Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: M ichelle Farfan < M Farfan@cojefferson.wa.us > Wednesday, May 03, 2017 1:36 PM Philip Hunsucker Patty Charnas FW: Attached Image; Planning Commission minutes trom 3/2/L6 re: Development Agreement 2923_001.pdf Hi Philip: This is a follow-up to our phone conversation today regarding what the Planning Commission (PC) was told regarding the Development Agreement (DA). Attached is a copy of the PC minutes from March 2,2016. On Page 10 (see highlighted portion) is Philip Morely's statement. (l did listen to the audible record and the statement is accurate). Additionally, on page 4, staff also indicated that the PC could make a recommendation on the DA. Regards, Michelle Farfan Associate Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 62l Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 V: 350-379-4463 F: 360-379-4451 mfa rfa n @co. iefferson.wa. us All 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. Underthe 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. From: CanonCopier Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2Ot7 L2:35 PM To: M ichelle Fa rfa n <M Fa rfa n@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Attached lmage 1 6zt .Sherirlan St. ltort'fownsend WA 98368 ROLL CALL District 1 Coker: Present Felder: Present Koan: Present Call to Order at 6:30 pm P_istrict 2 Smith: Present Sircely: Present fochems; Present Public in Attendancer Seven ApprovalofAgenda: Approved Approval of Minutes: N/A COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Does anyone want a hard copy of the FSEIS? Four, It's online as well, The reason for this meeting is to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the regulations for the Master Plan Resort at Pleasant Harbor. Either to approve, deny or approve with conditions. MS: I sent out the San Jose Certification that was mentioned in our last meeting as well as a link to the golf project just south of Shelton which was the first San Jose golf resort in the state, I think there's three in the state. With a description of the project. I found, as I read through their regulations, that they apply for San fose such as restrictions on certain pesticides, there's more of a complete list of the kind of thing I was talking about. Seems Iike the appropriate level. It's something to look at and talk about lt's not the strongest certification so it might be appropriate for the level that we're considering, I don't know. It's something for us to discuss, I just wanted everybody to see it, Q: We were reviewing how communications will be handled through the portal? A: David Goldsmith's still working on that. There's some issue with a list serve. I'll ask about it tomorrow, CK: I had asked David Goldsmith about the Iist serve and he was working with Phillip Morley on that. CK: We have some unfinished business, I want to start and make sure I have the rest of the commissioner's dates on the short course on planning. I'm trying to coordinate with the City of Port Townsend and I did get reply's from five of you and one verbal, that worked. I need yours Mr, Sircely, MS: I'm fine with everything. I try not to miss anything. CK: I think out of the four dates that we put forward there's only one date that everyone whose replied so far could do and that was April 13 at 6:15. Kevin and Matt say yes so that's the date. |udy was going to come forward with a date and I called for a response from her Planning Commissioners, to the one date that all of us could do, because the Department of Commerce asks for three dates for them to pick from and we really only have one. STAFF UPDATES CK: We have two Commissioner's terms coming up in March, on St. Patrick's Day, one is Mr. Brotherton, who is not going to do this again. So staff and Planning Commissioner's came up with this card for you. The other is Mr. Felder is planning on returning. Openings will be posted after the date the term ends, Page r of 13 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March 02, zot6 District 3 Brotherton: Present Giske: Present Hull: Present P: j6o-37t1-445o F':36o379*445r pl ancomrn@co jefferson.wa.us Staff Present David W, Johnson, Assoc. Planner Phillip Morley 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETTNGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March o.2,2ot6 P: B6o-379-44So F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?? Yes, we're going to inform the Board of Commissioners of the upcoming vacancy and wait for their instructions. CK: So after the posting applicants can make application, That's District 3. DELIBERATIONS ON BRINNON MPR CK: We have a motion on the table to accept the Brinnon MPR regulations as written. We need to continue discussion. I've had some time to think of this process so far from the December drop of the final supplemental EIS to now. It would have been helpful if this process had gone differently, if we had gotten the FSEIS, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in December, with copies to ali who needed them. Then if we had spent our January 6th and our February 3ra meetings on