Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout104Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June o1, zot6 Call to Order at 6:30 pm p:36o379-445o Ft 860379-445r plancomm@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 District 3 Vacant: Giske: Present Hull: Present StaffPresent David W. fohnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley Patty Charnas, Director Public in Attendance: Six ApprovalofAgenda: Approved 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. Just take a look at them, if there's any glaring mistakes, email us back She's having trouble identiffing 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 typing 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.J, Well that's going to be up to the new director. KC. Has a determination been made? D.J. 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 jefferson 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 theywere 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. Just 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 zo 5zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zo16 p:36o179-445o F:36o379-445t piancomm@co jefferson.wa.us Degrees. One in Public Health and Education. She also had previously lived in |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 County'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 land 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, July 5s. C.K, The process included a lot of different people from the County. We had the Public Works Director, Joel Peterson from the DCD, Lance Bailey, Port Townsend's Planning Department Director came people from Real Estate, Julie Boggs, whose a farmer on the Water Conservation District Board and a long time Jefferson County resident, George Youns! 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 Iong 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 Jose 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. Pagezofzo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, zot6 Pi 36c.379-445c F:36o379-445r plancomm@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 July 5, 2016. 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. DETIBERATIONS 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 ofthe questions that you've seen in the notes ofthe edited draft ofthe 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 20ttt. 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 simplif,i I've been thinking a lot about the logic tree. And the smoothes! 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.J. 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, like Title 17 often is, we would go to Title 1B and that would apply. And then we added enforcement, TT .60.130 because there wasn't a provision for that in Title 17 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 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, zot6 P:36o-379-445o Fi g60379-4451 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, Ietters 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 l8tt 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 like 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 like 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 ofthings 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, fconstraints 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 tha! 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 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, zo16 Pt g60179-4450 F:36o179-445r 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 maiority point of view. ?? Let's face it, if we don'tfinish todaywe have one more meetingbefore the deadline. We have until the 15t. 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 4:77 .7 0.010 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. 0n 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.]. 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 Plan. 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.J. 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. ?? DWJl Everyone agrees? Checkthat off ?? DWJZ and 3 we just reviewed 040 so that takes care of that. ?? DWJ4 Staff agrees that this adds precision? Check that off. ?? DWI5 That's in reference to point DWJ4, yes? C.K. Do you want to review that with the staff for their point of view? Page 5 of zo D.J. DWIS will be looked at for a staffpoint of view? So DWJS stays with that addition. Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES 6zr sheridan st. Tri-Area community Center Pt 36o179-44so portTownsendwAgs36s June ot, zot6 punro.n*6"I;"*"".:T,,l;11:: C.K. DWI6 stays with the added text. ?? DW|T All agree? Yes ?? DWIS All agree? Yes ?? DWI9 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 0K L.S. DWJ13 OK L.S. DWl14 OK L.S. DWI15 N0. Critical Aquifer Recharge area. We'll come back to this one! ?? If 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. DWJ16 BIG height issue. Coming back to this one with staffs proposed edit(s). C.K. DWJ17 We're on page 4 nearthetop. For clarity, we're OKwith 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 thinl$ 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 DWf 19 is OK. Page 6 of eo 6zr Sheridan St. Poft Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36oi79-445o F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us K.C. It looks like DWJ1B is OK if we just leave it or strike i! 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.). 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 DWl20. 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.l. 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.J. 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 Plan. 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 salng 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 0rdinance 1001728? 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 Page 7 of ro 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p: g6oi79-445o F:36o-379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.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 reworkwhat 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.]. 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 GolfCourse zone too. C.K. Well we need to do something to fix that. 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 18.22, 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 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P:36o379-445o F:36o179-445r plancomm@co jefferson.rva.us K.C. lzl,we're trying to decide if that language belongs there and what I'm hearing from staff is that it doesn't. D.]. 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. lt22 Sounds like that will be part of that new map, correct? D.J. 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 banh 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 later 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. 0k, you're going to come with that, we'll table this and move on. c.K. DWJ25 L.S. I think I can cover this one preffy 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 18.22, it's delineated in 78.22. 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 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINT]TES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, z016 p: 36c:3Z9-4450 Fi B603Z9-4451, piancomm@co jefferson.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 lead 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.J. 0K The understanding is this is your recommendation. K.C. Straw Poll. Should we strike DWl25? 