HomeMy WebLinkAbout156Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
cynthia koan@ g mail.com on behalf of Cynthia Koa n < cynthia.koan @ g mail.com >
Friday, July 08, 2016 3:01 PM
Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Phillip Morley; Patty Charnas; Planning
Commission Desk
Planning Commission letter to BOCC RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR 7-6-2016
SIGNED FINAL PC Letter to BOCCT-6-2016 RE Pleasant Harbor MPR.pdf
Dear County Commissioners,
Please find attached our letter from the Planning Commission to accompany our recommendations to the BOCC
for regulations goveming the Pleasant Harbor MPR in Brinnon.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Koan, Chair
Jefferson County Planning Commission
1
tri
July 6,2016
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
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 send these recommendations forward 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 forward. 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 ayear and without a DCD Manager for over ayear. and a half. This is our attempt to convey to
you the depth of what we have leamed 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 I 8 of the Jefferson County Code
to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for the Master Planned Resort (N{PR) approved by the Board
of County Commissioners (BoCC) by Ordinance No. 01- 0128-08, adopted January 28, 2008. In 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 EIS, 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.
In our review we held a public hearing in Brinnon on January 6n, closely following release of the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact 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, not proposed regulations. The FSEIS certainly contributed to
that confusion.
I
Since then we have been educating ourselves on the history and current state of this proposal by reviewing the
FSEIS and its 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 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.
E
Hood Canal
Hood Canal
2
Black Point between two estuaries
./
I ora.,r
t*
i-(
fit
-
../t
f l-i
+Rirer
& estuan'
Dosenallips Rirer
& esturn'
Bleck Point/
Plersrnt Herbor
\[PR General
Locetion.
What we have learned about 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: l) the Development Regulations or "code" that will be incorporated into
the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and2) 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
EIS.. 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).
o Jefferson County, as an agent of the State, is a party to the Point No Point Treaty of 1855.o 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.. An anthropology report, addressing the cultural significance of the kettles, was not found to be included in
any Environmental Impact Statement.. Government to government consultation with the PGST took place only in the last several months, when the
PGST insisted upon it.r 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 Group 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.r 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;"
In 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:
3
"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 0l-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.
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.
In 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 lSth 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 govemment-to-government
negotiations with the PGST to conclude, with the results incorporated into a future draft, before the Planning
4
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 z}'h,2016 (later extended by the BOCC to July 1lm,
2016), by which date 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 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. [t 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 during the course of two
public 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 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 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. [n fact, there is valid concern that adequate mitigation of
significant environmental impacts may not even be possible given the scale of the proposed development and the
sensitivity ofthe 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:
l. Clarify and expand the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Jefferson County Code 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
5
agreement between the county and the developer. Only after adoption of the developer agreement would a
developer have vested rights.
In 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.
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. The Planning
Commission finds 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, ensuring adequate provision of public facilities and services, and preventing the
spread of low density sprawl."
and
o 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.o 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.o Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in favor of infill and the
strengthening of local communities.
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.
Pl.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.
Pl.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#01-0105-09
6
The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC careful consideration of the following:
. The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golfcourse and mega-resort over a critical aquifer recharge
area;. Keeping all three kettles intact in recognition that they are important cultural sites and significant geological
formations;. A thorough independent review ofthe 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;. 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;. The need for 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.o 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 iflwhen monitoring reveals problems. (e.g. can the site be shut
down or scaled back, etc.);. Coordination/consultation with affectedtribes;r Meet or exceed 30 BOCC conditions;. Feasibility of doing off-site treatment of black/gray 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 finite, sensitive aquifer that discharges to adjacent shellfish beds as well as salmon/steelhead
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.
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 ofthe proposed regulations. [n the interest ofcompleting the technical process
agreed upon in the April 18ft government to government meeting between Jefferson County and the Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe between 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 Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR site be put
into place until clear regulations be adopted pursuant to, and consistent with, RCW 36.70a.360 Master
Planned Resorts and our own CP Ll{P 24.12,
We advise that the proposed development regulations currently under consideration be withdrawn, new MPR
tiered policy/code be created and adopted that specifies how new MPRs are to be proposed and reviewed.
Following that, we further propose that specific regulations for the Black Point/Pleasant 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.
a
a
7
a
a
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 consultant, chosen by the county and paid for by the
developer, further review the MPR regulations to address all environmental and regulatory concerns.
In the absence of these steps, we feel that the draft regulations put forward herein are premature.
We find that the process and distinct steps for adopting an MPR is extraordinarily complex and needs to be
clarified in in our Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Jefferson County Code for the future so that all
parties - staff, applicant, and the public - can anticipate and follow the process. 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, and affording ample public access, could 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,
Cynthia Koan, Chair
Jefferson County Planning Commission
cc: Philip Morley, Patty Charnas, Planning Commission Desk
Letter approved atl1612016 PC public meeting:
In Favor:
Cynthia Koan, Chair (District 1)
Lorna Smith, Co-chair (District 2)
Mark Jochems (District 2)
Tom Giske (District 3)Abstaining:
Mike Nilssen (District 3)
Opposed:
Absent:
Gary Felder (District l)
Matt Sircely (District 2)
Richard Hull (District 3)
Kevin Coker (District l)
8