reviewing that and answering the questions that we now have, so that we can get really clear and orient ourselves to it. This is just the main EIS, printed on both sides. It's really quite big. In retrospect, that would have been the way to go. Instead, here we are, we've heard from the people in Brinnon, and we have started deliberations here and still have more questions. We're just getting a draft of the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribes letter to the planning commission and DCD this week and they will be voting on March L4, 2016 to accept this draft letter or not and make it final and available to everyone, CK: I just wanted to say that I feel I'm working very hard to wrap my mind around this very large project and I've heard that from some of the Planning Commissioner's too. I would like to see us move forward with that process of understanding the questions that we have better before we rush into making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CK: If someone would like to make a motion to table the question I would entertain that motion. The motion is to accept the regulations for the Brinnon MPR as written. ? I'd like to make a motion to table it, at least for now, there's a tremendous amount of discussion and we don't have the final concerns from the Port Gamble, S'Klallam Tribe until March 13th. I move that we table it. LS: I'll second that. DISCUSSION ? I'm curious about the impact. Is the Board of County Commissioner's going to move forward without our recommendation? ? Not at this point, we're stili in the process of developing a recommendation for them. ? We said to the tribe that we would wait for them and we haven't gotten their final response. Until we receive that, I think it's only courtesy, we're neighbors, to wait and here from them, We can certainly discuss more and flush out more details as we need them, GF: As I understand it, we're in the discussion phase of the existing motion. The discussion phase has no fixed end. We can have that motion on the table for as long and continue our discussions for today or forever. And the motion can remain. LR: But we do have an amending motion on the table and we need to act on now. l)irgc z c,f r3 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsr:nd WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MBETINGMINUTAS Tri-Area Community Center March ol2,2o16 P: B60-379-44So F: 360,379-44S1 plancomm@co jefferson.v',ra.us CK: The main motion on the table now is that we move forward with accepting the reguiations as written. Now there's a supplemental amendment that asks that we table the motion until we have heard from the S'Klallam Tribe with a final letter and to get some of our significant questions answered. ? : So will we curtail discussion of this topic at this meeting? CK: If we were to go ahead and ask the motion to table the question about accepting the regulations we would continue to talk about the Brinnon MPR. If we keep the main motion on the table, we can continue to discuss weather we will accept the regulations as they are, One of the options is to not accept the regulations at all. ?: We can go ahead and discuss the MPR now. It's already on the table. I think it was very good to get that letter from the tribe. Now we're awaiting their formal response, it's important too, and a response from the County, It's interesting the things they feel important. The way I interpreted it, they said, if this is going to happen, these are things that we'd like to see done to make sure that we don't lose out, to have measures in place, in case something happens, in terms of contamination. So I'm interested how the County and the applicant will respond to that, It's worth waiting for. I think it dovetails with some of the things that I was thinking of amending, I would consider amending it to say San lose certification or some other standard that demands a certain amount of accountability and review of processes in landscaping and the high intensity of work done on the land, So I guess the County's response to the tribe would probably frame how I would make that recommendation. So I'm comfortable waiting on that as well, ?: I'd like to address the second motion now and be done with that and continue with deliberations on the Brennon Resort, Right? ?: I've dug a lot into this. We are charged with the forming the regulations for this development with perpetuity. We've got one chance to get it right. Sorry I don't see this as being a slam dunk fast process. To have the motion on the table from our first deliberation meeting forever, I think it was a little bit cleaner just to table it and then bring it back up when we're ready. ?: So as a matter of procedure, if we table a meetin& we're no longer able to deliberate and tonight's meeting is over, Correct? CK: All in favor of the subsidiary motion to table the main motion. LS: Second. In favor 4 Opposed 5 That motion is defeated CK: The main mofion is to accept the regulations for the Brinnon MPR. ? And we can presume discussions. ? Back to my original point is that we allowed at an earlier