5 Yes, 3 Nay. K.C. DWJ26 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 Plan. 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 Plan 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 PIan 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 fstatesman), but at the same time, we're putting onus on someone that comes along (if (Statesman) doesn't develop this) 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.J. 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.DWJ27 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 important, that do need to be taken care of. It needs to read: a kettle is defined as a depression formed on the Iand surface left by an ice block. Page ro of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 p:36o179-449o Fi 860379-4451 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. DWJ30 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 left off earlier, we were going to leave 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 left 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. DWJ36 is not about the aquifer. #4 one part is covered in18.22 & The whole long first sentence is NOT includedinlB.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 land 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.J. 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 restaurant, etc., is in my head is low impact. In fact it's costing them more money to operate the way it is Page rr of zo Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 Pi 36oi79-445a Ft 360379-4451 plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 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. 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. DWJ36 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 ]CC 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 ofthis 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.J. 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 rz of zo L.S. It doesn't exist. Yes, I'm concerned with what we have isn't adequate. 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 Ptg60379-4450 F: g6oi79-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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 listed 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 Iesser impact than the previous is still a significant impact. P.M. Is it a significant adverse environmental impact that requires mitigation? 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 zo 6er Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, zot6 P:36o379-445o F: g6oi79-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us let'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 awlnarard place to be. We're trylng 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. AII 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 letter 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 necessarilytryto reduce the scale of the project through zoning if you don't have a significant adverse environmental impact basis for doing so. AIso 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, Iike 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 N0T 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 awlnvard position that all this Page 14 of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, 2ot6 Pt 96o.379-445c F: g6o*79-445r 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 just awlcward 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 Plan 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 located 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 of, 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. Just 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 staff, 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 PIan narrative on page 223 which is would be amended and add language below: The last paragraph could read early in 2008 fefferson 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 eo 62r Sherialan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, zot6 p: 36o*79-445o F:36o379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.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 tha! and this is the Comprehensive Plan 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 looking 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 reallywas: 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 PIan? 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 looking 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 golfcourse on top ofthis particular aquafer can cause this adverse effects. Then oh how might I mitigate that? 0r, 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? Just 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, zo16 Pi S6oi79-445o F:36o379-445t plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us 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? 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 thin[ 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 Plan, other regulations that might come into play. Those are the things we're looking at and the EIS was to look 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 ]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 trylng 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- Page t7 of zo 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, z016 p:36o379-445o F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us encompassing environmental issue and what we're going to do is destroy the process that is actually working pretfy darn well. L.S. There aren't any development regulations in place and that has to happen. T.G. And it's workingwithout it L.S. Well maybe we iust 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.J. 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 stafl 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 Page r8 of zo Gamble/S'Klallam Tribe has pointed out how the C did not 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June or, zot6 Pt 86o,:379-445c F:36o-379-445r plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us 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 ofthe 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. Jean 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. J.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, #1, under 77.70.01,0 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 Ieft 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. J.B. That whole paragraph is a little koolry, 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. [t 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. 0n 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. 0K? 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. J.B. I have one other point of clarification. Under Purpose 17.70.010,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. Page r9 of zo FOLIOW.UP ITEMS: 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June ot, z016 p:96o379-44so F:36o-379-4451 plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us s0 BEFoRE yOU ALL RUN oFF, WHAT IS OUR PLAN? oUR NEXT Mf,ETING IS ON THE 06/75/201.6. AND TWO PEOPLE WILL NOT BE HERE FOR IT. SO YOUR ASSIGNMENT IS YOU,RE TO READ FROM J37 TO IB7. DON,T FORGET THE ISSUES WE SET ASIDE: GOLF COURSE, SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERAND NUMBER OF UNITS. OBSERVER COMMENT: Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 03/16/2016 at 6:00 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 11:15 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 201.6. Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD Page zo of zo