 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2oL6 p:36o179-445o Ft 36o379-445t plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us ?: I understand their concerns with the shellfish industry and their harvest as well, as other things. Issues like proper pesticide or non- pesticide and issues with grounds keeping and everything else that was going on there. As I recall we had the issues of kettles come up, and how that is effected or not effected. I' m certainly interested in seeing any issues that folks have heard that have come up that we need to discuss. One of the issues that came up was if there was a failure for certain functions within the boundaries, weather or not the bond was sufficient or if the County was requiring a bond. Of course they are. So that if things, for example, don't go well and we find there's chemicals leaching into groundwater, or what not there's ways for us to go back and ask that they then utilize bonds to deal with those issues as they come up. Just like with the aquifer, the potable water issue. So it seemed to me that all of those issues were addressed. D): Yes except in a slightly different way. Bonding is used for developing infrastructure. Roads, sewers, waterlines, that kind of thing. So that you have the infrastructure in place and then if the resort fails, if they're half done or not bond. The issue with the aquifer is monitoring and that's a different kind of mitigation. But they did have a mitigation plan. What the tribe is asking for is above the standard of SEPA. So we've determined that through the FEIS that they're compliant with SEPA. The tribe is asking for a higher standard based upon their treaty rights with the United States Government. So we've determined, their compliant with SEPA, as far as environmental impact. The tribe just wants a higher standard. More monitoring and that's probably not a bad idea. It meets and exceeds the law as far as SEPA goes. And when I read this letter, it's clear from the last that their intention, their action items, be included in the Development Agreement which is a separate entity or document from the regulations. And we're not specifically making a recommendation about the Development Agreement so when I spoke to David Goldsmith about this when I read it, our thought was when we get the final letter, we're going to forward it onto the Commissioners. They're the ones who decide The Development Agreement, and that's where they want this stuff to go. There's conditions in the agreement that would address this if the commissioners choose to accept it. There's an issue there between the tribe and the Sovergn Nation 37:43, and the Federal Government and |efferson County which, they didn't sign the treaty. So we want to let the Commissioners, as the authority for Jefferson County to make that decision. You can still recommend that the Commissioner's consider this as a higher standard to the environmental review and impact of the resort. CK: So to clarify, the Developer Agreement, before you put it together, you would look to the commissioner's for direction on what they want to see included and they would send it back to you to develop the agreement and presumably they would act on it. DJ: Yes, it's the same process you're going through and we have a draft of that Development Agreement just Iike these regulations. But that's strictly under their purview and decision making power. It doesn't come before the planning commission, but if there's something in the Development Agreement you don't like, you can make a recommendation for a change or addition. San Jose certification of the golf course. You could put a condition in the Development Agreement that says we recommend that you add that to the Development Agreement as an added protection to the water quality into your recommendations. But if you're talking about something that the tribe is suggesting, they clearly believe that's where it belongs. In the Development Agreement, not the regulations. Mr. Yager: Their recommendation of monitoring would be a Development Regulation? DJ: Not necessarily, they're talking about developing a plan, part of that plan is monitoring, and develop that plan with the Developer, I assume they would be part of the monitoring process, to ensure that in fact it was getting done, and was acceptable to them based upon their negotiations with the Developer. Page 4 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2,2cl6 Pt 36C.379-445c F:36o379-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?: I want to take you to task on that just a bit because the Developer Agreement expires at a certain point [20 years?) but the development regulations go on for perpetuity. So they need to be in the regulations as far as I can see. ?: Anything that's regulatory by nature is implemented in the regulations. D|: You do have a point. I believe 20 years is the standard we have at Port Ludlow. Most of this is borrowed from Port Ludlow, because that's the only other one here. It's not the same exactly. CK: So if we made the recommendation to put some of this into the Developer Agreement and it expires in 20 years, and the developer takes 25 years to complete all the phases of the development what would be their responsibility to the County? ?: It depends on how you write it into the development end. And the wording can be as simple as from the significant completion, then the 20 years starts. You can make it any way you want so you're not short sheeting yourself. LS: One of my big concerns is the wetland impacts. The tribe has brought up that the wetland delineation that the court approved in 2007 has expired. And their asking for a new call which could be different. Df : The tribe has determined that the wetland and Kettle b is no longer under their jurisdiction. That's up to the Core and the Developer. LS: So that could affect the layout of the development. What would happen if they maybe had to offer more mitigation? What would be the upshot? Df : I wouldn't speculate on that. There's no wetland in kettle C. CK: They're asking for an inventory of the species in kettle b. So because it's not within their jurisdiction, that doesn't mean they're not claiming an interest. DJ: Right, because of their treaty rights. CK: One of the inconsistencies that I found of the FSEIS is in some places it refers to kettle b as impervious and other areas it's referred to as glacial till impervious. Mf : I have in the main document vol 1, chapter 2,page 11 is the first place that I came upon where kettle b is described as impervious, and there's another description elsewhere talking about the wetlands that didn't say it was impervious. CK: So the only wetland that is in a kettle is in kettle b. Df : That's the one they want to fill in and create a wetland in kettle c. Which currently doesn't have a wetland. Mf : Section 3.7 there's a description of the wetland in there. I'm pretty certain it talks about something besides impervious soil, it talks about the infiltration in that section. It stated impervious, not semi impervious. I do have some issues, and had a chance to talk to a Certified Hydrologist, and he looked at the reports. He determined that the real water table was at least 10' under the bottom of kettle pond b. He somewhat did disagree with the impervious nature of it. So we're talking about a half- acre of wetland that's two feet deep, that has one acre foot Page 5 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March 02,2cl6 Pi g6oi79-445o F:96o179-449r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us total, don't really know how many gallons that it but I think the issue I have is that the amount of rainfall for L2 acre lined pond, goes around the complete circumference, so I've pointed out 100' of fill, that would have to be compacted to some degree, and a liner put in there. I saw that if it comes over the edges of the liner it goes back into the groundwater. It was impervious before, but now it's soaking up water. I also saw the provision for construction of a weir in the event that it really does overflow it goes into kettle pond c. Mf : I think the reference to the hydric soils into the bottom of kettle pond b, that wetland area is relatively impervious, well it's not impervious but because of the nature of those soils, let's just pretend all those silts coming down into the bottom over time, become less permeable, that's why it holds water up to 2' deep just on the bottom. As the soil tests have shown all around the site in the soil sampling, the rest of that entire kettle, in fact most of the site is quite pervious. So you take this kettle, the bottom of it has silted up over millennia, that bottom part holds water, but as the rain fills it can then seep laterally and vertically because it gets into the surrounding soils. fust that half acre is impervious enough so it holds water. Kettle c is all pervious soil so when it rains, all that run off runs in there and it just disappears. Mf : I noted that the wetland was created by impact from man, I'll assume that it was in the 90's when it was logged, I will note that it was the USGS topo maps that I reviewed, the most common one was dated 1950 something and it was revised in 1985, it shows no wetland in there, so it's my feelings that the wetland was created by the impact of man. It is a seasonal wetland and a class three. It hasn't always been there. I've felt that the clay deposits from the Iogging wash down into the bottom, sort of sealing it up a bit. There's still a tremendous amount of water that goes in through the sides. We just took out a half an acre out of twelve acres we still have eleven and a half acres of pervious very efficient impervious soil. So that's one of my issues there. So I kind of think that the other description I was Iooking at in the wetland description kind of formulates into what you were saying. Maybe it wasn't worded the best, ok, or maybe when they talk about impervious they should just talk about the floor of kettle b. But I've got a lot more. Any questions? TB: Assuming that they use them at all, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to change a regulation or do something? MJ: I understand, and the tribe understands, that if kettle b and kettle c are preserved and not modified, I think that's what the tribe wants. And I totally understand that it's an absolutely critical component to the present design. Everything runs into that kettle. AII of the surface water, what's not perking back through, in aquafer recharge, what's not going into the other areas, is going back into the kettle. It's my feeling [& I'll cut back into what the tribe says) TB: I'm trying to get to the conclusion to what you've said so far, I understand to what you're saying about the issues. What do we do to address the aquifer recharge? MJ: Very clearly, there's 7 60 acre feet of storm water coming into this whole development. And it's their intention to increase that to 840 or 804 acre feet, so there will be a net increase of aquifer recharge. That's a good thing. I understand the salt water interference that transitions along the beach and how important that is. So I guess what I'm feeling here is I'm going to come back to monitoring for contamination. That's where I'm at. If the tribes wishes are implemented that's major changes. Because they clearly want to see kettle b and c preserved for cultural purposes in perpetuity for their further generations so they can show their kids and they want access to the sites too. So I'm trying to get around to what other alternatives do we have. And I full well know that if they're not putting their 280,000 gallons Peak Build-out of waste water into kettle b that the only other alternative is that rapid injection thing that we saw at Dosewallips in and by the way that was 25,000 gallons this is 280,000 gallons. It still goes into the aquifer. But where I'm going to is the monitoring wells, which there is a minimum number of Page 6 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2cl6 P:86o379-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa,us monitoring wells, and in the Department of Ecology Report, their monitoring salt water intrusion, and their monitoring conductivity for, I assume, dissolved solids. I've got questions about ecstatic column of water and how are they drawing their samples which was not in there. How do you get a sample that is out of the aquifer and not out of a stagnant tube? But what's not there, and I've not found it and you can correct me if you know where it's at: there is no monitoring for the nitrogen and the phosphates that are applied to the golf course. There's no monitoring that I can see anywhere for that. And no monitoring for any of the sewage/people contamination regardless of how. So what we've got here is we've got 280,000 gallons a day into a vessel that contains 60,000,000 gallons. There's a lot of dilution going on here. I think that they're looking for the standard of parts per million possibly, I don't know what the standard is but I didn't find any testing for that. I'm not a big fan of rapid infiltration but I think ultimately we might have to address saving, or not affecting kettle pond b or c and have to look at the waste water again. ??: Dowe know of, or can we find somewhere, a Best Practice for monitoring in this situation. ??: The tribe had a suggestion in there. I guess, the first question to me, if I was a research scientist is: what are the chemicals I'm going to look for? Well, nitrates are one of them. There's probably a lot of them. And the second questions is: Is there ambient chemicals already there? I don't think there's any sfudies, I haven't seen anything. The Department of Ecology's only done saltwater intrusion, it's a wonderful report quite lengthy and there are several wells that have been abandoned and I think there's only a total of four that have significant amount of salt water in them. There's a Department of Health Monitoring Station that's at the mouth of Pleasant Harbor but that's Iooking for bio-toxins and that works in conjunction with regulations with WDFW on shellfish closures. Near as I can tell with that DOH Monitoring station is that there's no chemical monitoring. So what I'm after to protect the aquifer, is that we've got that salt water interference, fresh water interference. The salt water stays low, the fresh water comes in over the top, the whole beach area, and if there's contaminates in that, then every time the tide comes in, they wash down into the Ducca Bush Delta and every time the tide goes out they wash down into the Docci Wallops Delta. It's significant. I don't know what's an unhealthy standard vs. do we want any at all there? So the net result of that is if kettle pond b and c aren't effected during the construction process and I did ask this question of staff yesterday, if we have to change the wastewater and storm-water plans, I asked if that would provoke another EIS process and the answer was if we have less of an environmental impact then no. Good. I'd really like to avoid that too. Df : Right, I said we'd review it and possibly do an addendum ??: I would like to have, I think there's twelve action items on that, even though it has to do with the Development Agreement and maybe not Development Regulations, I wouldn't mind a discussion on those twelve action items. Because where we're at is, we don't want to put the developer out of business, we want a workable solution. We want the environment protected and I think we all want that. ??: I think there's also another issue, quickly, Washington State University [WSU), their low impact development work that they've done here in the Puget Sound is considered some of the best in the world. Right now I deal with on a project by project basis, digging holes in the ground, putting in soil amendments, running all of my storm water into the hole in the ground, and then it recharges aquifers, it filters, it does all these great things and you're able to monitor in the material in the rain garden. And that kettle is nothing more than a large rain garden that could very well be eloquently deal with the issue of storm water. I agree that the monitoring needs to be there, I believe that you'll be able to talk to the point, I believe that the list of compounds that they're using in the landscaping, I don't recall have anything with phosphates in it. They provided a list of what and why they're using and I can double check the list. Certainly WSU, has some of the leading minds in this kind of discussion are right here in our back yard, so that might be one resource that we can tap into. I can even make a contact and ask them to come and talk to that point. Page 7 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES TriArea Community Center March c2,2oL6 P:560379-445o. F: 36o-379-445r plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us ??: I'd been wondering if the DOE is worried about the salt water in the well? And worried about aquifers and water levels, etc. Is that DOE or DOH that monitor contaminants? DJ: That would be DOE but it sounds like you're talking about chemicals that aren't being regulated? ??: I understand that the feeling in the documents is: all of the chemicals being applied to the golf course remains in the grass and web of roots. But I also saw where there is engineered into layers of gravel and sand underneath those to allow the natural water to go through. So the question I have is: what's getting washed through? I'm not buying into that it just gets applied and goes away. I think there's going to be some that gets into the ground water How much? What levels? MS: I think if could just summarize, what it looks like is that there's mandatory components, and then there's more voluntary components because of the type of green restoration we see in river is probably would be considered as one of the voluntary components. And then there are a set of mandatory components that falls quite a bit short of what would be considered organic or sustainable. Certification. At the same time it's focused on fish, in particular young salmon. One chemical that I pulled out (that's prohibited) is on our list. Any chemical that I can think of is on that list. There's a lot of them. The advantage of asking the applicant to adhere to a standard is that standard is updated as soon as new products come out on the market. And it's a third party, so it takes it out of the County or publics conrol to a degree, to be nit-picky. So I think that it would be appropriate to offer an amendment to what's currently on the table, which then can be tabled at the end of the meeting. Regardless of what the Tribe comes up with, regardless of how the County responds to the Tribe, regardless of whether or not they move forward as using kettles as the design, these are still things that we would want in the agreement. Regardless of how the project would move forward, I don't think there's a problem with us sending a clear message that we want the same in State Certification in addition to monitoring of nutrients and contaminants integrated into that. It's pretty basic I think. I think almost everything the applicant has done to date, appears to be in line with the Salman Safe Certification. When you get certified with Salman Safe they actually help you design your project and it appears that this project has been designed with that thinking in mind. Again there's a lot of voluntary components. There's probably some things that could be better, like with any project, more impervious surfaces. Maybe some holes in roads. They're allowing for the fact that this could be subscribed to by major projects that cause large amounts of impacts. I'm not sure that that's a disqualifier. It's not a shoe in, it's a certification that you have to fight for and work towards. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to save fish. LS: The beauty of using young fish, salmon, is that they are the indicator species, of life. They are among the most sensitive, shellfish and salmon. If you're not effecting young salmon you're doing very well. CK: This Salmon Safe Certification is like an organic label. It actually increases the value of your product. I think it's something that the resort can advertise that they're green and salmon safe. They're right on Hood Canal, they need to be able to say these things so I don't think it's necessarily just additional economic impact I think it could be a marketable future. MS: I think it could be a nice gesture for the Commission to make in terms of letting the process play out and yet indicating that we're not just sitting on our hands, that we're actively thinking about 1. If this should happen and2 If it does happen, how could it protect the public? CK: It's important to note that with the nutrients and fertilizer's is not only the quality but the amount. So in perfect application in theory, it's all used up. So if soil scientists were applying the nutrients to the landscaping at the golf course, that would probably be happening very accurately. It may not be soil scientist that are apply fertilizer. So then the question is over application and it doesn't get filtered or treated out. And it ends up in the Page B of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2oL6 P:36o379-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us aquafer or the canal where balloons and dye offs cause great problems. It's not only the monitoring of the chemicals the contaminants but also the nutrients because they won't be processed out. My personal opinion is we have to address that chemical use at a level that puts all of us in compliance with the needs of Puget Sound and Hood Canal because this is not getting better. We're talking about putting a new small city on Hood Canal. This is a big deal, it's important. It's not to say that we shouldn't also, all of us, at all levels, address some of these chemicals. TB: I'm impressed that the Commissioner's originally said design this so that there's no runoff. And if that works, no run off means anything that they put on top shouldn't get in the water down there. This is a good first line of defense. There's probably no need to put in a 2nd Jrd 61 {th line of defense too, unless we anticipate that need. Let's make sure it's the safest we can do it. LS: Given that, the runoff will be infiltrated, ultimately it will infiltrate on site. What is to stop lateral movement and having it still end up down on the shore line? I live at Cape George and a lot of water moves through laterally and we're having big erosion problems because of it so that's something I'd like to understand better, how is that not going to happen? ??: AII of the geo technical studies that were done, and just looking at the cliffs on the south side. They're aren't a great number of seeps coming out of those. And the soil samples that were taken, the water moves down, not laterally. Because it's so permeable that it's not driven sideways. ??: Overall it's a pretty decent aquifer recharge area that a lot of places would like to have. ??: Bio-toxins with the DOH Report, Section 3.5-1 reports very few historical closures in there related to bio-toxins with the exception of the beach right off of Brinnon. Basically the Doci Wallops and the Ducca Bush never get closed for shellfish harvesting is how I interpreted that. Let me summarize: There's three pollution sources that I see: There's the golf course with the chemicals on it. There's the runoff from the parking lots, which I'm very clear goes into bioswales or rain gardens which is filtered through the grass into those areas and then the clean water is piped back to kettle pond b or it permeates right there. The third source of pollutants is Section 1, page 18 which is in the tables there, refers to chemicals used in sewage treatment process. Those chemicals they were talking about hauling off the heavy waste off of site, but about any chemicals used in the waste treatment process. I want to know if there's going to be any anti algae chemicals put into kettle pond b, and what the chemical will be. ??: I don't believe that there's any plan to put any anti algae products into the pond. The pond is currently sized as 120,000,000 gallons. That's about 40', So the pond you're referring to at Port Ludlow is probably quite shallow, and would heat up and promote algae growth. Because this pond is so big algae won't be a problem. The Sewage Treatment Plant produces Class A affluent, which is just short of drinking water. It's very clear. There's coagulants that you put into sewage treatment plants that helps solids drop out, which are trucked away. There's chlorine residual, which also has to be processed out before it hits the pond. In order to produce that affluent, there's a number of processes that are taking place in the plant. The water quality leaving the plant is tested continuously. Some of the contaminants you're worried about getting into the pond, and then being irrigated out of the pond onto the fairways for the plants to uptake, is where the treatment continues by default, it's not required. When you irrigate it across all of that grass, it helps further improve the water quality going through the soil year round. The Water Quality Testing that DOE is requiring is water quality testing that's required out of drinking wells as well. So those samples that come out of drinking water wells are tested thoroughly at all levels. DOH will monitor those as well. As far as sampling out in the salt water there is a memorandum of understanding that's been produced saying were the samples can be taken in cooperation with the Tribes. And if the Tribe comes up with more sampling stations that they want, fine. That's not an issue. Page 9 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA q8S68 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2ot6 p:36o179-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us CK: I would like to continue deliberations on the motion on the table at the Brinnon MPR on April 6, 2016, The next meeting will be on 03 /16/L6 a Comprehensive PIan Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Todd Wexman from Port Townsend: An architect, planner and teacher I've worked alongside s?vvy, Brinnon group members in opposition to Garth Mann's plans to build a rich man's Shang-ra-la alongside the Hood Canal. Much of what I've written on the subject has been scanned for placement on your website, Please take a look. For now let us look back some 15 - 20 years when a couple Jefferson Co Planners got together with Brinnonites to talk of their hopes of the town's future. During these events much value was assigned to a natural setting Pregnant with Possibility. For backpacker's, camper's and boaters alike all agreed that the town center, which then as now, might be described as having no their there, was in dire need of imaginative help. All of the above was passed over when corporate home builder Garth Mann burst onto the scene. Having purchased an abandoned camp ground and marina, on prime waterfront property, he cherished plans to build what is now in financial circles as CID. These are corporate sponsored private sub divisions. Often times gated to keep the rebel out, sometimes not. CID's have been around a while but really took off in the 1970's. When financially strapped Iocal governments saw in them a way to add property taxes to their rolls without substantial investments. Here and elsewhere County Commissioners, here and elsewhere moved heaven and earth to promote CID's, bending rules and regulations in the process. Not always smooth sailing for NEPO National Environmental Protection Ordinance, required that every recommendation for future legislation significantly effecting the human environment must include a detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action. It's adverse environmental effects, alternatives to it and the Iong term resource commitments it would entail. Ostensibly projects that caused too much in the way of a destructive environmental impact would be outlawed after an EIS had proved a point had been revised by a higher authority but this was only implicit and now a days the filing of an EIS is much too often considered a pro form of nuisance. Much to my dismay Garth Mann's company town may well become a reality. An EIS has been helped along by County Staffers to in Iarge part suite Garth's needs. Well, after all, he's paying them for it. f ean Ball from Quilcene: I like to refer to myself as a rabid tree hugger. I've frequently seen fish die offs in south parts of the Sound and I'm concerned about phosphates and nitrates making their way into the waterway. Barbara Moore-Lewis from Snohomish: I built a house in Brinnon and have been in there for about eleven years. We've all took care of our land. Didn't use chemicals, had our wells, etc. Here's this discussion like it's this wonderful alternative with all these chemicals in the environment and in the Hood Canal as if you allowed private homes there it would be worse. That wasn't my experience there. People where very respectful of the land. That's why we lived there. If we didn't want to do that there were other places we could live. And it's really much harder to weed than use chemicals, Phillip Morley: County Administrator: I've got two comments: First: I just wanted to complement the Planning Commissioner's. Once you got past your parliamentary impasse, I witnessed you listen to each other and engage in thoughtful dialogue. So I wanted to complement you for listening to each other and allowing each other the space to ensure all points of view were heard. Secondly: I wanted to go back to an item that was discussed earlier in the meeting and that was the Development Regs vs. the Development Agreemen$ Certainly under the planning Enabling Act, The Planning Commission has the responsibility and a duty to address the Development Regs but I think it's certainly permissible for the Planning ent, which the Board of County Commissioners, as Page ro of r3 Commission to offer commentary on the Development 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2, 2cl6 Pt 360379-4450 F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us David has said, they're in charge of ultimately what gets adopted as the Development Agreement but I think they would be interested and welcome, not expecting you to offer comments, but if you wished to, I think they would be welcomed and certainly considered in their deliberations. Brenda McMillan from Port Townsend: I'm concerned about the lack of a bond. There's a lot of earth moving and tree cutting. There is no bond in place that would recompense the county for destruction of land that could happen if the project fails. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS: LS: There is an issue that I'd like addressed we didn't address that the Tribe brought up. That's the elk crossing on Hwy 101 and the path that the Golf Course and other lawns could serve as kind of a nuisance attraction. In Sequim that's a big issue and they have that collared herd that actually turns on those warning lights when they approach the highway. We possibly have to look at something like that. Do we need to hear from Department of Fish and Wildlife on the movement pattern or maybe the Tribe has some resources that they know of. That issue the Tribe raised has got my attention. TG: I'm just anticipating that if the Commission or any set of it's members believes there needs to be increased monitoring, or any type of monitoring, that somehow we need to get some research on what the Best Practice is. I just don't want to get to a place, where the conclusion is this is not good without monitoring and no proposal to deal with it. ??: I'm kind of concerned about the tidal zones around that peninsula in the Ducca Bush Delta down there, Can you ask ifthere's any recent eel grass surveys? I'm not even sure there is but eel grass there, I believe there is and it is an indicator species for the salmon. LS: Where did we leave things with the Tribe? Are they going to present to us? DJ: We'remeetingwiththemon03/18/16withtheplanningstaffandDCDsolcantalktothem,andaskthemto present to you. ??: Is there any way to get, on the Water Quality Testing, this might be another question for the Tribe, what methods are used and what chemicals are being looked at for and the methodology. And how long are they to continue? Forever? Is there a timeline? ??: l'd like the staffs recommendation on the content of the Development Agreement that should be extended in the regulations. Is there something in the Draft Agreement that should go in Title 17? I believe the Draft Agreement itself had a20year expiration. I' The Regulations. Should it be in make sure, ourselves, what ought to be in the Development Agreement vs. or is 20 years long enough? ??: In the Department of Ecology their recommending 10 years on the Water Quality. ??: When they re-ballasted at the port area down there, the plan was to pave the whole yard but they didn't have the money to. So the ballasted material is a sand & gravel mix and the put French drains in to collect it all. They were required by the Department of Ecology for the tin and copper and all that stuff. Everything was fine for about ten years, they were using Best Management Practices there. The wind was blowing the dust off the tarps. The first effort I believe was a grant from the Department of Ecology. It didn't work. They yanked it out and did something different. Page u of 13 p Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March 02,2oL6 P:36o379-445o F:36o379-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 CK: David you guys will be working on the Public Participation PIan for that next meetin g on 03 /76 / 76 ??: Do we have a scheduled time when we start jumping into the elements of the Comprehensive Plan? We've got to get into the elements. Df : Part of the scoping process which is part of the Public Participation Plan I'm proposing is going to identify what elements need work and which don't. We will talk about that at the next meeting. There's mandatory elements based on law that need to change. You're all going to get a timeline with the schedule on 03 /76 /16 and then the Public Participation Plan. TG: This is where we were about nine months ago. We need a Director and an Assistant Director. The schedule as we have it now, allows the Commissioners three months. Last time it was sixteen months. If we don't get more support from the Commissioner's and Mr. Morley, so that they've got more support, so that we've got the support, this isn't going to get done and we're ALL (collectively) going to end up in a jam. We've got to get this thing going. DJ: David Goldsmith was at the last meeting, what did he talk about? Schedule. That it was extremely tight. ??: We've moved up our meetings as a Planning Commission, to get going. CK: It's the perfect storm: No Director, No Assistant Director, the largest development project the County's ever seen, and the Comprehensive PIan. TG: There's no doubt in my mind, that there will be at least one, probably three or four extensions by the State before we get this done. We have a choice. Either we do it the quick and dirty way, or we get extensions. We're not going to do it the way we want to without extensions. I guarantee you we won't get it done without extensions. It's not possible. To involve the public, and release the plan, the way we want to do it, it will be at Ieast a year and a half before our commission is ready to present to the other commission. OBSERVER COMMENT: PM: I wanted to address, as a matter of law, the question of further extensions on the deadline for our Comp Plan Update. The deadline for our Comp Plan is set through by RCW through State Statute. And under the statute there are certain criteria that allowed us to get a two year extension, which was offered us by the Department of Commerce. We've taken that. We're lacking further action by the State Legislature. Commerce have no further latitude to offer us. So at that point, if we don't meet the deadline, then were throwing ourselves at the mercy of the State not to impose sanctions. They don't have the latitude to give us a formal extension without further action by the State Legislature. ??: That's important to know and understand. At least from my point of view, that dictates how much detail and energy we can put into this and meet the criteria. Because if what you're saying is true, and I know how the County Commissioner's work, pretty well, they'll need more time than we've allocated in the PIan. If they have to meet the statutes they will. The question is, how is this organization going to get through what we want to do, in less than a year? So what's that nine meetings? CK: I think there is an option for us. We do that minimum we have to do to meet that deadline. Then we can still do some Comprehensive Plan amendments ahead of having to do them next time. We want to do. So those loftier policy's we want to get at we can take into next year and take the time. The part that's not mandatory, we're not under a sentence to do by a certain time. Page rz of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2016 P:36o379-445o F: g6oi79-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us TG: I'm not upset, I'm just trying to make a point that the rubber meets the road and our minds are not in sync with what we need to have. If the Commissioners are expecting a relatively simple set of ideas and changes, and we give them a Comprehensive set of changes, are we going to be out of sync? CK: No. I'm at the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting often. They are well aware of what we're wanting to do. Maybe we should all meet before our next Comprehensive Plan meeting and propose how we're going to do it. ??: Mr. Morley do you agree that the Commissioners are pleased and supportive of our efforts to make major changes to the Comprehensive Plan? PM: I would say the Commissioners have not asked for major changes. Given the fact that the population forecast are strikingly similar to what they were last time we did a Comp Plan and given that there are no large demographic shifts within the County that we've seen, I don't think there's a large expectation for a major change in division for the future for the County. However I'd say there's also an openness for considering enhancements. I think that the discussion that you're having, it would be a good idea within the next month or Wvo, to have a check in with the board, once you have a better sense of how you might be approaching this. Are we on track? Are we potentially bringing you County Commissioner's something that you will or will not like? So that they can tell us at the front end so, we don't bring them rocks that they don't like, and they ask us to bring them different rocks. Along this lines, Monday, I believe David Goldsmith plans to talk a little bit about the timeline with the commissioner's and about the Public Participation Grant that we've received from the Department of Commerce for this year. It may be a time to listen in, not for dialogue. It will be late in the day. I think two things Mr. Giske is saying are good: L. a caution of Iooking at the time you have and your appetite for changes and reconciling the two and 2. at some point soon when you have a better idea of the scope and timing of what you think you're bringing forward is to check in with Commissioner's and say: Here's where we think we're headed, tell us if this is in the right direction. CK: Thank you for your time. I want to say that while the demographics may not have changed, other things have increased their urgency and changed in our community. So those are our concerns with the environment and with the economy and housing. There have been big c urgency. rhanges I think, like global climate changes we are feeling the Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 03/16/2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at B:45 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 20L6. Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD Page 13 of 13 q Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p:36o179-445o F:36o379-445t plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Absent E Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present fochems; Present Call to Order at 6:30 pm District 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present Staff Present David W. fohnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Phil Johnson, County Commissioner Public in Attendance: Seven ApprovalofAgenda: Approved Approval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS None STAFF UPDATES NONE DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR PRESENTATION: Mr. Morley introduced Roma Call and Laura Price (Tribal Historic Preservation Officers) from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe with instructions to the Planning Commission to pay attention and take the tribe's ongoing concerns related to the Master PIan Resort, Attendant Development Regulations and Development Agreement seriously in order to give full and due deliberation in their process. The Tribe has requested and the County has enthusiastically welcomed a request for a government to government meeting already now scheduled for April L9th,20L6 at 1:30 in the BoCC Chambers in the County Court House. Commissioner Phil fohnson and Commissioner Clare are in attendance. The Tribe's comments are taken differently than a public comment because the Tribes are a Sovereign Nation. Under the Point No Point Treaty there is a fundamentally different relationship in standing with the Tribe working with any State Government, or Sub- Government Office, such as the County because of treaties, then there is for the rest ofthe general public. Ms. Call passed a list of their comments and comment letters that were provided to the Planning Commission regarding the MPR, noting it was not final, beginning from meetings in 2001 to present noting that it speaks volume to the Tribe's significant concerns regarding the Brinnon MPR. Yet the FSEIS was released without addressing most of our concerns and without completing the consultation process. After the February 2015 meeting the County Staff a Tribal staff agreed to put together a plan for addressing the Tribes concerns, including a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, recommendations for actions to protect the elk herds, adjacent shellfish beds, fishing areas and cultural resources. In March 2015 I requested a timeframe of when they would need to provide that information and was told the contract was being extended and the County would get back to us. We continued to work on a draft monitoring plan and ways to address the issues, we addressed it with tribal council, met with our internal staff and with outside consultants, preparing to meet with County Staff again to discuss a plan. In December we were shocked when told a final FEIS had been released. Page r of rz Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 P: g6oiz9-445o F:36o.329-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us , 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 I called and asked why that had happened, when we had agreed to work together to address the Tribes concerns before the Project was finalized and that we were expecting to get a notification of the timeframe and I was told that the County staff had forgotten about us. After fifteen years of concerns, comments and letters, did the County forget about us? The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to the Indian bands and tribes' signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point. More than a century of Federal Court decisions has identified the components of the Treaty Right including the right to access to places, to a share of harvest, and protection of fish habitat. The proposed project is located within the tribe's usual and accustom area where tribal members depend on fish and shellfish and wildlife. In 2008 the Board of County Commissioner adopted an Ordinance listing 30 special conditions to be required within development approval under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow a MPR within an area zoned as rural/residential. Consultation with the Tribes regarding cultural resources, access to cultural properties and activities and wildlife management were some of the special conditions. Other conditions for Environmental Protection are also of concern to the Tribe. We're concerned about the loss of wetlands and rare kettle ponds, about the increase in vehicular traffic and intensity of land use for residential and commercial development. About a significant alteration of hydrology, clearing and grading increased permeable surface, the use of consistent pollutants, effects on adjacent shellfish beds and fishing areas. With the release of the FSEIS before working with us on the tribe's issues and concerns we question whether the county made a good faith effort to meet with special conditions under the Board of County Commissioner's Ordinance and to suitably implement the government to government process. We also find that the FSEIS does not perform nearly enough to address the issues we have raised for 15 years concerning this project. Therefore, our March 2016 letter outlined specific actions that we propose the County and the applicant take in order to mitigate for these significant effects. We will now briefly outline those actions that are identified in our March letter. Some of the issues we addressed in our Ietter were: Cultural resources and protection of stewardship. According to oral tradition and knowledge, the Brinnon area including Pleasant Harbor hold cultural resources of great value to the Port Gamble S'Klallam people. Uncommon geological features such as the kettle ponds, are optimally to spiritual and cultural knowledge as passed through the generations. We're concerned that the proposed action would impact the integrity of the site, which by oral accounts has cultural and spiritual significance and contributes to reginal Native American history. Based on historic Native American places, names, camping locations, oral traditions regarding spiritual entities associated with the landscape the site has the potential to yield more information about the unique history and the use of the area by our people, as common people. The site is representative of unique geology and unique plant communities and has been actively used within living memory for traditional plant gathering and cultural practices. Because of this, the actions that we propose in our letter would be to, in a collaborative form, for protection of stewardship would be to preserve the kettle ponds b and c, and adjacent wetlands for traditional property evaluation and protection cultural resources. We would ask to conduct a traditional cultural property evaluation to determine the eligibility of the kettle ponds and wetlands to the national registry. We would evaluate the impact of the proposed project on the cultural integrity of the area and it's eligibility to be listed on the National Register of Historical Places. Redesign wastewater and storm water management plans to avoid the destruction of wetlands in the alteration and use of kettle ponds b and c for storm water and treated wastewater storage. Another action plan would be to propose is to schedule a site visit with our tribal staff to view the kettle ponds and other areas of cultural significance. We would also ask to provide a biological inventory of the plants, amphibians, birds and other species currently present in the kettle pond and those that were likely present prior to timber harvesting and other disturbances. We also ask to consult with the tribe's cultural resource department to schedule site monitoring particularly the ground disturbing activities. We would ask to develop a stewardship plan that would provide for the restoration of traditional plants in the project area and opportunities to travel plans for access to cultural resources. Shellfish Resources: The comments are collaborative, we've had a wildlife biologist, a habitat biologis! a shellfish project manager our fin fish project manager, our anthropologist. They weren't all able to make it here tonight but this is just letting you know that this is a collaborative effort. Page z of rz ( Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pt 960379-4480- F:36o179-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 As far as shellfish resources, the proposed project location between the Duckabush and the Dosewallips beaches is an area that provides significant commercial and ceremonial subsistence harvest opportunities for the tribe. Two of the three most important inter tidal areas to tribal shellfish harvesters are located in these areas and supply over 7 5o/o of the tribal resources for Pacific Oysters for public tidelands. We're concerned that there will be an increase in visitors to the proposed project and this increase will be associated with harvesting pressures on the tidelands, Without annual enhancement of the beaches, this increase pressure from harvesters will result in a decline of the shellfish resource over time. AIso both tidelands are areas of concern to the Washington State DOH. One water sampling location on the Dosewallips, and two locations on the Duckabush were listed as threatened status in a 2015 DOH report. So a closure of these tidelands by DOH due to water quality issues would have a very significant impact on the tribe. In our comments, the actions associated with the shellfish resources are: To consult with the Natural Resources Development Staff to develop a plan for the protection & restoration of these shellfish resources. This would include protection of the tidelands adjacent to the project area. Shellfish seeding and enhancement on the Duckabush and Dosewallips River beaches, and a response plan in the event that any water quality incident or any other project related activities result in a downgrade of shellfish harvesting in these areas by the DOH. Wildlife Protection: We're concerned that the herd of elk that forages to the west of the proposed project and the attractive nuisance of the forage opportunity from the lawns and fairways associated with the project would increase the frequency of elk crossing the highway proposing a risk to human health and the viability to the elk herd. We request a legitimate wildlife management plan that meets the conditions of the board of County Commissioner's conditions and also one that will describe actions for protecting elk. Wildlife Actions: We ask that the County consult with the tribe and the Point No Point Treaty Council. Wildlife Biologist that is an expert in elk populations to develop and implement a plan for the protection of wildlife and the restoration of wildlife habitat. The purpose of the plan is to provide protective actions for wildlife including keeping the elk herd from crossing the highway to enter the project area. It would also involve information regarding vegetation and habitat preservation in the natural areas. Water Quality Protection and Monitoring: We're concerned that the development would increase the prevalence of toxic heavy metals, persistent organic glutens, and other contaminants and the likely negative effect on fish and shellfish resources in the adjacent estuaries. Extensive regular discharge of ambient water and biota tissue monitoring would be required. Our concern is illustrated by the pollution related loss of approximately 36,000 acres of shellfish beds throughout Puget Sound related to urban development. Also, the seawater/groundwater interface in the project area forms a critical transition zone and provides essential ecological functions driven by sediment associated biota. A reduction in the hydraulic conductivity between the wetlands and the near shore will likely effect chemical constituents available to biota in the area. The actions associated with this topic are: First to contact the U.S. Army Core of Engineers to request a new determination of wetland jurisdiction; the 2007 determination has expired, Secondly, to consult with the Tribal Stafl our Habitat Biologist, in particular, to develop and implement a plan for protection of water quality in the project area and water's adjacent to the project area. This would include Water Quality Monitoring in waters connected to tribal fisheries and shellfish harvesting areas and including monitoring for pollutants. Secondly, it would include an evaluation of alternatives for constructing swales and contras near roadways to direct storm-water runoff away from Hood Canal. Finally, there's an action to revise the Project Management Plan to eliminate the use of persistent pollutants and replace them with substances allowed for use under the Agricultural National Organic Program. Finally, we requested that the County include these actions in the Unified Development Code, Development Agreement and FSEIS. Questions? Page 3 of rz Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pt 360379-4450. F:36o179-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us , 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 DISCUSSION: P.M. Thank you very much for being here and making yourself available to us M.f . Miss Price, thank you for that letter and I understand the sensitive nature and how probably difficult that was but it was very well warranted and I was very happy to see it and very happy with the content too. Great job. ?? Have any of your representatives ever been into kettle pond B or C to have a look at it to do any surveys or anything? Has that ever happened since 2001? L.P. No we did visit the site but we didn't go down into the ponds. ?? So you've not had sufficient time to make any assessment what-so-ever at this point. On your Cultural Assessment, I assume in the listings for the Army Core of Engineers on National Historic Sites you would probably include the Village Site at the head of the bay that's on WDFW property as part of that? L.P. It was part of the preliminary review, looking at that area. Knowing that it's registered, it's listed on the National Registry. ?? So the kettles are listed? L.P. Not now, not yet. ?? And you're trying to include both of those kettles which, would there be, kettle pond B is twelve acres in size, so would it be twelve acres or upwards around that? L.P. We can't answer that. We'd have to have a formal evaluation done. L.S. How would that proceed? Would you have your own consultants do that? I'm not sure what the process would be from here to get that accomplished. L.P. I would recommend hiring a consultant who has expertise in that area. Our Tribal members and staff would also like to visit for that personal experience and for seeing what's there but we do recommend having a thorough cultural evaluation. ?? The potential for toxins into the shellfish, tissue monitoring seems like it's been too late. Under the best available science, I understand the hydrology ofthe project, at least I think I do, I understand the Aquafer Recharge nature, I understand the Waste Water Plan, and the Storm Water Plan. Can you conceive coming to an agreement on any water quality testing? Because what we're talking about, we have unknown chemicals in the treated waste water still getting through, because they're not dissolved. Do you think that there's any monitoring system via the monitoring wells that could be conceivably testing for agricultural type chemicals or any other chemicals showing up in the monitoring wells? What I'm saying, is I know it would show up in the wells before it would show up on the beach. And what I'd like to feel warmer &fuzzier about is, I clearly don't want it on the beach. So you don't have to answer this, because I understand you'll have to talk to your experts, but where I'm at is, can we conceivably, on a conception point just come up with a way to test that to where you think you'd be happy with it? L.P. Our goal is to be able to find a monitoring that would worh that would satisfy those concerns. The earlier in the system that we can monitor, the better. I think that we would probably want to monitor all throughout the system at the discharge point, also all the way to the shellfish beds just to ensure. Page 4 of rz t Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTBS TriArea Community Center April o6, zo16 Pt 36c,379-445c F:36o379-445r plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ?? Oh I think that's reasonable, maybe some wells to capture runoff from the golf course there, can be ten feet deep or something. And then the actual wastewater could be tested at the treatment plant, as they exit the treatment plant, I picked up on the unaware of any working examples of the type of system. So I'm not completely convinced that there's the best available science that will ensure that we don't have glutens getting into the air tidal