meeting, to wait for a formal final response from the tribes, which we should do because we offered them that, and I'd like to hear their comments in full. As they stated the Council would have the opportunity to amend, change, etc. ? The letter I saw was from a technical person to their Tribal Council and it stated here's the issues we have. So at least those things we can look at and talk about. Page 3 of r3 6er Sheridan St. PortTownsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March e2,2ot6 P:360-379-44So F: g6o-379-44sr plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?: I understand their concerns with the shellfish industry and their harvest as well, as other things. Issues Iike proper pesticide or non- pesticide and issues with grounds keeping and everything else that was going on there, As I recall we had the issues of kettles come up, and how that is effected or not effected. I' m certainly interested in seeing any issues that folks have heard that have come up that we need to discuss. One of the issues that came up was if there was a failure for certain functions within the boundaries, weather or not the bond was sufficient or if the County was requiring a bond, 0f course they are, So that if things, for example, don't go well and we find there's chemicals leaching into groundwater, or what not, there's ways for us to go back and ask that they then utilize bonds to deal with those issues as they come up, |ust like with the aquifer, the potable water issue, So it seemed to me that all of those issues were addressed. DJ: Yes except in a slightly different way, Bonding is used for developing infrastructure. Roads, sewers, waterlines, that kind of thing. So that you have the infrastructure in place and then if the resort fails, if they're half done or not bond. The issue with the aquifer is monitoring and that's a different kind of mitigation. But they did have a mitigation plan. What the tribe is asking for is above the standard of SEPA. So we've determined that through the FEIS that they're compliant with SEPA. The tribe is asking for a higher standard based upon their treaty rights with the United States Government. So we've determined, their compliant with SEPA, as far as environmental impact. The tribe just wants a higher standard. More monitoring and that's probably not a bad idea, It meets and exceeds the Iaw as far as SEPA goes. And when I read this letter, it's clear from the last that their intention, their action items, be included in the Development Agreement which is a separate entity or document from the regulations. And we're not specifically making a recommendation about the Development Agreement so when I spoke to David Goldsmith about this when I read it, our thought was when we get the final letter, we're going to forward it onto the Commissioners. They're the ones who decide The Development Agreement, and that's where they want this stuff to go. There's conditions in the agreement that would address this if the commissioners choose to accept it. There's an issue there between the tribe and the Sovergn Nation 37;43, and the Federal Government and f efferson County which, they didn't sign the treaty. So we want to let the Commissioners, as the authority for Jefferson County to make that decision, You can still recommend that the Commissioner's consider this as a higher standard to the environmental review and impact of the resort. CK: So ro clarify, the Developer Agreement, before you put it together, you would look to the commissioner's for direction on what they want to see included and they would send it back to you to develop the agreement and presurnably they would act on it. DJ: Yes, it's the same process you're going through and we have a draft of that Development Agreement just like these regulations. But that's strictly under their purview and decision making power. It doesn't come before the planning commission, but if there's something in the Development Agreement you don't like, you can make a recommendation for a change or addition. San fose certification of the golf course. You could put a condition in the Development Agreement that says we recommend that you add that to the Development Agreement as an added protection to the water quality into your recommendations. But if you're talking about something that the tribe is suggesting, they clearly believe that's where it belongs, In the Development Agreement, not the regulations. Mr. Yager: Their recommendation of rnonitoring would be a Development Regulation? Df : Not necessarily, they're talking about developing a plan, part of that plan is monitoring, and develop that plan with the Developer, I assume they would be part of the monitoring process, to ensure that in fact it was getting done, and was acceptable to them based upon their negotiations with the Developer. Pagc 4 c.f r,71 6zr Sheridan St. Port'fownsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission UIEBTING IYTINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2, zot6 P: 36o-37q-445o F:36o479-449r plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us ?: I want to take