Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout152Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: cynthia koan@gmai l.com on behalf of Cynthia Koan < cynthia.koan@gmail.com > Monday, July 04, 2016 4:10 PM David Wayne Johnson; Haylie Clement; Planning Commission Desk; Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark Jochems; Matt Sircely; Richard Hull;Tom Giske DRAFT letter to BOCC - Please forward to PC DRAFT Letter to BOCCT-4-L6 sent to PC.docx Dear Planning Commissioners: Here is the edited DRAFT letter to the BOCC. Please read ahead and be prepared at our meeting in Port Ludlow this Wednesday, July 6th to decide whether you would like to sign on or not. Happy 4th, all! Cynthia 1 DRAFT 714t2016 Dear Kathleen Kler, BOCC Chair, Phil Johnson, and David Sullivan; The Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC) has spent the last six months reviewing the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) project with the goal of making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the Development Regulations (code) that will govern future development of this Comprehensive Plan designated MRP site at Black Point near Brinnon, Washington. As you know, it is not without significant concerns that we the undersigned send these recommendations fonr'rard to you. We will attempt here to lay out what we learned in our six month study and review, what the regulations before you represent, and what we believe still needs to be done. We also want to lay out how we believe this process should have gone and should go from here fonruard. This learning curve has been steep and mostly "self-taught" without much support from a Department of Community Development (DCD) that has been without a full-time DCD Director for nearly a year and without a DCD Manager for over a year and a half. This is our attempt to convey to you the depth of what we have learned and now understand as a result of our study. ln our review we held a public hearing in Brinnon on January 6th following release of the Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (FSEIS), where we heard from a divided public. Vocal proponents and opponents filled the Brinnon Elementary School Gym and stood in line to speak, both for and against this development. At that hearing it was very clear that the public was unaware of the proposed action, approval of MPR development regulations, and understandably believed the hearing was addressing approval of the Statesman Development proposal specifically. The FSEIS certainly contributed to that confusion. Since then we have been educating ourselves on the history and current state of this proposal by reviewing the FSEIS and it's accompanying letters and other documents, as well as fifteen years of public and tribal comment on development of this site. What we have learned about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) site: The site designated as the Pleasant Harbor MPR takes up approximately one third of a peninsula on Hood Canal known as Black Point. Black Point sits directly adjacent the Duckabush River estuary and just south of the Dosewallips River estuary, two important salmon and steelhead rivers, on a stretch of beach rich in shellfish and other marine life and on the south end of Hood Canal, a body of water with one entrance and one in which little exchange of water from the Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Ocean can occur. What goes into this body of water primarily stays in this body of water. The Black PointiPleasant Harbor MPR is a particularly and specifically sensitive site for the following reasons: a. The site is located on, and in close proximity to, the Hood Canal, a sixty-mile long fjord with limited tidal exchange. b. The site's unusually large kettles, geologicalformations formed by retreating glaciers. c. The site is located between the Dosewallips and the Duckabush rivers, two major salmon habitats. d. The site is surrounded by significant shellfish habitat with a harvest of 140,000 lbs yearly. e. The site's critical role in aquifer recharge. f. Necessary limitations of a small freshwater aquifer surrounded by salt water. g. The likely and significant runoff impacts from increased traffic on WA-101 . h. That treated water (including treated wastewater and runoff) can still include significant pesticides, herbicides, and an overabundance of nutrients, as well as human hormones and other medications. These contaminants, if introduced into the aquifer, even after treatment, can pollute wells and allow excess nutrients to seep out into tidal beaches that rely on fresh water from the aquifer mixed with salt water for healthy marine habitat. Excess nutrients are a major contributing factor in toxic algae blooms and low oxygen events in the Hood Canal. Black Point between two estuaries Hood Canal What we have learned about the this MPR process: The approval of the Brinnon/Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort (MPR) will be largest single land use decision made by the Jefferson County BOCC since enactment of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990. Two primary documents await approval: 1) the Development Regulations or "code" that will be incorporated into the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and 2) the Development Agreement between the county and a specific developer. ln our study we have discovered the following . An anthropologist report was not found to be included in any Environmental lmpact Statement (Ets).. Any study specifically addressing shellfish impact was not found to be included in any ElS.. Other important environmental concerns raised in comments in the Draft Supplemental EIS were not addressed, or were addressed only superficially, in the Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS).. Jefferson County, as an agent of the State, is a party to the Point No Point Treaty of 1855.. Black Point is within the usual and accustomed grounds included in the Point No Point