Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0656zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Absent E Felder: Present Koan: Present Call to Order at 6;30 pm District 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present Jochems; Present Public in Attendance: Seven ApprovalofAgenda: Approved Aonroval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS None STAFF UPDATES NONE DETIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR PRESENTATION: Mr. Morley introduced Roma Call and Laura Price (Tribal Historic Preservation 0fficersJ 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 Plan Resorq 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 1Bth, 2016 at 1:30 in the BoCC Chambers in the County Court House. Commissioner Phil Johnson 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 0ffice, 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 2075 meeting the County Staff a Tribal staffagreed 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 201,5 | 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. Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 District 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present p: Z60-879-4450 F:360-379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us Staff Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Phil ]ohnson, County Commissioner Page i of re 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pi 56o379-445c Fi S6oi79-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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 letter 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 biologist 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 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 P:36o379-445o F,960:379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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 75o/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. Also both tidelands are areas of concern to the Washington State DOH. 0ne water sampling location on the Dosewallips, and two locations on the Duckabush were Iisted 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 Staff, 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, Page 3 of re Questions? 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p:36o379-449o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us DISCUSSION: P.M. Thank you very much for being here and making yourself available to us, M.J. 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 ofyour 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 2007? 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 work 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 Page 4 ot t2 system at the discharge point, also all the way to the shellfish beds just to ensure 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p:36o379-445o F: 36c,3Z9-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us ?? 0k 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.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 ofthe 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? 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. ?? 0n the geography of this site we noted that it's 1.1 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 pafticular 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 ofthe area and the aquifer recharge and the contaminants that are ofconcern 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. Paqe 5 of rz 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 P: g6oi79-445o F:56o379-MSt plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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? lt 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 iust 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 elk, 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 PIan. 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 project 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 Iot 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 salng 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 Iot 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.J. No I think that in my response I've made it pretfy 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. Page 6 of rz ?? So I guess I'm asking about the Planning Commission's role in that. Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pi g6oi79-445o Ft Z601Z9-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 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 Commissioner'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 ofgoing through and sort of, section by section of that draft, and highlight ifthere are areas ofconcern in those Regulations that are more generic in nature rather than project specific to see ifthey'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 fwhich designated that there will be a Brinnon Master Plan Resort), we're now talking about the implementing regulations of the Comprehensive PIan on our Unified Development Code, Title 17, then nested below that, following a little bit later, is the Development Agreement, like I said last month about the commitment is: Any Development Agreement that may come out of 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 now), 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 they welcome your input and advice on the Development Agreement. Another final thing I want to mention is: We spoke of Comprehensive Plan, looking at Development Regulations, Development Agreement still needs more work, and once those have been adopted there will be the issue of project specific permits. Whether it's grading or subdivision, 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 PIan 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 of tz 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zot6 P:86o379-qq1o F: 3603Z9-4451 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 tonighq 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 permi! 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. 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? 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. Page 8 of rz 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 the mitigation 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 Iot happier if I knew that ok, 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 tryrng to create a set of regulations we think will apply to the world at large. That's what I'm trying to say. 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 P:36c,:379-4450 F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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 level 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 level 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.|. 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 identiff them A, B, C, D and then we can create some kind ofa 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 Johnson, 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 Runoff, do you have a physical view on how that should happen? How it should be restructured? ?? I thinkthe 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 ftz 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pi B6o379-44so F:36o179-445t plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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 iust 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 (l believe) activity done where they were able to identiff 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/ll/76and3/22and3/23/76. Iamdisclosingthisbecauseofanemaillgotaboutlegalcounselrestrictingus 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 Iefferson 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 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 Pi 96o,379-445o F: g60179-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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 County'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 modiffing 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? 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 smart, 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.J. That's under the purview of the tribal negotiations. ?? It looks like 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 Page rr of rz payer base and there's a lot of potential for this to go south. P.M. I think we're further along than that. The proposal has changed a lot. So that it's a Iot 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. 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April o6, zo16 p:96o379-q41o F:36o379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us luliette Cochran, 1175 Twenty third St., Port Townsend: I'm part of a group of people reaching out to Iocal 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 fdiourned at B:11 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of -2016 Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD Page rz of rz