freshwater/saltwater zone. L.P. Yes. L.S. I don't know if the permeable soils would remove them, I have no idea. It seems like that could be a potential concern. ?? On the geography of this site we noted that it's 1.L square miles, that the actual Master Plan Resort is approximately one third of a square mile, but this is on a very small peninsula, surrounded on three sides with salt water. You have your Dosewallips to the north, Delta and Duckabush to the south. It's very productive, I think I came up with about 140,000 lbs. a year for State and Tribal, give or take. I think the intent of most of the rules that are written aren't talking about a peninsula with very poor soils, with a very good aquifer recharge area. It would not surprise me if somebody basically said that this particular site is just too environmentally sensitive. It's entirely possible at this point. It's not like, Laura sent me some stuff on critical aquifer recharge areas and at a certain point it is permissible, under law, to put some pollutants into an aquifer, there is some allowance for that. But I think this site is different. L.P. As we had put in our comments, these two beaches on either side are the two top, most important areas where the tribe harvest's shellfish. And this tribe really relies on shellfish quite a bit for their cultural practices for subsistence and cultural. That's why we've been commenting for fifteen years, is because it is a highly significant area to the tribe and any damage would have a huge effect on the Tribal resources. And that's why we are concerned about the sensitivity of the area and the aquifer recharge and the contaminants that are of concern that are being proposed. ?? It's pretty obvious to me that even Class A treatment of any water going in the aquifer may not be a good idea here. I just can't think of any other sewage treatment currently available that maybe applicable. I've just got to say that. I'm not sure that it's a good idea. L.P. That's something that we're just asking. For our scientists to be able to sit down and have a conversation about that and troubleshoot what are the best possibilities that we can come up with. M.S.? Correct me if I'm wrong but aside from the issues of cultural significance or the history of the kettle ponds, but there's also the notion that from the hydrology perspective that sealing off the largest kettle pond would affect the hydrology on the beach below is also one ofthe concerns. L.P. Yes, the shellfish beaches rely on fresh water to be a healthy resource so that is a concern that if that is blocked off then it would damage the function of those near shore areas. Page 5 of rz L.S. While we're still on the issue of pollutants, I know that at West Point in Seattle, and in other places, they've done some testing recently about the effect of estrogen and xenoestrogen's that are not being taken out of the waste stream in any of the sewage treatments. I'm assuming that class A water's (l'm assuming) coming out of that sewage treatment plant might presumably still have those kind of pollutants. Is that a concern for shellfish and near fin fish? Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p:96o179-445o F: g6o4z9-44sr plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 T,G. First of all a comment: My understanding is that it's taken 15,000 years of evolution, with those two kettle ponds involved, and we're trying to consider what's appropriate in a period of fifteen to thirty years. That's a seriously difficult task. At the same time, we're at a place, it seems to me, that we understand from the tribe, and others, the generic issues involved. I'm concerned, how do we get from generic issues to the conclusion on weather mitigation is even possible or not? It seems to me, that each of these is going to take a considerable amount of energy, whether it's time or not, to resolve. For example, what is it that might cause the elk to move from here across the road? Do we know that? And if we know that, and we're pretty clear about that, then how do we devise a mitigation to deal with that. That's just one example. I don't know if I'm expressing a concern or what but it seems to me that if there is an end point, if we can see our way to a conclusion, I think we need to visualize what that conclusion is and figure out how do document that? In a way that gives us confidence that A there is a conclusion and B that it can be achieved. It's seems to me we've had fifteen years to do that and we're not any closer to that now than we were fifteen years ago. At least that's my impression. R.C. We have an expert who knows elh who has ideas, who has been commenting that this needs to be addressed through all these opportunities to comment but then we're not seeing it in the plan. He is asking if he could just sit down and talk about a Wildlife Management Plan. He does have ideas on, there are other areas where elk are a problem crossing. It has been studied, there are solutions. That's the goal to have the tribal experts be able to sit down and have a conversation about how to address these concerns and put it in a plan. ?? So that's example one, these elk. If we went down the list of issues that you've presented, do you believe that there is such a way forward for each and every one of those given the appropriate amount of counsel? L.P. That's our hope, yes. M.J. So that would suggest that there may in fact be, a means to have this proiect move forward and still be appropriate for the area. L.P. Yes, and I think that's what our letter is trying to address, the way to get there. M.f . Preservation of kettle pond B and C causes a redesign that the whole wastewater and saltwater management and fireplug all has to be looked at again. ?? I wanted to ask about the staff response. Because evidently you've spent a lot of time listening sincerely to concerns and framing up, what would appear to be some options for the applicant to consider, essentially throwing it a bit, at the applicant to some degree and saying that the conditions that the County asks the applicant to agree to are what binds the final procedures and then to incorporate the Tribes response into that is the way to go but those thirty conditions are still really what binds the applicant. So my question, I'm asking for a general overview, is what kinds of things can the Planning Commission do to illustrate our overall sentiments while the process is still so fluid? Say for example, I really think a lot of their concerns are great, and I would like to see something happen. Regardless of what happens, I'd love to see this one concern happen. And we each probably have something like that. How do I incorporate that into a formal recommendation? Or is there a process for doing that now or is it just too early to do that at all? D.f . No I think that in my response I've made it prefty clear that the task now is to meet with the Developer and the Tribe and County and try to work this out. That was the first paragraph of my conclusion is that's the thing we need to do now. ?? So I guess I'm asking about the Planning Commission's role in that. Page 6 of rz 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p: Z6ai79-445o F:36o379-445r plancomrn@co jefferson.wa.us P.M. That's a very pertinent question. I think this is going to take a longer discussion that my initial response to you, The present issue before the Planning Commission is the Proposed Development Regulations. In addition, I mentioned earlier, there is the question of the Development Agreement and the pending Government to Government meeting we'll be having. So it is really the County Commissioner's working with the Department of Community Development, with the Tribe, with Statesmen to look at how in the nature of the proposal itself to better address the Tribe's concerns. And that's going to be a negotiated process between the County, with the Tribes, and between the County and the Applicant and at some point the Tribe and the Applicant may have further dialogue as well to try to message the proposal and also look to see if there may be appropriate revisions to the Preliminary Draft Development Agreement that you've received copies of previously. And so, one of the things that I'm hoping that you hearing from the Tribal Representatives today, and as you ponder those, I'm hoping what we can do is two things: 1. We recognize that the County Commissioners are going to take the lead on the direct Government to Government, and with staff's help, looking at appropriate changes to the Development Agreement and the Proposal. 2. What I would recommend that the Planning Commission do, is that while recognizing that the ball is in the Commissroner's court for working directly with the tribe, that while you have before you the Development Regulations presently that you at least take a step of going through and sort ol section by section of that draft, and highlight if there are areas of concern in those Regulations that are more generic in nature rather than project specific to see if they're adequate or weather you believe there are areas that need to be tweaked or changed to better address the environmental and cultural concerns that the Tribe has raised and other public comments that are on record in order to decide whether there are changes that you would recommend to the Draft Regulations before you. There is a question of sequencing that once you have a chance to have a first go through of those Development Regulations, not today, in the meantime, the Government to Government meeting will happen on the eighteenth, April 18, 2016 and a month from now when your back talking about these Regulations, we can continue this discussion, based upon what your initial go through, however far you get tonight or you may even start it next time, we can see what is happening on the front between the County Commissioners, Tribe and Developer and we will certainly keep you apprised on how that is going, to see if that has further input or suggests further changes to the Development Regulations. The final thing I'd like to say is regardless of what you may do on the Development Regulations, there's the Comprehensive Plan [which designated that there will be a Brinnon Master Plan Resort), we're now talking about the implementing regulations of the Comprehensive Plan on our Unified Development Code, Title 17, then nested below ihat, following a little bit later, is the Developrn"nfi Agreement, Iike I said last month about the commitment is: Any Development Agreement that may come out of I this process, will come back to you, The Planning Commission, for you to be able to offer advice to the County Commissioner's before they take action on it, on whether you think the Proposed Development Agreement (however it may look a month or two from nowJ, whether it's adequately addressed the concerns that you're hearing both from the Tribe and the general public. And so you will have a second bite of this apple through providing input on this Development Agreement. I've talked to the Commissioner's and th welcome input and advice on the Development Agreement. Another final thing I want to mention ES Plan, looking at Development Regulations, Development Agreement still needs more and once those have been adopted there will be the issue of project specific permits, Whether it's grading su division, or what not, one of the things in the subsequent staff discussion with you, David was going to talk about, was the condition of the original Ordinance that established the Brinnon Master Plan Resort in Brinnon and is part of now the Development Regulations now before you, is that there be a threshold determination on a D.S. on any non- de Minimis development activity that requires a permit within the resort. Which means that there would be further notice at that project permit level to the Tribe, etc. as further, yet another level of review and hopefully environmental and cultural protection. So it's sort of like a Matryoshka doll of these different levels getting more and more detailed and specific. So that's sort of the overall context of the process of this. Did that start to answer your question? ?? I want to thank everybody for taking these letters very seriously, as we all do and I'm grateful for that. PageT ofrz 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pi S6oi79-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us L.S. I shouldn't be sitting here with my Planner hat on because I still come back to, and we won't belabor this point tonight, but, I do feel that at this point and time that the Planning Commission is very significant because even though there maybe subsequent SEPA review, when those permits come to the so called ministerial permits the County, by code, has little option to condition those permits, that's my understanding, based on anything that might be revealed in a SEPA document, so I'm not sure how we attack that little conundrum. That's generally how these things go, right? You can't condition a grading permit because SEPA say's this. At least that's the way it's been anywhere else I've worked. The only reason I'm saying that is because we really do need to get it correct, right here, right now, it's our last best chance to address concerns for the Planning Commission anyway. ?? So when we're done deciding what has to be done, based upon through the process that you've described, we're going to wind up with a series of projects. Each project of witch, is going to determine whether some permit is viable or not, or permissible, or whatever. P.M. The Developer will propose various actions, grading or whatever, that may trigger the need for a permit, is that what you're saying? ?? Right. So if this process were done and I was about to walk out, I understand that there's Project A . . .there's Project B . . .Projects C and D, all these projects that need to get completed in order for the mitigation process to be adequate. Does that make sense? P.M. What do you mean by a project? For example, a Wildlife Management Plan? So not a development but rather a mitigation? T.B. The reason why I'd like to stay with this for a moment is that often we get caught up in a discussion about what will or will not cause a disturbance. In the end, for something like this, that's this complex, I think our objective as a group is to wind up defining and getting in place, amongst all of us the actions, or the work plans that have to be accomplished in order for us to all be satisfied that this project is going to be. It seems to me that whether you're -the developer, or a County Commissioner, or a Planning Commissioner or a Tribe, if we don't have an agreement of 'what those projects are, we don't get to an end result. i P.M. So may I try restating to see if I understand what you're saying Tom? I think what you're saying is we need to get the system of standards and protections in place to make sure that whatever development happens by Statesman will be a good one. Is that correct? T.B. Yes, but it's beyond that. It isn't just us stating someplace in our where-ever that this is a requirement. It has to go to the next level for this specific project. That says that these are the steps that are going to be taken specifically to accomplish thb niitigation that has to take place. Given that that's where we want it lined up, don't we have to spend some time making sure we have the right people to be involved in determining what those actions are? I mean, I can see us having a lot of discussion at this level, where we are, amongst neophytes, or whatever we want to call ourselves but, she's mentioned, there's a person that we trust when it comes to elk and how they operate and so forth. I would be a lot happier if I knew that oh here's issue #1, and here are the people that will be involved in resolving it. And here's issue #2, and here are the people that will be involved in resolving it. And I'm frankly more interested in resolving those issues for this project than I am trying to create a set of regulations we think will apply to the world at large. That's what I'm trying to say. M,J. I'd like to phrase it a little bit differently. I've already eluded to the fact that we redesign based on the wastewater the fire flow and storm water. Obviously if the kettle pond B is preserved we need to figure out what we're going to do with I believe the total was one million cubic yards of fill. Where is that going to go? We, as the Planning Commission have not even had the discussion on scope and size, and that's a very important discussion. Fage 8 of r* I t Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 P:36o179-445o F:36o-379-449r plancomm@cojefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 And I'm just not seeing enough compelling reasons to go into the regulations and the agreement at this point. I think it's cart before the horse. There, I've said it. C.K. So I have a few thoughts, going back to what Tom was saying, some of what he was talking about, when the resolutions are fully identified and agreed upon they'll be captured in this Development Agreement but I don't know how we get to the Ievel of specificity in that Development Agreement that we're all satisfied, and I've raised that point can we get really, really, really specific in that Development Agreement and lay out a Wildlife Plan with corridors and the full Water Quality Monitoring with wells that will be here and here and tested for this and that. It seems that we're feeling that that Ievel of detail is necessary. I'm still struggling about where that falls in and how to trust. Let's say the developer agrees to include an adequate Water Quality Monitoring Plan that the tribe agrees on and DOE approves. Is that good enough? M.j. That's why it seems to me, that as a whole, the Planning Commission, Commissioners, the Tribe, etc. our purpose ought to be to agree on who ought to be involved in resolving those specifics, because we certainly can. I'm not sure how we do that if there is a specific set of issues we can identify them A, B, C, D and then we can create some kind of a group for A and for B and for C and for D, and then have the confidence that that group should know enough to come up with the appropriate mitigation. C.K. We've had quite a long discussion about the sequencing piece in a staff meeting with myself, Lorna, Philip, David Wayne f ohnson, David Goldsmith and I think a confusing piece is the regulations came to us ready to go. We were supposed to look them over, check for typos and send them on. We're doing a very poor job of that. In our investigation we found that not only do we have a whole bunch of concerns but the tribe also shared these very same concerns. So we're at a place that we thought would be the end of a long process, ready to sign off and move on but instead we're at a place where we realize, maybe some steps got missed and we're not at the end. There has to be a revisiting of some of that process. One of the conversations we've spent an hour on this