Treaty of 1855, (the ceded area) which entitles treaty tribes certain named and established rights to hunting, fishing, gathering and the right to carry on cultural and spiritual practices. The Tribes have standing as natural resource co-managers.. Comments submitted repeatedly at different points in the process by the Port Gamble S'klallam Tribe (PGST) were not addressed in the FSEIS.. PGST comments to the Draft SEIS were not included in the Final SEIS. Dorerirdlips Rirar & cstuan' 6 xuckabnsl Rirer lI?R Gentral Locrtion" t & estuaqr BhckPoinU Pleasant Hlrtor 'HoodC*nal h Iin q L& r a a a a Government to government consultation with the PGST took place only in the last several months, when the PGST insisted upon it. The Planning Commission was informed by staff (David Wayne Johnson) late in the process that draft regulations put before the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) had in fact, been drafted by Statesman and written to accommodate the company's specific development proposal. Those draft regulations included language naming a specific developer (Statesman) addressed the specifics of Statesman's yet{-be-approved development and included references to a development agreement that yet to be developed/approved. DCD recommended enacting development regulations and a developer agreement in a single action, an impossibility if the developer agreement is to reflect the direction of the adopted regulations. The PC was told that if the developer withdrew, the regulations would also be withdrawn. Requirements included in the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ordinance 01-0128-08 that the tribes be consulted as well as other requirements such as the preservation of at least one kettle were not included in the proposed regulations. Where the process appears to be out of sequence: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70a.360 (4)(a) states: "A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if: (a) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts;" ln keeping with the above language, Chapter 3 (Land Use and Rural Development) of the current (Revised by ORD#O1-0105-09) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) Goals and Policies, LNP (Land Use Policy) 24.12 states: 'LNP 24.12The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review and designation of master planned resorts that include, at a minimum, compliance with these policies." The BOCC adopted Ordinance 01-0128-08 allowing the CP MPR designation on Black Point references both RCW 36.70A.360 and our own Jefferson County Goals and Policies (24.1- 24.13). However, we find no evidence that general regulations have been adopted (not specific to any particular MPR) "to guide the review and designation of master planned resorts", which are required both by the RCW and by our own CP LNP 24.12. As proposed by Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD), the development regulations and the development agreement were to be submitted together in a single action to the BOCC. The Planning Commission was asked to review and recommend adoption of Development Regulations by the BOCC that incorporate and reference a Development Agreement that has not yet been put before the Planning Commission. ln the absence of such regulatory guidance as is required (See RCW and LNP references above), we find the draft regulations in front of the PC out of sync with WA State code and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policy. That policy/code, when enacted, should clearly spell out a sequence for creating and approving the comprehensive plan designation of a new MPR, when and by whom regulations governing that MPR should be drafted and adopted, what action prompts an SEPA Review, how applications for specific MPR development proposals are to be reviewed and approved, and how the development agreement should relate in timing and in fact to the regulations governing the MPR site and the application for the specific MPR development. We believe this step is required before any further review of this MPR can take place. This general MPR Policy should include the steps required to create development regulations for any MPR in Jefferson County and for each MPR designated area. MRSC recommendations for MPRs in small rura! counties: According to Master Planned Resorts "Washington Style", MRSC of WA State (2003): "A large and complex MPR development can add substantially to the workload of county staff, particularly in a small rural county. Significant staff time and often specialized expertise from outside the county may be required during the development review process, construction and follow-up monitoring stages. A sample agreement for such services is included in that guidance document. Why members of the Planning Gommission took on a draft edit: On April 18th a Government to Government meeting between the BOCC and the Jamestown S'klallam Tribe (PGST) took place at the Jefferson County Courthouse in BOCC chambers. The result of that meeting was an agreement between the BOCC and the PGST that technical staff employed by the PGST, Jefferson County DCD, and Statesman Group would hold further meetings to work out the technical and environmental requirements of this site and this development. As far as the Planning Commission is currently aware, these technical meetings have not taken place, and no agreement has been reached. ln anticipation of that Government to Government meeting and again afterward, the Planning Commission repeatedly asked that the regulations be taken back to DCD staff so that deficiencies in the draft regulations could be addressed, references to the specific developer removed, and time allowed for the government-to-government negotiations with the PGST to conclude, with the results incorporated into a future draft, before the Planning Commission spent any more time on the development regulation recommendation process. These requests were denied and the BOCC instead gave the PC a