HomeMy WebLinkAbout144Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cynthiakoan@g mail.com on behalf of Cynthia Koan < cynthia.koan@gmai l.com >
Friday, )une 24,2016 2:30 PM
David W. Johnson
Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark Jochems; Matt Sircely; Mike Nilssen;
Richard Hull;Tom Giske; David Goldsmith
Re: FW: Draft Letter
Thanks, Matt, for your work on this draft. I think we did resolve most, though not all, of these questions in the
revision we approved. Certainly the number of units was one that we did not resolve and Ieft for the county and
tribes to work out. As discussed at the June 15th meeting, I'll work on the letter some more and have it for us
all to look at at our June 29th meeting. I appreciate so much you stepping up and putting work into
this! Cynthia
On Fri, Jun24,2016 at 12:26 PM, David W. Johnson <djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us> wrote
And in word format.
Thanks, Matt!
From: Matt Sircely [ma i lto: mattsircelv@gma il.coml
Sent: Friday , June 24,2016 10:48 AM
To: David W. Johnson <d iohnson @co.iefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Fwd: Draft Letter
Hey David,
Just want to make sure you saw this since I sent it late last Friday
Please feel free to suggest any necessary changes or adaptations before or after forwarding. This is only
intended as a first draft and at this point only represents my own assessment of the commission's sentiments
Matt Sircely
360-301 -3789
Forwarded message
From: Matt Sircely <mattsircely@emailm>
Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at2:54PM
Subject: Draft Letter
To: "David W. Johnson" <djohnson@cojefferson
1
Hey David,
At the end of the meeting, I promised to compose a draft letter from the pC to the BOCC.
Matt
Dear BOCC,
After extensive review and deliberation, the Jefferson County Planning Commission submits recommendations
for approval of the Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) with certain
modifications which are included in our recommendation. We appreciate the opportunity to review the issues
surrounding the proposed MPR, and we appreciate the large volume of public comment that has been received
both recently and throughout the project's history.
In submitting our recommendation, please accept these additional suggestions from the commission. These
informal suggestions address matters that either appear settled, or remain in an active state of
discussion/negotiation. Therefore, the commission has chosen to highlight certain details and considerations
which do not necessarily appear in the formal recommended modifications to the regulations.
The proposed scale of the resort, with an established limit of 890 units, has raised concern among a majority of
commissioners, primarily due to the potential for strain on resource demand, as well as waste management and
traffic considerations. Several commissioners recommended adherence to a principle that density should not
exceed the norms currently experienced in regions that are already highly developed (located within existing
urban growth areas as identified in the comprehensive plan).
The commission suggests that kettles should remain a terrestrial feature for many reasons, including several
issues raised by recent correspondence and testimony from representatives of the S'Klallam Tribe.
We support the continued engagement between the BOCC, staff, the tribe, and the applicant. As the dialog
progresses, we recommend that the issue of kettles be included in the larger discussion. We suggest the
development of detailed guidelines for buffers around kettle areas that are deemed significant for ecological
and/or cultural reasons, including the presence of plants traditionally considered to be of medicinal value to
Iocal tribes.
We also encourage the BOCC to consider testimony received by the commission from a representative of the
S'Klallam Tribe that sealing kettles for wastewater retention would likely alter the flow of fresh water to
tidelands, where a delicate balance of salinity is required for optimal shellf,rsh harvest.
We thank the BOCC for the opportunity to offer our recommendation for approval with modifications of the
Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, and we are encouraged that continued dialog between the county,
applicant and tribe, will yield beneficial outcomes which will continue to reflect the values and priorities of the
citizens of Jefferson County into the future.
2
If the commission likes it, I look forward to having it vetted and adapted by others. I have faith in the process,
and hopefully it's a place to start. Please feel free to forward it to folks who need to see it.
tri