morning is what is our role? And it is in some ways out of our hands again. Now it's going back to the Board of County Commissioners and the Tribes will meet with them and have a government to government meeting and I guess they're going to decide how they want to proceed. I assume the BOCC will give instructions for the staff at DCD and they will produce something that we'll look at later. So Mr. Morley will give us something that we can revisit. Not work out ' the details, but we can speak to areas we think there may be a problem. M.S. I think Mark's trying to say, we can't do that until you show us the plan. We may be involved in helping decide how these individual projects get taken on and who ought to be involved. C.K. What I'm hearing from the Tribe is they have the experts and people involved. P.M. While this discussion is an important and essential one I'd like to be respectful of our guests here and before we completely turn our eyes on our own internal process, we turn to our guests to ensure we've finished the dialogue with them. Or if there are additional questions or further discussion we'd like to have with them. C.K. In some way we're all inheriting this process, but I'm glad you are here now M.S. Storm-water Runofl do you have a physical view on how that should happen? How it should be restructur.ed? ?? I think the tribe has an interest in participating in that conversation ?? In looking through for environmental things in the draft, under the criteria for approval section it says: environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other and in order to incorporate and maintain as much as Page g of rz Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p:36o479-445o Ft 960479-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us , 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites and public views. I guess I'd like to just get your impressions. Since you're here. L.P. To my knowledge the historic sites are those that were mentioned within living memory, we do have people who have been to the area who've gone there since childhood as a historic place for natural resources. We do know that the sites adjacent to this area are very culturally significant and rich. And we'd like to be cautious with the kettles and we want to take precautions before they're destroyed. We'd like to take time to thoroughly investigate, explore and find what their significance is as we do feel that they could be registered in the National Registrar. C.K. Can you tell me what the significance is by the boat launch? As we were talking about it earlier you said that the site at the head of the bay is on the National Registrar, It just looks like a parking lot and boat launch to me. L.P. The Department of Archeology, Historical Preservation has a data base and I saw it on their designated as an archaeological site, there was fl believe) activity done where they were able to identify admittance and there are great oral histories of that area where it was used for fishing camps. Please don't quote me as I don't have the documents in front of me, It has been documented as a Significant Cultural Site, C.K. I guess my question is by it being registered as a historic building [in Port Townsend) there is some preservation that happens. I saw nothing of the same there. Do you know about the designation, what it does? L.P. I think it's more of a protective feature is my understanding. The Public Boat Launch and Beach (at head of bay) at Black Point. L.S. From past experience working with the State Office of Historical Preservation, there's often requirements if a site has had cultural or historical significance, there's signage, a long house etc. It may not preclude development of the site but it may mean you can't excavate there, or it may require you to have a tribal member present while excavating. L.P. To answer Matt's question, we did find other areas in the country where kettle ponds are preserved as natural areas ofsignificance because ofthe geological significance and uniqueness alone. M.S. In 2015 they were listed as threatened? ?? As we're concluding and getting ready for public comment I'd like to disclose that Roma Call and I have spoken on3/L7/16 and3/22 and3/23/76, I am disclosing this because of an email I got about Iegal counsel restricting us from talking to the Tribe outside of a meeting? P.M. It's Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez. And this issue there is a question of who in this kind of dialogue represents f efferson County? Going back to government to government relationship and keeping consistent and clear communications between the Tribes and the County. Making sure today's meeting is in a public setting, is a clear and far reaching as you wish it to be and with formal governmental representatives at the table at the same time. C.K. It's now 7:50. It doesn't appear that we'll review regulations tonight. Is there anything else we need to do? Page ro of re I Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pt 560379-445c. F: S6oi79-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P.M, I would like to perhaps distinguish roles a bit. Bear in mind that the role of the planning commission is not a final decision maker of anything at all. You're providing advice to both the department and primarily the BOCC for the actions that they will be taking for ultimately adopting regulations and an agreement. Know as well that your role in doing so is really at a policy level. You're not Hearing Examiner's with a conditional use permit in front of you in which you need to put project level conditions on a permit. You are advising the county as to what are the policies and regulations and standards that then ultimately the County Commissioners and then we [The County Commissioner's and myself as the County Administrator) with you then turn to the DCD to actually implement those policies and to carry forward those recommendations. So for the question of who will be at the table, that's not really your job. That is the job of the Department, and it's not just one person, (though David does a fantastic job and he is a superman), so I guess to recognize that it doesn't all rest on your shoulders, it actually rests on the Coun$r's shoulders to properly implement these regulations and standards and you are advising the County Commissioners on what controls and standards and regulations should be put in place. Does that help? It doesn't all rest on the County, much of it rests on the applicant, or the Developer. We set the standards, they need to respond with modifying their proposal with developing an adequate Water Quality Monitoring System. M.S. Is it not true that they've been working to develop one for fifteen years and during this process we haven't been adequately telling them what we expect? P.M. I think we're further along than that. The proposal has changed a lot. So that it's a lot closer to the mark than it was. There's still things needed to be done based on the Tribe and Staff. So yes, there are pieces that the applicant still needs to do. Late in this process it's come to sharper focus that there are cultural and environmental issues through this government to government process that the applicant must address as well. M.S. Before we heard from the tribe, I was speaking of persistent contaminants. I'm wondering where that fits into the regulation's if it does at all. The tribe came with something stronger than I called for, which is smar! they called for materials acceptable for use under the USDA's natural ally organic program. And I'm wondering how that fits into things. Or is that further down the line. D.|. That's under the purview of the tribal negotiations ?? It looks Iike we're after a redesign. I think it may be appropriate since we all represent different districts I think it would be appropriate to have a discussion on size and scope of this. It's a very important discussion aside from tribal discussions. Before the actual work starts. L.S. I think that's where Phillip and David were at today C.K. We will revisit this on May 4tt'. PUBLIC COMMENT: Barbara Moore Lewis, PO box 1097, Granite Falls: I've presented this to the planning Commission several times and it keeps being reframed so I've brought this to you so you can see clearly what we're talking about. We're talking about asking the Developer for additional bonds. We're not talking about asking them for a construction bond, that's reframing it. And we want the Developer to deposit the amount of all ascertainable direct or indirect costs regarding services and infrastructure into a fund available to local government to cover the costs as they're incurred. We want him to furnish a performance bond issued by a highly rated insurer to cover all potential costs that can't be ascertained beforehand including repairing any environmental damage incurred over a 50-year period because of the development and the cost of clean-up and restoration if the project is abandoned. Your county has a small tax payer base and there's a Iot of potential for this to go south. Page rr ofrz Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 P:36o179-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 fuliette Cochran, 11"75 Twenty third St., Port Townsend: I'm part of a group of people reaching out to local tribes, we're called Native Peoples Connection Action Group of Quimper Unitarian Universalist Scholarship. We just met with the Port Gamble/S'Klallam tribe on Monday on a tour. I'm grateful that you're all so respectful and thorough. Thank you. FOLLOW.UP ITEMS: In summery we'll have to decide what will happen in our May meeting. We have a third Wednesday we meet in April where we will cover the comprehensive plan amendment so the follow up action items we have are really not in our hands at this point. I gave you some homework to work on for that. The messaging branding. I'll send you reminders. We're going to be meeting with the leader, Catherine Brewer, the Marketing Director to line up the marketing champagne for that. The messaging is very important as well. I just want to say for the public this is a big investment the County is making to this electronic way that people can comment and engage with the county. We want to get more people involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update and when it gets up we hope you'll all use it. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 04/20 /2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at B:11 pm These meeting minutes were approved this Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD day of 20L6 Page re of rz I Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center May o4,zot6 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present Jochems; Present Call to Order at 6:43 pm District 3 Brotherton: Absent E Giske: Absent U Hull: Present Staff Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Public in Attendance: Six AnorovalofAeenda: Annroved Approval of Minutes: Postponed COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS PM Recognizing that the Development Regs in Title 77 are fairly generic in nature, dealing with what are some of the permitted uses of some of the basic placement requirements within the different zones, defining some of the different zones and talking somewhat about the process for revisions and major revisions and that sort of thing. Whereas the Development Agreement gets into much more detail about the actual specific development at hand and any subsequent development that may happen not only by Statesman, but, if there are successors of Statesman, if Statesman were to sell the MPR to somebody else. And so, what the Commissioners are saying, in view of what Title L7 really is, that we would request that the Planning Commission move forward on its review and make its recommendations to the BOCC about the Development Regulations that are before you. While at the same time, the consultation process between the County and the Tribe is ongoing and what the letter says, in the end is, down the road once that process has reached a conclusion, and potentially the development proposed by the Statesman Group and the attended Development Agreement, have been massaged, potentially, that the BOCC would then present to you a final Development Agreement Proposal you're your review and to comment at a later date. In the meantime, they ask that you move forward on the Development Regs that are before you and have given you a timeframe in which to complete that work and that's 45 days. After you look at when weekends fall, it ends up being Monday, f une 20th,2016. And the County Commissioners have said is whether or not the Planning Commission completes its work within the timeframe, at that time the BOCC will, if there is no recommendations by the Planning Commission, the BOCC will take that as there is no recommendation. Then they would move forward in their legislative capacity to hold any subsequent public hearing that may be necessary and enter into their own deliberations about Title 17 Development Regs. Or if you do make recommendations, again they would take those under consideration and move into their legislative capacity. So that's how the BOCC looked at the issue and the question that has been raised to them saying move forward on the Development Regulations now and we'll bring back to you the Development Agreement at a later date after it's been massaged through this consultation process. With that, I'll take any questions you may have. LS I just want to point out that in my review, there appears to be some inconsistencies between the Development Regs and the draft Developer Agreement in terms of SEPA review and the symposing 4':368 and things like that so I would just check that as an area that needs to be looked at. In some places it says the SEPA review is going to be required and in the development agreement it looks like it says no it isn't. So I'd like to see consistency there. I'd like it spelled out how that SEPA future process coming? PM It strikes me that in the process of you going through the Development Regs, largely Title 17, that there maybe a couple of things: #1 there maybe changes that you would recommend to what the draft is that's before you. #2 there may be things that are missing that you think should be there that you'll want to recommend. Page r of zo P:86o379-445o Ft g60379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center May o4, zot6 Pt g6oi79-445o Ft 860379-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us !6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 #3 there maybe areas that you want to flag, such as what you're bringing up, like saying you like what you see in Title 17 and you would recommend it that the Development Agreement reflect that as well, that could be some commentary or a sort of side recommendation that you want to make. STAFF UPDATES DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR: CK: My intention tonight is for us to move quickly enough through the regulations together, that we would be able to make it to the end tonight. I want to flag rather than getting lost in discussion tonight, I'd like to flag anything that we think shouldn't be there, with a minus. Any places where we think there should be more, with a plus, question mark. And any questions, or any "we think this looks fine" with a sort of check or a question mark so that when we get to the end, we know where, if there's any place we need to go back to and have further clarification, discussion, or where we need to work more on i.e. what would go in there, what should come out, or what needs to be changed. Does that make sense to everyone? OK. It's also important to note for the public that as the Planning Commission, our job is to review these Regulations for the County Commissioner's consideration and they have no obligation to take our recommendations, although they do often listen to us. But we also have independence, which means we can recommend whatever we want. So it's important that we make sure this document reflects our true recommendations to the BOCC based on our study of this issue. There has been quite a bit of discussion about what goes in the regulations and what goes in the Developer Agreement and I wouldn't say that we're in total agreement about that. There's one way of looking at this that says: anything that would relate to this piece of property, the MPR that we're trying to fill in with some regulations, anything that would be true for any development that goes there, could be a candidate for the regulations. The other argument is the regulations are more generic than that, and once the Developer Agreement is signed, and the Developer is vested in that agreement with the County then that agreement would go forward with any future owner. I just wanted to say that discussion has been had and I know where different people weigh in on that. DWI I'll just give you some background for how these came to be. For any application for a unified development Code, we're trying to develop the regulations in Jefferson County code, Title L8 is the Unified Development Code. This is Title L7 this is a MPR development code. Currently there's only one article in that title and that's Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow is the model that we had to work with because there wasn't any other MPR regulations that we could look at. So the applicant basically took Port Ludlow's regulations, their zoning code, their permitted uses, development standards, setbacks, the things that happen on the ground; where you site a building and how you do that. So that's what those are and we basically took those and we tweaked them a little bit. The applicant made them applicable to Pleasant Harbor. Then our legal council took it and gutted it. So we've had it reviewed by our legal counsel of it for legal standing. That's the history of it. Now we want to go through and make sure, we've made some changes, we added some things, based upon our experience with Port Ludlow Page e of zo 6er Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center May o4, zo16 Pt 860379-4450 F:36o:3z9-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Like additional requirements. Like 160 40, and also enforced and added this enforcement section, 1761- 30. So there's been a few tweaks to this. It's more applicable to the Pleasant Harbor Development itself but it's still essentially modeled after Port Ludlow's Development Regulations. CK I would like to insert this: The GMA was passed in 1990. Port Ludlow already existed then. When the Growth Management Act was passed, we built our Comprehensive Plan and updated our Codes, we had to take what was there, we weren't creating a new MP& we were overlaying this code and this idea over something that already existed. DWJ In the development agreement it says if it's not in this code then we go to Title 18 which is the Unified Development Agreement. So it's added protection for the County. DWJ Title 17 