deadline of June 20th, by which a recommendation from the PC for development regulations would be made to the BOCC or else the BOCC would consider the PC to have no recommendation. Feeling that it was important to pass our learning onto the BOCC in some form, some PC members stepped in to revise the proposed regulations themselves. The PC's revised regulations removed references to a specific developer inappropriate at the regulatory level, included regulations that address the development review process and requirements of this particularly sensitive site, and clarified that legislative action on the development regulations proceeds the review and approval of any related development agreement so that the agreement can be written to comply with those enacted regulations, all work that would have ideally been done at staff level or by a consultant to this MPR process. Also, PC members attempted to include appropriate references to the 30 Conditions included in Ordinance #01-0128-08 which were not included in the draft regulations the PC was given to review. Using the PC Draft, the entire Planning Commission spent approximately eight hours and two meetings going line by line over the development regulations to find what we could, as a majority, send forward to you. Each member of our planning commission has had different questions about this proposed development, but as a whole we worked hard to find a way to make recommendations that allow the development to move forward while necessarily protecting this particularly sensitive site, the aquifer for the Black Point area the MPR would draw from, the area's role as a critical aquifer recharge area, surrounding shellfish beds fed by that aquifer, neighboring estuaries and salmon habitat, its unique geology and cultural history, and its location on Hood Canal. We believe in the case of this particularly environmentally sensitive location, the county has a legal right, and in fact a legal and ethical imperative, to go beyond the mitigation measures that are proposed in the FSEIS in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Critical Areas Ordinance, the UDC and state and federal requirements for the protection of the environment. How we think this process should go: We believe a clearer, fairer, and more defensible sequencing for this and all future MPRs the BOCC considers would be to: 1. Clarify and expand the Comprehensive Plan Policies for designating and considering any and all new MPRs to include a clear and specific order for MPR designation, creation, and adoption of regulations as a clear and distinct action subject to SEPA Non-project Review. 2. Adopt development regulations (county code) for this specific MPR that would clearly articulate the process for, and requirements of, any proposed development application within this MPR, only after full public review and consultation with any tribal governments with jurisdiction. Such regulations should be based on the 30 specific conditions outlined in the BOCC ordinance, the general policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the specific policies pertaining to MPRs, and the Brinnon Subarea Plan. 3. Once a MPR development application receives approval, then and only then should a development agreement be drafted that would meet the requirements of the adopted regulations and clarify the agreement between the county and the developer. Only after adoption of the developer agreement would a developer have vested rights. ln this way, were the current developer choose not to proceed with this project, a future party would be able to proceed with a development proposal on this site knowing what that process would entail and what the requirements would be, for the protection of the county and transparency for all applicants as well as other interested parties, including other agencies or tribes with jurisdiction, the surrounding community, and the general public. What needs to be carefully considered by the BOCG as the process moves forward: . The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golf course and mega-resort over a critical aquifer recharge area;. A consideration of keeping all three kettles intact in recognition that they are important cultural sites and significant geological formations;. A thorough independent review of the hydrologic function and relationship between surface water, groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this particular aquifer as both a sole-source (or near sole-source) aquifer for the residents of Black Point and the significant aquifer recharge area, potential for contamination by pollutants in runoff or any other contributions to the aquifer from treated sources;. ln keeping with the planning commission's finding that the proposed 890 housing units was three times the density of Port Townsend, some of us believe a density of no more than 300 units could be more appropriate to the site, pending technical review;. Building height allowances to be consistent with existing Jefferson County Code;. Address the elimination of contaminations before they can occur, relying on a comprehensive monitoring plan as an important last line of defense, not the first, in a very clearly articulated monitoring plan that relies on external review;. Clear and defensible plan for what happens iflwhen monitoring reveals problems. (e.9. can the site be shut down or scaled back, etc);. Coordination/consultation with affected tribes;. Meet or exceed 30 BOCC conditions; a a Feasibility of doing off-site treatment to mitigate significant concerns over rapid injection into a small aquifer adjacent to shellfish beds and salmonisteelhead rivers. Local hires and contracts prioritized (in the MPR Washington Style guide as well as one of 30 BOCC conditions) with a clear process of prioritizing, fostering, and maintaining local business relationships and labor pools; Working with the existing geography, land contours and natural beauty, minimize land disturbance, and design in