HomeMy WebLinkAbout154Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
cynthiakoan@gmail.com on behalf of Cynthia Koan < cynthia.koan@gmail.com >
Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:16 AM
Haylie Clement; David Wayne Johnson; Gary Felder; Kevin Coker; Lorna Smith; Mark
Jochems; Matt Sircely; Richard Hull;Tom Giske; Planning Commission Desk; Mike
N i lssen; pcha rnas@co jefferson.wa.us
FWD to PC: The ACTUAL NEW DRAFT PCIBOCC LETTER
REALLY NEW Letter to BOCC 7-4-L6 sent to PC edits.docx
Sorry folks. This is really it. I'll bring copies tonight but please have this read. Not sure we'll have much time
to discuss it. Cynthia
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Cynthia Koan <cynthia.koan@gmail@ wrote:
Hi Haylie,
I haven't seen the draft I sent out this weekend, or any of the other things I sent out, forwarded to the planning
commission yet as requested. At this point, do not send that one out but please DO forward this one
immediately.
Also, please send out the following emails as previously requested:
l. "Documents I presented to 6129l16 Planning Commission"
2. "Please forward to PC: LINKS Hood Canal/Puget Sound reports and info"
See you soon.
x
1
E]
REALLY NEW DRAFT 71512016
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 fonruard 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.
What is the action?
From the very beginning of our review we sought clarification of the "Proposed Action" which triggered
the current SEPA review. Here is what is stated in the SFEIS:
'PROPOSED ACTIONS: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Draft Supplemental EIS
Jefferson County is considering the adoption of amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson
County Code to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for the Master Planned Resort (MPR)
approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by Ordinance No. 01- 0128-08, adopted
January 28,2008.1n addition, the County is considering the text of a proposed Development
Agreement, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, to guide the development, phasing, and
standards for the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR).'
The purpose of the ElS, therefore, should have been to examine alternative language for the
development regulations, NOT alternatives to a specific development proposal and its accouterments.
This point remains a significant point of confusion for all parties involved.
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 who
clearly believed they were there to weigh in on the specific development proposal, not proposed
regulations. 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
t
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 Point/Pleasant 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 includes unusually large kettles, geological formations 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. The site includes a small freshwater aquifer surrounded by salt water, making it particularly
vulnerable to saltwater intrusion.
g. The additional traffic that will contribute to significant runoff impacts from increased traffic on
wA-101
h. The likelihood that wastewater, even after advanced treatment, will still include significant
pesticides, herbicides, and an overabundance of nutrients, as well as human hormones and
other medications is high. These contaminants, if introduced into the aquifer, even after
treatment, can pollute wells and 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.
2
g
a
Ilosevalligs Rirer
& estuan'
'Duckrbusl Rircr
& rrtuar.r
Bbck?oint/
?lcasant Eartor
l{PRGenerrl
Locetion"
llood Cansl
fli$$d &.r.rh|
r
&,
N\,
E
7
w#
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
. No study specifically addressing shellfish impact and tribal harvest rights was 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.. 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-to-be-approved development and included references
to a development agreement that has 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 Statesman 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 (4Xa) 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 24.12 The 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)
following completion of the original FEIS. 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.
3
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 directives as is required (See RCW and LNP references above), we
find the draft regulations specific to this site and Statesman's specific development proposal now before
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 how regulations governing that MPR should
be drafted and adopted, what action prompts 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 rural 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. Again, this is pertinent
guidance that the Planning Commission had to discover and research on our own.
Why members of the Planning Commission 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
4
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 needs to proceed the review and
approval of any related development agreement so that the agreement can be written to comply with
those enacted regulations. lt is the position of the PC that this, work should have been done at staff
level or by a consultant to this MPR process before the proposal was brought before the Planning
Commission in the first place. 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 foruvard to
you.
Each member of our planning commission has had different questions about this process and about the
proposed development, but as a whole we worked hard to find a way to make recommendations that
allow the development to move fonvard 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. ln fact, there is valid concern
that adequate mitigation of significant environmental impacts may not even possible given the scale of
the proposed development and the sensitivity of the site and surrounding area.
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 to 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.
5
What needs to be carefully considered by the BOCC as the process moves fonrard:
. 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;. A detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff generated
onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite.. Proposed mitigation for stormwater pollution impacts generated off-site and related to increased
traffic on Hwy 101 and arterial roads that is caused by the development.. Address the elimination of contaminants before they enter runoff and groundwater, while utilizing a
comprehensive monitoring and feedback plan as an important last line of defense.. A clear and defensible plan for what happens if/when 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;. Feasibility of doing off-site treatment of blacUgray water as well as runoff in place of the planned
rapid injection system approach, which could result in inadequately treated stormwater/blackwater
entering and polluting a flnite, sensitive aquifer that discharges to adjacent shellfish beds as well as
salmonisteelhead habitat in adjacent river estuaries.. 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 PIan, 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 undersigned find this development, as currently proposed, is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's MPR designations or with the Brinnon Subarea Plan.
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 MPR designation. The goal and policies focus on protecting the rural
character and natural environment of areas potentially impacted by development of an MPR,
7
ensuring adequate provision of public facilities and services, and preventing the spread of low
density sprawl."
and
a 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
The Brinnon Subarea Plan states
P1 .1 Encourage the proposal of a Master 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
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 PG 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 forward the
following.
We advise that a moratorium on development approval at the Black PoinVPleasant Harbor MPR
site be put into place until clear regulations be be adopted pursuant to, and consistent with RCW
36.70a.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 PoinUPleasant 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 this Planning Commission, the timeline given the planning
commission, and the current resource constraints of the DCD. We recommend an outside
a
a
a
a
8
a
a
a
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 forward herein are premature.
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
low-impact development MPR at Black Point, designed to maximize preservation of existing natural
features and cultural resources, affording ample public access 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
commissioner quipped, "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,
The undersigned
9