you to task on that just a bit because the Developer Agreement expires at a certain point (20 years?) but the development regulations go on for perpetuity. So they need to be in the regulations as far as I can see. ?: Anything that's regulatory by nature is implemented in the regulations, DJ: You do have a point. I believe 20 years is the standard we have at Port Ludlow, Most of this is borrowed from Port Ludlow, because that's the only other one here. It's not the same exactly. CK: So if we made the recommendation to put some of this into the Developer Agreement and it expires in 20 years, and the developer takes 25 years to complete all the phases of the d to the County? nt what would be their responsibility ?: It depends on how you write it into the development end, And the wording can be as simple as from the significant completion, then the 2 0 years starts, You can make it any way you want so you're not short sheeting yourself. LS: One of my big concerns is the wetland impacts. The tribe has brought court approved in 2007 has expired. And their asking for a new call which evelopme up that the wetland delineation that the could be different. DJ: The tribe has determined that the wetland and Kettle b is no longer under their jurisdiction, That's up to the LS: So that could affect the layout of the development. What would happen if they maybe had to offer more mitigation? What would be the upshot? Df : I wouldn't speculate on that. There's no wetland in kettle C. CK: They're asking for an inventory of the species in kettle b. So because it's not within their jurisdiction, that 1:":" :':"n thev'r: :ot craimine a1 interecl r , : DJ: Right, because of their treaty iigirts, ',,, , r,, '' l .:. .. , 1. ,, CK: One of the inconsistencies that I found of the FSEIS is in some places it refers to kettle b as impervious and other areas it's referred to as glacial till impervious. Mf: Ihaveinthemaindocumentvoll, chapter2,pagelListhefirstplacethatlcameuponwherekettlebis described as impervious, and there's another description elsewhere talking about the wetlands that didn't say it was impervious. CK: So the only wetland that is in a kettle is in kettle b, D): That's the one they want to fill in and create a wetland in kettle c. Which currently doesn't have a wetland. MJ: Section 3.7 there's a description of the wetland in there. I'm pretty certain it talks about something besides impervious soil, it talks about the infiltration in that section. It stated impervious, not semi impervious. I do have some issues, and had a chance to talk to a Certified Hydrologist, and he looked at the reports. He determined that the real water table was at least 10' under the bottom of kettle pond b, He somewhat did disagree with the impervious nature of it, So we're talking about a half- acre of wetland that's two feet deep, that has one acre foot Page 5 of r3 62,r Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA q8g68 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March o2,2ot6 P:36o379-445o F: 36ct-s79-445r ll " ::: i 9:::i:1-"::-": :::: :: total, don't really know how many gallons that it but I think the issue I have is that the amount of rainfall for 12 acre lined pond, goes around the complete circumference, so I've pointed out 100' of fill, that would have to be compacted to some degree, and a liner put in there. I saw that if it comes over the edges of the liner it goes back into the groundwater. It was impervious before, but now it's soaking up water. I also saw the provision for construction of a weir in the event that it really does overflow it goes into kettle pond c. MJ: I think the reference to the hydric soils into the bottom of kettle pond b, that wetland area is relatively impervious, well it's not impervious but because of the nature of those soils, let's just pretend all those silts coming down into the bottom over time, become less permeable, that's why it holds water up to 2' deep just on the bottom. As the soil tests have shown all around the site in the soil sampling, the rest of that entire kettle, in fact most of the site is quite pervious. So you take this kettle, the bottom of it has silted up over millennia, that bottom part holds water, but as the rain fills it can then seep laterally and vertically because it gets into the surrounding soils. Just that half acre is impervious enough so it holds water. Kettle c is all pervious soil so when it rains, allthat run off runs in there and it just disappears. MJ: I noted that the wetland was created by impact from man, I'll assume that it was in the 90's when it was logged, I will note that it was the USGS topo maps that I reviewed, the most common one was dated 1950 something and it was revised in 1985, it shows no wetland in there, so it's my feelings that the wetland was created by the impact of man, It is a seasonal wetland and a class three. It hasn't always been there. I've felt that the clay deposits from the logging wash down into the bottom, sort of sealing it up a bit. There's still a tremendous amount ofwaterthatgoesinthroughthesides. Wejusttookoutahalfanacreoutoftwelveacreswestillhaveelevenand