HomeMy WebLinkAbout217Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Patty Charnas < PCharnas@cojefferson.wa.us >
Friday, December L6,20L6 4:48 PM
romac@pgst.nsn,us; Garth.Mann@statesmang rou p.com;
don@ pleasantharbormarina.com
Michelle Farfan
Preliminary Draft Summary Meeting Notes and Follow-Up Action Items
Draft Meeting Notes from L2_14-16.doc
As promised, attached please find preliminary draft summary meeting notes and follow-up action items.
Your review and comments/edits are requested to be provided to Michelle Farfan (copied here)at your earliest
convenience and respectfully no later than close-of-business Tuesday, December 20,2016.
It is a pleasure working with you
Sincerely,
Patty Charnas - Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone 360-379-4493 - Fax 36O-379-445L
pcharnas@co. iefferson.wa.us
Al! e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public
Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to
any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester
according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
1
Ail;
JEFFERSON GOUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF GOtUttiUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Sbeet, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us/communitvdevelooment
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co,iefferson.wa,us
SquareolYE Resource Center I Building Permlts & lnspectlons I Development Revlew I Long Range Plannlng
Preliminary Draft
Meeting Notes Summary and Follow Up Action ltems
Pleasant Harbor MPR
"Staff to Staff' meeting
Meeting date: December 14, 2016 @ 2pm; DCD conference room
Garth Mann, Statesman Group
Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina
Roma Call, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST)
Michelle Farfan, Jefferson County DCD
Patty Charnas, Jefferson County DCD
Meetino Results /Follow-up Action ltems
. Roma will consult with her technical colleagues and get a list of questions/concerns regarding water quality,
wildlife management.
. Roma will work with tribal anthropologist on a) what does it mean to be eligible for further study or inclusion in
to a national register and b) what is/how long is the process to move from being eligible to actual becoming
listed?
. Roma will request to get on the agenda of the January tribal council meeting so that she can request further
clarification as to whether there is interest in spending time and resources on pursuing national register status
for Kettle B. Patty offered to help Roma with information, etc.
. Michelle will set up the next technical meeting which can use video and/or teleconferencing instead of being in-
person.
. Michelle will work with Roma on getting the necessary information together for that meeting and target for it to
be in January.
. Michelle will work with Patty on what the schedule is for preparing and adopting final development regulations.
. Michelle will work with Don on the finalizing the status of all MOUs and scope for the development agreement.
The meeting began on time with the participants listed above.
Michelle opened the meeting, describing how Commissioner Sullivan requested that this meeting be convened.
The first agenda item was to have the PGST review their concerns with everyone present.
Roma began by asking whether the project plan revision from August 19, 2016 was still being considered by
Statesman. Garth went over the background as to why that conceptual site plan was prepared. Garth described
that the site plan contained and analyzed in the FSEIS is still valid. The August 19 version was proposed by
Statesman in response to personal communications with PGST Chair Jeromy Sullivan.
Discussions continued regarding Kettle B. PGST had described in an earlier comment letter that Kettle B met one
or more criteria for cultural and historic significance and therefore was eligible for further study or inclusion into a
National Register (e.9., National Heritage Area or National Register of Historic Places). Garth requested that it
was important for the significance of Kettle B to be more firmly documented so that it could no longer considered
for on-site water management and additional evaluations can proceed for the August 19 conceptual site plan.
Roma said she would consult the PGST anthropologist on exploring further the national eligibility of Kettle B. After
more discussion, Roma offered to go before the PGST Tribal Council and request clarification on whether PGST
wishes to pursue further study and analysis into having Kettle B be potentially included into a National Register.
Garth further explained that if Kettle B would no longer be considered for on-site water management, then its
maintenance over the long-term was also an issue. Garth proposed that the PGST would maintain Kettle B and
provide for invasive plant removal and other vegetative management. Michelle asked about whether a
conservation easement was a possibility and that perhaps the support of other area tribes be enlisted for
conservation easement idea and for long-term cultural resource use and maintenance. Roma described this kind
of maintenance as stewardship and that Kettle B could have a conservation stewardship plan prepared and
carried out by PGST and/or other tribes but that this would involve a process, Roma asked about use of fertilizers
to which both Garth and Michelle said were detailed in the FSEIS. Garth provided detail that the FSEIS describes
how a special kind of peat is proposed which requires very low maintenance and limits weed growth. Garth
described also how the FSEIS details the use of fertilizers that are biologically friendly and break down without
long term impact.
Roma raised two remaining concerns: water quality/shellfish and wildlife management. Garth described the work
he has done relative to avoiding and minimizing elk crossing of the highway as the proposed golf course may
present an attractive grazing area. Fencing was not considered feasible but ear tags and collaring and proximity
alert signaling on the highway was considered feasible (discussed in FSEIS). Roma said she would consult with
the PGST wildlife biologist to see if tagging/collaring and alert signaling would be considered sufficient wildlife
management for elk. Roma also said she would consult with the aquatic biologist regarding any lingering
concerns not analyzed in the FSEIS relative to water quality and shellfish areas. Garth expressed disappointment
that this meeting did not have the ability to specifically discuss and potentially resolve remaining concerns without
the presence or additional consultation of tribal technical specialist. Roma agreed to have those tribal specialists
list any specific concerns in writing so that they could be responded to either separately in writing or at the next
convening of this group or both. The next meeting was discussed as being able to be done over teleconferencing
or video conferencing.
Roma returned to the issue of Kettle B's cultural significance and asked how Garth might respond to the fact that
tribal council may not decide to pursue further study because it was too time-consuming, costly or both. Garth
replied that in the case of not pursuing formaldesignation, there would be need to be a decision to keep the
original proposal or further consider the alternative relative to its potential significance. Garth mentioned that it
2
would be very helpful that, at the very least, the significance fo being listed as eligible for further study or inclusion
would be good to know more about. Garth said the alternative conceptual site plan or August 19th would need
more formal engineering and site plan development. Michelle and Patty described how if the alternative did not
add aspects or add impacts that were not already analyzed in the FSEIS then the alternative would be published
as a FSEIS addendum. Roma reiterated her intention to go before tribal council and Patty offered to help prepare
anything Roma might need for that.
Patty listed action items for all to hear and offer comments to. Roma said she would help ensure a technical-level
discussion with a list of tribal technical feedback that could be planned for in January. Garth and Michelle
discussed the time frame of finalizing and adopting the development regulations and drafting the development
agreement. Garth described an issue with a road to the boat launch with Michelle. All attendees gave permission
to continue to participate but that video conferencing or teleconferencing would be sufficient. Michelle promised to
work on setting up the next meeting.
AGENDA
Pleasant Harbor MPR
"Staff to Staff' meeting
Meeting date: December 14, 2016 @ 2pm; DCD conference room
1. lntroductions
2. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe concerns: kettle ponds, elk, shellfish, wildlife management plan
Development Regulations next steps
Development Agreement next steps
3.
4.
3