Article 1 is the Port Ludlow code I just talked about. Chapter's 17.5, t7.50 those are the Port Ludlow chapters so there's no change there. Title 17 Article 2 is Pleasant Harbor. General Provision sz L7 .06 60 0 10 authority. These chapters of the RCW which is the Planning Enabling Act and the GMA and Title 18 of the fefferson County Code give authority to creating Development Regulations to the MPR it requires and you have to have Development Regulations on top of the overlying zoning. For any zone you have to have underlying Development Regulations. And that's where the authority comes from. And the title, we're basically calling it the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort Code. It's the same as the Port Ludlow Code. Purpose and Intent: The purpose is to set forth Development Regulations that comply with and are consistent with the fefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development. Additional Requirements: This is what I said we added to make sure if there was ever coverage 18:39 that wasn't covered in the regulations that we borrowed from Port Ludlow. That would include Title 15 which is the building code in fefferson County. Title 18 which is the Unified Development Code. That includes shoreline master program, critical areas, most of your Environmental Regulations, storm water, that's included. Applicability: The provisions of this title apply to all land associated with water areas and all uses and instructions within the boundary's as instructed in the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort as depicted on the official map. Exemptions: These are all exempt from the regulations, it's a long list and they're pretty standard. ?? I see it says that storm water retention is exempt. Does that apply to very large storm water receptacles? DW| They're not exempt, they're still subject to SEPA and all critical area ordinances, building codes, storm water master program and SEPA. Preexisting Uses and Structures: That's things that are already there. There is a bed and breakfast that exists that is part of the resort. Again, Title 15 and L8 apply. Page 3 of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center May o4, zo16 p:36o179-445o F: 8603Z9-4451 plancomm@co j efferson.wa.us Enforcement: This is what we put in there and it basically points to 1.850 which is the Enforcement Section of the Unified Development Code. Then we start getting into the different zones. There are three zones. The purpose of this zone is to provide residential and recreation facilities, basically the golf course side here. And the conference facilities. Permitted Uses; That's the list of all the uses that are permitted for that zone. 27=LS PUBLIC COMMENT: FOLIOW.UP ITEMS: OBSERVER COMMENT: Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 03/76/2016 at 6:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 08:40 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 20L6. Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD Page 4 of zo 6er Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL Dlstrlct 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present Call to Order at 6:30 pm District 2 Smith: Present*P* Sircely: Present fochems; Present PubJtc laAttendance: 7 ApllrovalofAgenda: Approved Apprloval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Lorna Smith is not here today but she may call in. That's why I have the speaker here. She may attend via cellphone after the presentation she's giving. STAFF UPDATES DWf I sent out dates for the "Road Show Meetinls" which are the Comprehensive Plan Update meetings. I hope you all got the email I sent so the dates are locked in. They will be held in different locations throughout the County. We're going to start out on f uly 5ttt at Port Ludlow, July 20tt' will be at the West End. It's for the whole summer. There will be two parts to each meeting, an open house the first part of the meeting where we will engage the public and engage them in a dialogue and talk about the Comprehensive Plan, what it is and why it's important, what do they value mos! where they want to see change. And then the second half of the meeting will be a more formal sit-down meeting like this where we can conduct some business but it will be primarily to listen from the public and primarily to take public testimony/comment like we do at our normal comment period. Comments on the Comprehensive Plan and if someone doesn't want to write their comment they can give them to us verbally and that will be a part of the record as well. So we're just looking for as many alternatives to provide people to give us input on the Comp Plan and what they think is most important. Speak Up is almost ready to be released. That is an online web portal for the citizens to go online. tt will be the same thing you can do at one of our Road Show meetings, it's an alternative to going to one of our Road Show Meetings. You can just go online and do the same thing. So it's just another alternative for people to engage with us on input for the Comprehensive PIan Update. And we have a couple other features too, Meeting in a binder, where if you don't want to go to a Road Show Meeting, or go online to Speak Up, you can hold your own Road Show Meeting in your own house, club or school. All that material wilt be released and coming out in The Leader on the June 22,2016, That issue of The Leader will have an insert that will have information about the Comprehensive Plan Update, The Road Show and Speak Up. CK We don't have our flyers yet. When we Bet them we will ask each ofyou to spread them out in your districts. If you use social media, maybe you can release something from our website link so people know. We would like you all to engage your people, your constituency, and that one on one piece will be very helpful. Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMTI\ruTBS Tri-Area Community Center June 15, zot6 Pistrict 3 Nilssen: Present Giske: Absent E Hull: Present P:36o379-445o F:36o-879-44Sr plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us StaffPresent David W. Iohnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Page r of r3 I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEBTINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June r5, zo16 Pt B6o*29-445a F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us DWf Yes you're basically ambassadors of the County in the Planning area. So think of it in those terms and we will provide you with materials as we get them and we'll provide you with a basic script of how to engage people, and give them basic information about the Comprehensive PIan. Kind of like an elevator speech, iust to get the dialogue going. It's just to help you if you need help. It's coming up in three weeks. ?? I commit to going to Clear Water and am wondering if there's any travel expense allotment or if that had been discussed? DWJ That would be a good question for Phillip Morley who's getting out of his car right now. We tried to get some coordinated transportation for the Brinnon Trip coming up in fanuary and we didn't pull that off but this is a lot farther so I can try again. We'll follow up on that for mileage. CK By the end of the meeting tonight, I hope to take a vote and I want you to be thinking about sending forth a recommendation to the BOCC tonight on the regulations as they are then. We will still have a findings and regulations step. It's a whole step by step, reading the findings and conclusions. Those have to be produced based on whatever we send forward. We're talking about doing that on the third Wednesday on the 29tt' of June because on fuly 6m we're scheduled for the Port Ludlow Road Show. If there is enough of you that can't make the 06 /29 /16 meeting, we can talk about other dates. Mike Nilssen is our new Planning Commissioner PM Thank you to Mike Nilssen and also to f ean Ball, who also applied, two well qualified candidates I appreciate both of you for putting your names in the hopper for public service, this is an important role. The Commissioners could only choose one, so thank you both for your willingness to serve. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR We've been working on a draft of the regulations and sending it back and forth between staff and the Planning Commission and will continue this tonighL L7 .80.020 Development Cap. CK Mr. Hull had some capitalization and editorial comments that aren't in this copy but we will include his comments. DJ I took out 17.65.050 from the Open Space Reserved Section and put it into the Golf Course Section because that's where it's better suited. CK The sole source aquifer question. Df The comment: An approved plan for directing untreated runoff water, runoff away from the aquifer and treating all onsite runoff with advanced bio-filtration or better at construction? Mf I saw nothing that indicated all wastewater should be treated on site. KC Do we have minutes for last meeting? I've been noting my comment for a year. I'm getting tired of it. I'd like to see the BOCC run a meeting with the last six months to a year of minutes gone. It's hard. Page z of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, zot6 P:96o379-445o F:360-g29-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us This process that we're doing sounds like it has a lot of problems in i! as opposed to, and if I had the minutes I'd read it to better understand better, but you mentioned it and I believe that we don't have to write or rewrite all of this. We can provide direction through a verbal written advice from us. Directing them to pay attention to whatever issues we feel most important and most of us can start pidgeoning those pretty quickly. Such as the Tribes, which again, we're creating regulations for a site that the Tribe is on and we aren't even privy to the discussions and we're trying to make the decision for them? We can't do that. So we can simply say in a letter, drafted, please understand that we are concerned that the Tribe and the County come to a mutual agreement with how this is to be developed with Statesman. OK? Then we don't have to wrestle through a lot of this. I think the same thing is true for the issues with proper treatment of the Golf Course which we're all concerned with the use of pesticides and whatever organic or inorganic material. Because in some cases, too much organic material isn't good for the aquifer or the system. So in some cases we can direct them: please be sure this is addressed. I would move that we address this differently, in a written formal statement of what we would like to have done as opposed to this, which I think has a lot of problems. CK I completely agree with you and I think that's worthy of quick discussion so if we decide to move forward with that, we do it. MS I would state that that's basically what we're doing. We're editing this, in order to send along our thoughts of how it could be better as recommendations. From the point of view of the citizens that we've connected with both for and against the project and that's what we're supposed to do. We've got a lot of time in this and we're pretty close. KC But for us to go in and put forward something that we know is going to be struck down in different ways. We're at the very first point where we ended Iast time is dealing with the density and number of units. And again, we've negotiated with them once, asking for certain things, one of them is reduction of units. Another is reduction of Golf Course links and number of holes. All of which they've met. And now we're saying reduce from 890 to 300 units? CK Why don't we do a straw poll on shall we move forward on editing the regulations, which we're half way through as we've been working on? So let's move forward. PM To help with your deliberation, I don't want to take you completely off the spot but in addition to the option as Kevin has pointed out and as we discussed last meeting where you can offer commentary in your recommendations to the BOCC asking that certain issues be addressed. The other thing is, while I think it's good to have discussion for the question of redundancy in the code, and I'm not suggesting you should shy away from that, but if those technical draftsmanship issues are going to hang you up and prevent you from getting to your goal, bear in mind, like I said last meeting, since we don't have minutes, is that this will still get reviewed by Departmental Staffand Legal Staff to advise the board in the final form of this. And I would anticipate, regardless of the fine work that you will do on your recommendations, the Board is probably going to need to make some further revisions, hold their own public hearing and finalize these regulations. So if that eases your burden a little, to help you get to your goal, I offer that. CK And we can add that to our recommendations: If there's redundancies in here, which are covered elsewhere . . Page 3 of r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June r5, zot6 P: 36o-379-445o F: 360-879-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us ?? And I want everyone to remember also, we're an Advisory Board, We can advise the heck out of the BOCC, but all of us, I know I will be there, and I encourage everyone to be at the BOCC when their making a decision and going to make the votes, that's when our voice has to be heard. CK Back to the issue. DWJl I'm again happy to scratch my note "or better at construction". Thought I had last meeting. DWf2 There's another note, "sole source aquifer" and the section on "the approved organic vegetation and Site Management Plan". That should be a new sub section. Df So that would be B and the next one is C. CK So we just handled DWI 1 and 2. DWJ3 Someone needs to listen to the recording. DWI4 I put in 50'from top of bank. So that's fine. We're atL7.70.020 DWf 5 The following uses may be allowed in the buffer and open space areas in MPR-OSR zone after a determination by whom? The County would make this determination after review of a Critical Areas Study. DWl5 Restoring to natural condition. So we're taking out the strike out, and keeping the restoration in DWf T Passive Recreation, including trails, that does not reduce . . . DWIS All agreed. DWI9 LS Ok everyone agrees to scratch it because Shoreline Management Program doesn't apply. DWI10 All agreed. DWJllSame. All agreed. DWILZ Same. AII agreed. DWI13 Strike it. All agreed. DWI14 It's already there, it's redundant. Strike it. DWI15 All agreed to changed density to setback. DWI16 That was just a typo, should have been Ch. 18.25 not1^&.Z7. DWI17 PM Any change in development cap that may be negotiated in government to government that is between the Tribe and the County is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission at this time. In terms of the approach of redesigning the wastewater treatment that goes beyond any significant adverse environmental impact identified in the EIS seems to me is a bit overstepping. Puge 4 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June rS, zo16 P:g60:379-4450 Ft S6o3?9_445t plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us LS lt's my understanding that in general, municipalities use SEPA as a guideline, if there are additional significant environmental impacts that weren't considered in the EIS then it would need to be considered. Proposed mitigation can be based on the EIS can be based on policies or best available science. The EIS is just a guidance document in my view. CK I spoke with David Goldsmith about this and he seems to agree with you that there's nothing that stops us from adding additional restrictions we iust can't do more than the FSEIS allows. We couldn't up the number of units. Also spoke to him about the ordinance the BOCC enacted that allowed the NPR to be created, the "thirty conditions" and he seemed to say the same thing about that. That it wasn't an authorization, it was a limit. LS That ordinance ultimately resulted in the line on the map that we call the MPR district but that's all it did. Then added the conditions, when the MPR regulations go forward they're supposed to address those thirty conditions. PM I won't belabor the point of in-excess and proportionality I've made my point and I would suggest that the Planning Commission continue. CK One of the things I've felt in reading the FSEIS was that I understand the five options that were reviewed and in reading the public comments and the five options them being: the two no action options, one of them was to leave the MPR as it is today, the other was to restore it, to take out the infrastructure, buildings and campgrounds. The three other options were the various versions of the resort as proposed as it went on. I think option three was the option where we had the nine hole Golf Course. What I read, was the least impact on this very sensitive place, was that the two no action options had less impact on the environment than any of the action options. I understand that document was finalized, but when I read some of the public comments I'm not clear, and I'm not talking about the Tribe, I'm talking about some of the other scientist's [and the other groups) who wrote in, who had big concerns mostly about water in, water out. It's not clear to me that they were addressed. I know this document is final but I worry that we regard it as a perfect document. It's not clear to me. I still find concerns. KC Being one of the three that was there, we made the decisions based on a lot of very good information that was given. I went through my notes, that I referred to we made the decision on the FSEIS no slide options, we were given a presentation and we went through a lot of work and discussion, and we immediately eliminated the two no actions options, and seriously looked at the others, I went through my notes, I wrote all the comments including what was going on in the crowd at the time and two thirds to three quarters of the individuals there were for the project. Several people [for the project) still had concerns, like traffic and water, all those kinds of issues we were addressing and they were all valid points and of the twenty five to thirty percent that said they weren't in favor, they said they would be in favor if those issues were addressed. I believe they have been and we were pushing them to address some more, which is what we ought to be doing. That's all water under the bridge. Let's keep moving. Even something as simple as saying fifty gallons per person, let's say they do, as we discussed in the last meeting, the low impact development techniques where there's a lot of great water recycling being done, then all of a sudden it's twenty or twenty five gallons a day per person. Are they still stuck with three hundred because we've written it in here? 0r are they now allowed to have six hundred and fiffy or seven hundred because that same volume of water is now able to be handled by that many more because a lot of the light grey water, medium grey water is now being diverted, handled