accordance with other principles and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, MPRs, and this proposal: Even though our Comprehensive Plan allows for Master Planned Resorts, they must still be consistent with the overall vision, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable regulations. We the PC find that the MPR regulations that were brought before us for review co-mixed with specific review of a specific development proposal (The Statesman proposal) are vividly unclear, not consistent with the comp plan's MPR policies or with the adopted Brinnon Subarea plan, and that the overall revisions we are fonruarding to you still only partially address the many deficiencies we found, given the limitations of time placed on our review. The Comprehensive Plan states: "The economic reasons for siting of a master planned resort, however, must also be carefully balanced against the potential for significant adverse environmental effects from such a development. Any proposal must be carefully planned and regulated to prevent any type of sprawl development outside of the master planned development that would destroy the scenic and often environmentally sensitive setting. The Comprehensive Plan identifies policies in LNG 24.0 that help guide development of any new [\IPR designation. The goal and policies focus on protecting the rural character and natural environment of areas potentially impacted by development of an MPR, ensuring adequate provision of public facilities and services, and preventing the spread of low density sprawl." and Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of lifestyles that make up the intrinsic character of this community. Support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by recognizing existing local businesses, making prudent and appropriate infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business start-ups and recruitment which are compatible with and complementary to the community. Protect and conserve the local natural resource base, balancing both habitat and economic values. Reinforce and enhance the historic sense of "place" or "community" around traditional population centers. Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in favor of infill and the strengthening of local communities. a a The Brinnon Sub-area Plan states P1.1 Encourage the proposal of a JVaster Planned Resort for Black Point to foster economic development in Brinnon consistent with the vision illustrated in this Subarea Plan. P1.2 Ensure that the project review procedures and public involvement processes in place for designation of an MPR at Black Point are implemented in a manner that results in a project that a a a a meets the need for local economic development while protecting the natural environment and rural character of surrounding properties. P1.3 The Black Point MPR project review and approval process should reflect the diversity of interests and potential property owners who may be included in such an overall project at Black Point. From: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-16 Revised by ORD#O1-0105-09 Minority (or Majority) report (DRAFT: depending upon PC decision, signees): Despite the PC's agreement on many revisions, some of us do not believe that the regulations we put forth to you in our majority recommendations go far enough and do not represent a clear and appropriate succession of events leading up to the PC review of the proposed regulations. ln the interest of completing the process with the PGST, the developer, and county staff, and in the interest of making sure what happens next is as clearly sequenced and defensible as possible, we put fonryard the following: a We advise that a moratorium on development approval at the Black PoinUPleasant Harbor MPR site be put into place until clear regulations be be adopted pursuant to, and consistent with RCW 35.70a.360 Master Planned Resorts and our own CP LNP 24.12. We advise that the proposed development regulations currently under consideration be withdrawn and revised, new MPR tiered policy/code be created and adopted, specifying how new MPRs are to be proposed and reviewed. Following that, we further propose that specific regulations for the Black PoinVPleasant Harbor MPR be proposed, reviewed and adopted in full consultation with tribal governments who have treaty rights as a result of the Point No Point treaty of 1855. We find that it would not be within the best interests of the county to adopt the proposed unclear regulations at this time. We believe the regulations should undergo a further refinement and review, which is beyond the scope of the planning commission, the timeline given the planning commission, and the current resource constraints of the DCD. We recommend an outside consultant, chosen by the county and paid for by the developer to further review the MPR regulations to address all environmental and regulatory concerns. ln the absence of these steps, we feel that the draft regulations put fonvard herein are premature. a a And finally, we find that the process for adopting an MPR is extraordinarily complex and needs to be clarified for the future. Similarly, Comprehensive Plan policies and guidelines for golf courses should be reviewed and updated and the question of where, how, and/or if new golf courses should be allowed should be addressed. Despite all of the aforementioned concerns, we do believe that an appropriately planned and scaled MPR at Black Point could and should offer an extraordinary opportunity to create a recreational development with unique features and qualities, one that highlights and enhances the natural beauty and character of Brinnon and the Pleasant Harbor MPR site for the enjoyment of all and the full environmental health of this pristine location. As one planning commissionerquipped, "This could be and should be the cleanest resort in the world!" The citizens of Jefferson County and the State of Washington deserve that. Sincerely, a The undersigned.