better and released back into the aquifer. So I just have a problem setting a finite number. CK If I could be clean, what I would do today is I'd say, what we really should have done is to say instead of reverse engineering this resort into this location, from my logical point of view, what we should have done is say how much water can this resort support? My point is instead of using a number of units, we should use a performance measure, and say: if you can do this much water, then you can do these many units. Page 5 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTBS Tri-Area Community Center June tS, zo16 P: B6o3Zg-445o F:36o-379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us KC I think the performance based has it's own problems. That's what the FSEIS addressed, it had been over a thousand units before. MS I'd like to ask Phillip again, are you saying that the notion of how many units in an MPR is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission based on stuff that's already been decided and things that have already happened? PM What I'm saying is two things: 1) there may be a limit that gets negotiated government to government in consultation with the proponent. They may change their proposal and that may be reflected in the Development Agreement that may ultimately also get reflected in the development phase, 2) Outside of that Treaty Rite Issue that's being handled in the government to government process, I'm raising a caution flag recognizing however that your actions are advisory only and that there are others that can potentially pull us back from the danger zone. But I'm signaling to you that I believe that if you're unduly restrictive in what you do, without sufficient justlfication in the EIS as to mitigating a significant adverse environmental impact, that it creates, if it were to be adopted as such, would create a liability to the county, in terms of what are reasonable expectations of the property owner. So I'm cautioning you about overstepping. LS I would counter that, first of all, The Planning Commission can recommend essentially whatever they want. We're not attempting to be unreasonable here. I have now reviewed a number of other County's MPR regulations and they almost all address density. And none of them allow the density per acreage, that this MPR is allowing. I think we have to bear in mind that that number was a proposal prepared by the developer and wasn't put through much of any impartial screen. So compared to other County's and their MPR's, this is a very high density in my opinion. PM Bear in mind there was an environmental analysis at the time of the Comprehensive Plan that allowed up to 890 units. MS Later in this document there will be a maximum number that we will recommend, but there's also restrictions that are on total number of people there and traffic based on the water and special issues too. LS County's and City's impose so many requirements which is what controls the density of development 1:06:43 in certain zones, right? That is an issue that normally is separate from water availability because water rights is a very complicated issue. Statesman's already been granted water rights, but just because there's sufficient water should not be the only factor that's controlling what kind of density goes out there. That's just one thing and EIS itself of course looked at a number of other constraints. CK I'm just stuck on the fact that it will have three times the density of Port Townsend in Brinnon. KC I think we're still comparing apples and oranges. Looking at the density, I would expect it to be denser in an MPR where I don't have schools system and park system. I'd be curious on those other MPR's how where they designed for use? Port Ludlow, another MPR is a very different animal than what their proposing at Black Point and to suggest that we should do the same density as Port Ludlow I don't think would be appropriate any more than it is to say Port Townsend. I understand everyone's issue about overbuilding. But a developer is worried about overbuilding. We can set the limit I'd like to move on. I'm not going to agree to any 300 because the science has said that 890 is fine. ? I disagree. The option is in there for no less than 65% of the total, which is 578. This is written by the developer, it is a suggestion, and I believe it is appropriate for our commission to discuss density. Page 6 of r3 a 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTBS Tri-Area Community Center June 15, eot6 Pt 36o-329-445c F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa"us KC lt's a legitimate concern but the numbers are arbitrary. They're negotiating it in a meeting we're not even privy to and we're trying to come up with a number that they're talking about. MS I sffongly suggest that we skip this, leave the original number and each of us write a letter to the Commissioner's. CK I'd like to have a straw poll as to how we can address this and move onto it. OK I'd Iike a straw poll on 300 please: 4 yes, 4 no. We're at a draw. Straw Poll for 890? 4 No, 3 Yes, 1 Abstain, So we're going to leave it unedited. PM One suggestion is you can leave it with an X for right now with a recommendation to the BOCC to fill that number in as informed by their government to government negotiations with the Tribe. All agreed! And the same for DWrlB on the square footage. Put an X in, for the BOCC to fill in after the government to government negotiations with the Tribe. And everyone agrees to scratch out lobbies. DWI19 Resort Plan and DevelopmentAgreement. DWI20 OK to leave it off. DWI?L Everyone's fine with the scratch. DWl22 Everyone disapproves of the scratch. DWI23 OK with the scratch. DWl24 Leave as it was originally. DWI25 All agree with this change. DWl26lt's required elsewhere so take change out. Sentence ends at: project level details. DWl27 All agree with change. DWI28 Staffagrees with change, DWl29 0K leave that in (the whole paragraph of (2). Also (3) Add: As set for in any applicable agreement. PUBLIC COMMENT James Fritz, Port Townsend: I would Iike to speak on the future of Discovery Bay. The Discovery Bay Motel has a Class A water system. It meets the same requirements as Port Townsend, Walter Moe is licensed to run a Class A water system, he's a journeyman electrician, plumber and an excavator. It serves about 45 to 50 homes and businesses. Because the water is perfect. The water that comes out of Discovery Bay looks like coffee. There's a lot of organic material in the glacial till, there's volcanic's underneath there. If Walter Moe was killed in an accidentwho would run it? Presumably the PUD would take it over. The only guarantee you have that the area would continue would be if you build a Motel. Now it's listed as a site for a Motel in the Comp Plan, he has a Class A water system, and he now has a sewer system that meets all the requirements for a 100 unit hotel. The only problem is the foot print is 7,500 square feet. You can't build a 100 unit Motel on a 7,500 square feeg you need about 50,000 square feet. You also need to raise the height level from 35 feet to 50 feet. Page 7 of rg 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMII\ruTBS Tri-Area Community Center June 15, zo16 Pt 360-g79-4450 F: g60-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us It's at the bottom of a hill so it won't cut off anyone's view. If these two requirements are changed, then he can 8o ahead and build a motel, The interest rates are low right now. So now is an ideal time to build a Motel. If you look at the advantages, you're looking at 50 to 60 jobs. One hundred people, paying $100.00 or more for a Motel Room so you're dealing with $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 daily coming into fefferson County. It doesn't compete with Port Townsend. You're dealing with people that go back and forth on Hwy 101. The only reason anyone heading to Port Townsend would stay there is because Port Townsend is full. It's a plus situation for everybody, I know the County doesn't need $200,000 to $300,000 more tax dollars! Rob Mitchell from Brinnon The scope of this development is critical and the MPR is basically and end running around with the gross management act. It would be one thing if this resort was built someplace where it could be truly self- contained but it's not. It's in the middle of Hood Canal. The effect of this resort on Brinnon and traffic and pollution is going to be a stranglehold. It's going to be very profitable for the County and for the Developer but it's going to really hurt that entire area. The Developer has always stuck with 890 units because that's his profit margin. He's never been willing to cut it down and I don't think he will. I think it's the absolutely wrong place for an MPR. Roma Call with the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribe I just simply wanted to say thank you to the Planning Commission for all your work on this document. It's really looking good and I really appreciate all your work on it. We're looking forward to meeting with the County and Developer soon about all the technical meetings. But we appreciate everything you've been doing, we know you've put a lot of hours on this. Jean Ball Quilcene Page 4, under item 3, on the kettle ponds, we discussed last meeting to alter the verbiage instead of saying kettle pond it should iust say kettle. So strike all ponds. At the very end of that paragraph it says: with adequate native vegetation buffers. I find that to be nebulous, what does that mean? We have in Jefferson County Code which specifies which class a vegetative buffer shall be provided and I thinkthere should be some reference as to what you intend for that. For instance a Class A buffer is a total visual screening. On page 4 again, Article 4, Subsection C it states No Golf Course green shall be consffucted over a sole source aquifer, the site grating and excavation shall be minimized. I find that to be unclear and also nebulous. Article D under that same section states Land disturbing activities such as grating and filling etc. There was in the previous draft reference to the wet land references. What happened to that?! I've used here in my comments and symbol that has a name, it's called an interabang, which has a question mark and an exclamation point used simultaneously at the end of a sentence. I find myself using that a lot with these drafts. Now I know it has a name. Page 6: 7770.010 with purpose, it says: the zone to provide for a natural vegetative buffer area. That is completely unclear and we have plenty of verbiage within the code to use, Page 7 ,1780.020 The final two words in there are internal open space. What is that? Thank you. I have some comment on the previous draft on page 5, 1770.010 under kettle ponds #4 no filling of wetland shall be allowed. I wrote under there hell yeah! It was stricken from the current draft. I find that disturbing. #5 says all development land disturbances shall protect and avoid all impoftant cultural or historical sites that are listed by the State Historic Preservation Officer by local Tribal furisdiction. That was another Hell Yeah comment from me. #7 also Hell Yeah! Barbara Moore Lewis I want to talk about public meetings because this is a really important meeting and it's important that it's open to the public. The government to government meetings are open to the public, they're not secret. If there are Commissioner's there you have a right to go and hear what's being said. I would very much be concerned with public meetings where citizens aren't able to have transparent government. Page 8 of 13 I I 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINI.ITES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, zo16 P: 36o379-445o Ft g60-g79-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us I just want to clari$r that and it's my opinion, I'm sure the technical meetings are going to be boring to someone like me, but if people want to go and support the people that are there, I don't see why that would be a problem. I believe in transparent government. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR (Continued) KC Going back to L770.010 the kettle ponds: All the ponds were struck. I thought we already addressed the issue that this isn't a sole source aquifer. CK I was reading and was going to bring that document that said that more than 50% of the water for an area is from a single aquifer is what the definition that I read said. Lorna looked into this and she said there is a small secondary aquifer on that point but it's not providing more than 50% of water to the site. KC I'm sorry we've got a licensed hydrologist by the state saying this is not a sole source aquifer and we're questioning his credentials? I understand you did the reading but this is a State Licensed Hydrologist, who knows the law, knows the rules and says this is not a sole source aquifer. So you're saying that he's wrong because of what you read? LS I'm not a hydrologist but everybody living there is drawing offone aquifer, then it is a sole source aquifer. CK So let's not call it a sole source aquifer. MH What is the buffer around the kettles? Is it 5, 10 or 50'? DWf There are no identified buffer's around the kettles. Do you want one? MH Yes along kettle C but I really don't knoq 25 or 50'? My concern also besides water intrusion is soil stability if you take it and buffit down to the top. Maybe the Tribe could tell us what it should be. KC I think it's something we should forward to BoCC for their government to government with the Tribe. CK So in Sub 3 under kettle's we're going to put buffers should be protected and preserved? KC Preserved and protected. Then kettle buffer's an issue for the Tribe and the County to discuss. CK Everyone agrees. DWIl CK Sole Source Aquifer on page 4 are we striking on 17.65.050 sub A Sole Source Aquifer is struck but the rest of the paragraph stays. And another reference just below it. Can we just replace it with Critical Aquifer Recharge Area which is different? It is mapped that way, DWf Some of it is, not all of it. KC Why not leave it as Aquifer Recharge Area and the maps delineate the rest? Page 9 of r3 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES 6zr shcridan St. Tri-Area Community Center t,1?:-t#;i1t;PortrownsendwAgS36S June 15, zot6 phncomm@cojefferson,wa.us CK So we're iust scratching the first three words "Sole Source Aquifer"? Well-head Protection and Aquifer Recharge Area is the heading. CK Everyone agree to strike the first sentence, and start off at Permeable soils? All agreed. KC It talks about advanced bio filtration. Can it be changed to current? It changes every four years. CK Everyone agrees, strike "Advanced Bio filtration", replace with "Current Bio filtration". DWJ30 Everyone is ok with striking "as specified". DWI31 DWI Whywould you have to go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if you're iust reducing the size and scope? LS Because ifthe boundaries were to change. PM So what you could say here is "enlargement of the scope of the Pleasant Harbor MPR or revision to the boundary of the MPR shall require. So you can word scope it, or work this out. CK So you can work on that David? DWI3z DWJ I don't see why it would reduce the flexibility of the developer so l'm okwith that. CK All agree. DWI33 Itshould be in subsection two. LS Yes, I agree with David on that. DWI34 LS I guess it's an arbitrary number but ten percent seems rather major. KC I don't have a problem with ten percent. CK Ten percent can be quite a difference. What's the basis for ten? We're so concerned with the size of the development so ten percent could be a big deal. CK Straw Poll on 50/o: Yes 4 No 3 and one abstention. So we're at five percent and moving on. DWI3s CK So Lorna is ok with that. Don't do her strikes. DW36 I Page ro of r3 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES 6zr sheridan s1, Tri-Area Community Center ';,t!:;:#;::;;PortTownsendwAgSg6S JUne tS, ZOt6 plancomm@cojefferson.wa.us DWf I agreed with that strike but how and *t o *orfa the determination be made? KC I think that would be the director. DWI37 Both staffand legal have a problem with striking it. PM I believe this is referencing the latest FSEIS. So we could certainly clariff the nomenclature but I respect that the Planning Commission is debating whether even with clariffing whether they want it in there. CK I think what I'm hearing from Lorna is: As long as it's clear which document they're referring to and that it's appropriate that it's in here, then they might be okwith it. LS We want the most recent document. CK That would be the 2015 FSEIS, PM Would it be: and applicable Environmental Impact Documents? CK It say's pertinent documents. We are going to edit it so it says Resort Plan FSEIS and then other pertinent documents. PM Which would be Subsequent SEPA Documents. OK DWJ38 DWJ I prefer the SEPA standard language and not change it from substantial to additional. CK We're ok with that. DWI39 lt's not the County's business. CK We're going to strike sub a. Everyone agrees, DWI40 All agree DWI41 Add the word also, for clarity. Everyone agrees. DWI42 Everyone's good with it. DWI43 All agree t}tat reinstating is not necessary. DWl44 All agree to stickwith SEPA language. DWI45 OK to scratch the words Golf Course here only. PM The inclusion of the words Golf Course are certainly consistent. CK So we're okwith scratching Golf Course. DWl45 OKto leave it alone and stickwith original text. Page rr of r3 I 6zr Shcridan St, Port Townsend WA 98S68 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June t5, zo16 Pi B6oi79-445o F: 36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us DWl47 Everyone is ok to scratch "Port Ludlow". KC 17.65 030 We are all good with the height restrictions. The equipment will be provided. We'll have to have a ladder truck down there. An apparatus. Current Code states and can handle up to 50', this says up to B0'. So we should change it "to exceed up to 35' in height"? It has to be there prior to construction. All agreed. FOILOW.UP ITEMS We have two options. One would be to entertain a motion to approve these as noted. I'm a little worried about the omissions that we didn't catch. We're currently pretty close but if we did decide to revise the draft and review it together before the next meetin& it seems like we could vote to send the recommendation forward and have prepared and go ahead and complete the findings and conclusions at the next meeting. That would iust give us a chance to go through all these revisions and everyone could go through it with our notes to check it. If we can get this done quickly, I'm happy to help in any way that I can so it can go out to the Planning Commissioner's very quickly and then they can comment back if there's anything that they notice. That would be good. PM Sounds like a great plan, a slight nuance you may want to consider with your direction here, would be to vote to recommend it forward as amended with an understanding that at your next meeting you will review staffs revised version to make sure it accurately reflects your direction. The reason I'm suggesting that is because it then closes the door on revisiting questions and re-debating the issues, it's just a matter of did we get it right or not. ?? I would so move that we approve the changes that we made tonight to the document KC My motion is that we approve tonight the changes that we made to the document, incumbent upon us to verify that the changes are accurate prior to next meeting so that when we come to the meeting we can approve it. CK So we're reporting to staff before the next meeting? CK What I'm asking for is that the edits be done and sent out so that we have reviewed them and sent anything we noticed back to David beforehand, not just save them for the next meeting. We all agree? Second on Kevin's motion. Any discussion? ? Are you including Title 17 and 18 in the vote? Yes, CK All in favor? Yes 6, No t, and Abstaining 1. Motion passes. Page re of 13 t 6zr Sheridan St, Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MBETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 15, zo16 a A Smith, PC P:360-379-44So F:36o-379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us OBSERVER COMMENT Page 4,ltem 2 It states Additional Large Trees. What's "Large Trees" KC It's a species. The larger trees. LS If there's language David could research in the critical areas code that would work. KC I'll look into this. It's a very specific species. And also, a minimum size at planting. PM One of the issues about the size of the tree is its vulnerability. Please don't speciff something that's too big or they may all die. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled tor 06/29 /2016 at 5:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 9:48 pm approved this 1+a-day of 20L6. DCD Page r3 of 13 t .f,pp+*r$o " I Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 29, zo16 P:36o179-445o F: S6oi79-445t plancomm @co j efferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present District 2 Smith: Present*P* Sircely: Present fochems; Present Call to Order at 6:32 pm District 3 Nilsson: Present Giske: Absent E Hull: Present Staff Present David W. fohnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Public in Attendance: 5 AnnrovalofAsenda: Annroved Approval of Minutes: June 1't and April 6tt please review and approve these. We would like the minutes Iess detailed for the majority of the meetings. Because the Brinnon MPR is so unusual, they can be detailed but afterwards, not so detailed. I still think she should be here at the meetings in order to understand them. Maybe we can get Hailey or someone local to type the meetings. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Lorna Smith is not here today but she may call in. That's why I have the speaker here. She may attend via cellphone after the presentation she's giving. Unfortunately David Alvarez on our legal counsel is no longer with the County, his last day was Tuesday, he's moving on to Clallam Co where he will be doing essentially the same job. \tVhich is unfortunate for DCD because he has a lot of institutional experience and knowledge. He's also been extremely responsive. Also in your packets, is the email I sent you on the findings and the final revision of your version of the draft regulations. So when you get to that, we'll talk about the minor changes I made to that. STAFF UPDATES You'll notice in your packets I've bundled up brochures. These are the informational brochures for the Comprehensive Plan Update road show and general information on our update process. Please distribute them in public areas and to your friends and acquantences. Please come get more if you run out. We have an ad in the Fork's Forum, it lists all the meetings and have had two half page ads in the Leader already listing all the dates. Can we get single page large print fliers so we can pin up on bulletin boards? Done. Iuly 6tt the new Director, Patty Charvas will be at the meeting for you all to meet. I sent you talking points, to give you an idea of how we can approach this open house. I want us to be interacting with people. Keep in mind, we're in the information gathering phase of this update. Were not deciding what will be changed at this point. Or objective is to educate them on the Comp PIan and how it's set up, different elements, what's most valuable to the people, why they like living here, what they need out of the Comp Plan. How it's a guide for us and guides future growth and development. We need and want to hear everything they have for us. This is an opportunity for us to meet and greet with the residents. Those are just ideas to keep in mind. We'll talk more about this as well. I anticipate this to be a lot of fun. Don't forget we have Meetings in a Binder also. So we really want to push to engage people in the planning process. This is important and our Comp Plan needs to reflect Page r of zo Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 29, zot6 P: 36o-379-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us I6zr Sheridan St. . Port Townsend WA 98g68 that. We want people to think about different goals, We have interactive excersizes and information material that will go in the Binder (for Meeting in a Binder) along with instructions on how to conduct and facilitate that meeting. You'll fill out those materials and we'll get the binder back with them all filled out. Then we'll deceminate that information into a central repository and analyze it. The official open house starts at 6:30, it would be nice if you can get there at 6:00. Logistically the open house will be set up in a semi- circle with tables and elements on each table. We'll have a demo of the speak up software. We'll have other materials. You'll all get a packet, I put in your email with the adjenda and a road map of the meeting. At a certain point during the meeting we'll have to move the tables and have a more formal set up. We'll see how smoothly that goes and adjust. So the second half will be a formal meeting like we have now. We'll conduct with attendance and minutes and we can have a discussion on what you heard and talked about during the open house. Then we can open it up to the audience so they can formally testify, which will be another form of record on their input as well. I wanted to introduce Angie Scalp, our summer intern. She's Al Scalp's daughter. She's working with Pam and I on the P3. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR In the past, I've been here for two of these process's and we'll do the same process without a screen and projector, we'll do it verbally and by hand. We have to review the last changes to the regs we've already approved by a majority of the Planning Commission on June 1Stt, but there were edits that weren't incorporated into the final Planning Commission draft which are before us. There's three: Under L7 65 040 Bulk and Set Back Requirements. It did say all structures shall be set back at least 40' from the MPR boundary line and adjacent MPR ???? 24:32 for buildings over 50'. So I just eliminated for buildings over 50'. 1765 050a Significant Tree Reduction It used to say large trees and I just put in, instead of large, additional native tree species such as Douglas Fir or Citkus Fruits26:15 at least four years old and over 4' in height shall be planted in buffer areas. So I made the word large more definitive. 1765 020 Permitted Uses that's #5 and I've got that struck here, golf courses. PM it was in the ordinance that designated the MPR so it's in the Comprehensive Plan as an allowed use. These are the Development Regs and I think you're bringing to light that it's not listed here. The question is whether the fact that it's listed in the Comp Plan as part of a MPR that that would Iead the department to conclude that a golf course is indeed a recreational use consistent with a MPR because it's specifically listed in the Comprehensive Plan. KC So it's covered? They can build a golf course, correct? There's a fine distinction between saying they can't have a golf course, and not being allowed to do it anywhere else and us striking it entirely. Page e of zo DWI I understood that you guys wanted it taken out of permitted uses. L7.80 070a The 50/o Minor Revisions and I changed that to 5o/o. 1 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 29, zo16 P:360379-445o. Ft g6oi79-445t plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 KC And that's what I recall us doing but the reasoning, and reason I accepted it at the time was because it was covered in the Comprehensive Plan and would be an allowed use. If it's not, then I'm taking back and I don't approve that myself. CK What I recall of the conversation was that we all agreed to stay silent on it as long as other listed uses consistent were fine. KC So it's listed in the Comp Plan as an allowed use? Then I'm fine. PM lt's in the Comp Plan but it's not listed as an allowed use, but the language would lead you to conclude that it probably isn't allowed. It does Ieave it open to interpretation and I think staff is tell you that because it's listed in the Comprehensive Plan that the phrase here of "and other recreational uses consistent with the MPR" because it's in the Comprehensive Plan it would almost certainly be deemed by the department to be consistent with a MPR. But if you really want to nail it down, then you could list it here exclusively. KC The problem with that is what if someone wanted to do an equestrian facility. I'm not going to define recreational use. If the DCD and the County is confident that recreational use is going to cover a golf course I'm fine with that. CK I want to point out that it wouldn't be ok for the regula Comprehensive Plan. tions to allow something that was not consistant the DWJ I recommended not taking it out because it should be in there as a permitted use, that was staff and legals recommendation. PM We have said what would likely happen and also advised that both the department and legal has advised that it would be best to specifically list it and I've told you that in order to be certain is to list it. CK I don't think everyone on the Planning Commission agrees that it's a permitted use, so that's our compromise. Our compromise was to stay silent. KC And again this goes back to the lack of leadership at the DCD that is needed desperately and I know we're getting close but . . . PM Respectfully, Mr. Coker, I believe that staff and legal have provided leadership on this issue and the policy direction that the planning commission chooses to go for is it's own choice. KC Do you understand that we had someone with vast experience who was leading us through this. It was going quite well and then he went and apply replaced 37:27 and left us with a hole and your replacement has shown up for one meeting in the last nine months. So you tell me whether or not that's effectiveness. Discussions have gone on that could have been nipped in the bud if the people with the proper experience and knowledge which we have not had here. PM I don't think this is a productive discussion. As to the point that's on the table, I personally advised the board in a previous meeting so I think you've had guidance on it. CK Is there anything else we need to look at here. We took a vote the last time, we approved this, so we're just going over the edits that we've already agreed on. Page 3 of zo Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 29, zo16 p:36o379-445o F:36o479-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us I6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 The next piece is the findings and I'm going to insert a letter that Lorna and I and Mark Jochems wrote. The reason I want to insert it here is because it's an attempt to do two things. 1. To articulate the history of our understanding of this process to illuminate what we've discovered about the process. My reason for wanting to read it now is because as we go through the Findings and Conclusions, I think it's relivant), is that we have some sort of a shared understanding of what we've gone through. I also want to say this letter reflects what I've learned, what I believe is true about the site and the MPR because I worked very hard on this with Lorna and Mark, it's a draft document and any language that implies that anyone else other than the three of us has signed off on this, I would like you to just note that this letter will not get sent reflecting it as the views of the entire Planning Commission unless it reflects the views of the entire Planning Commission. We don't have to make a decision on the letter today, but I think it's useful, at least what we've learned about the MPR and some of what we've discovered about the State Code and our Code I think is relivent on the process that we're about to go through. Hopefully most of it is just fact that you would not find issue with. My reason in giving this preamble is that what I don't want to do is derail the findings and conclusions. What I do want to do is know why we may struggle with some of the Findings and Conclusions. The f efferson Co Planning Comm has spent the Iast 6 months reviewing the PHMPR project with the goal of making a recommendation to the BOCC on the Development Regulations/code that will govern future development of this Comprehensive Plan designated MPR site at Black Point near Brinnon Washington. As you know it isn't without significant concerns that we send these recommendations forward to you. We will attempt here to lay out what we Iearned in our six months study and review, what the regulations before you represent and what we believe still needs to be done and how we believe this process should have gone and frankly should go. This learning curve has been steep and without much support from the DCD that has been without a full time DCD director for nearly a year and without a DCD manager for over a year and a half. This is our attempt to convey to you the depth of what we've learned and understand as a result of our study. In our review, we held a public hearing in Brinnon on July 06,2016 where we heard from a devided public, vocal proponents and opponents filled the Brinnon Elementary School gym and stood in line to speak both for and against this development. Since then we have been educating ourselves on the history current state of this proposal by reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and it's accompanying documents. As well as fifteen years of public and tribal comment on development of this site. What we learned about the PHMPR site. The site designated as PHMPR takes up approximately 1/3 of a peninsula on Hood Canal known as Black Point. Black Point sits directly adjacent to the Ducka Bush River Estuary and is just south of the Doci Wallop River Estuary, two important salman and steelhead rivers on a stretch of beach rich in shellfish and other marine life. And on the south end of Hood Canal where little exchange of water from the Puget Sound, the Straight of Jan De Fucha and the Pacific Ocean can occur. What goes into this body of water primarily stays in this body of water. The Black Point PHMPR is a particularly and specifically sensitive site for the following reasons: The site is located on and in close proxsimity to the Hood Canal, a 60 mile long feord 45:35 with limited tidal excahangfe. The site's unusually large kettles, geologic formations formed by retreating glaciers. The site is located between the Doci Wallop and Ducka Bush rivers, two major salman habitats, the site is surrounded by significant shellfish habitat with a harvest of 140,000 lbs yearly. The site's critical role in aquafer recharge. Because of necessary limitations of a small freshwater aquifer surrounded by salt water the Iikely and significant runoff impacts from increased traffic on 10 1, the treated water, including treated wastewater and batch treated water 46:19 including wastewater and runoff can still include pesticides, herbisides and an over abundance of neutrients. If these are reintroduced into the aquifer it will pollute wells and allow escess neutrients to seep out onto tidal beaches that rely on fresh water from the aquifer to salt water for a healthy marine habitat which is a major contributing factor in toxic algae blooms and Iow oxygen events in Hood Canal. What we've learned about this MPR process: The approval of the Brinnon PHMPR will be the largest single land decision made by Jefferson County since inactment of the GMA in 1990. Two primary documents await approval The Development Regs or Code that will be incorporated into the Jefferson County Code and the Development Page 4 of zo 1 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 29, zo16 Pt 36o379-445c. F:36o179-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Agreement between the County and the specific Developer. In our study we have discovered the following: an anthropologist report was not found to be included in any EIS. Any study specifically addressing shellfish impact was not found to be included in any EIS. Other important environmental concerns raised in comments in the draft SEIS were not addressed or were addressed only superficially in the final SEIS IFSEIS). Requirements included in the BOCC ordance 01-0128-08 that Tribes be consulted as well as other requirements such as the preservation of at Ieast one kettle were not included in the proposed regulations. Comments submitted repeatidly at different points in the process by the Port Gamble/S'Klallam Tribe who's rights were estabhlished by the point/no point treaty of 1855 to usual and accustom fishing including shell fish gathering, spiritual and cultural grounds including Black Point were not addressed. And no consultation with the Tribes took place prior to the last several months when the PGS Tribe insisted upon it. PGST comments to the draft SEIS were not included in the final SEIS. The Planning Commission was informed by staff, David Wayne Johnson, late in the process that draft regulations put before the f efferson County Planning Commission had been drafted by Statesman and written to accommodate the company's specific development proposal. These draft regulations include language naming a specific developer fStatesman) and include refrences to a Development Agreement that is yet to be developed or approved. And finally, the DCD recommended enacting Development Regulations and a Developer Agreement in a single action. An impossibility if the Developer Agreement is to reflect the direction in the adopted regulations. When the process appears to be out ofsequence:49245 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC COMMENT: FOLLOW.UP ITEMS: OBSERVER COMMENT: Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 07 /06/2016 at 6:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 9:02 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 201.6 Page 5 of zo Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary /DCD