a half acres of pervious very efficient impervious soil. So that's one of my issues there. So I kind of think that the other description I was looking at in the wetland description kind of formulates into what you were saying, Maybe it wasn't worded the best, ok, or maybe when they talk about impervious they should just talk about the floor of kettle b. But I've got a lot more. Any questions? TB: Assuming that they use them at all, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to change a regulation or do something? MJ: I understand, and the tribe understands, that if kettle b and kettle c are preserved and not modified, I think that's what the tribe wants. And I totally understand that it's an absolutely critical component to the present design. Everything runs into that l<ettle. All of the surface water, what's not perking back through, in aquafer recharge, what's not going into the other areas, is going back into the kettle. It's my feeling (& I'll cut back into what the tribe says) TB: I'm trying to get to the conclusion to what you've said so far, I understand to what you're saying about the issues, What do we do to address the aquifer recharge? MJ: Very clearly, there's 760 acre feet of storm water coming into this whole development. And it's their intention to increase that to 840 or 804 acre feet, so there will be a net increase of aquifer recharge. That's a good thing. I understand the salt water interference that transitions along the beach and how important that is. So I guess what I'm feeling here is I'm going to come back to monitoring for contamination, That's where I'm at. If the tribes wishes are implemented that's major changes. Because they clearly want to see kettle b and c preserved for cultural purposes in perpetuity for their further generations so they can show their kids and they want access to the sites too, So I'm trying to get around to what other alternatives do we have. And I full well know that if they're not putting their 280,000 gallons Pcal< Build-out of waste water into kettle b that the only other alternative is that rapid injection thing that we saw at Dosewallips in and by the way that was 25,000 gallons this is 280,000 gallons, It still goes into the aquifer. But where I'm going to is the monitoring wells, which there is a minimum number of Pagr: (r o1'r j 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEATINGMINUTBS Tri-Area Community Center March 02,2o\6 monitoring wells, and in the Department of Ecology Report, their monitoring salt water intrusion, and their monitoring conductivity for, I assume, dissolved solids. I've got questions about ecstatic column of water and how are they drawing their samples which was not in there. How do you get a sample that is out of the aquifer and not out of a stagnant tube? But what's not there, and I've not found it and you can correct rne if you know where it's at: there is no monitoring for the nitrogen and the phosphates that are applied to the golf course. There's no monitoring that I can see anywhere for that. And no monitoring for any of the sewage/people contamination regardless of how. So what we've got here is we've got 280,000 gallons a day into a vessel that contains 50,000,000 gallons, There's a lot of dilution going on here. I think that they're looking for the standard of parts per million possibly, I don't know what the standard is but I didn't find any testing for that, I'm not a big fan of rapid infiltration but I think ultimately we might have to address saving, or not affecting, kettle pond b or c and have to look at the waste water again, ??: Do we know oi or can we find somewhere, a Best Practice for monitoring in this situation. ??: The tribe had a suggestion in there. I guess, the first question to me, if I was a research scientist is: what are the chemicals I'm going to look for? Well, nitrates are one of them, There's probably a lot of them, And the second questions is: Is there ambient chemicals already there? I don't think there's any studies, I haven't seen anything. The Department of Ecology's only done saltwater intrusion, it's a wonderful report, quite lengthy and there are several wells that have been abandoned and I think there's only a total of four that have significant amount of salt water in them. There's a Department of Health Monitoring Station that's at the mouth of Pleasant Harbor but that's looking for bio-toxins and that works in conjunction with regulations with WDFW on shellfish closures. Near as I can tell with that DOH Monitoring station is that there's no chemical monitoring. So what I'm after to protect the aquifer, is that we've got that salt water interference, fresh water interference. The salt water stays low, the fresh water comes in over the top, the whole beach area, and if there's contaminates in that, then every time the tide ?SO d ??: I would like to have, I think there's twelve action items on that, even though it has to do with the Development Agreement and maybe not Development Regulations, I wouldn't mind a discussion on those twelve action items. Because where we're at is, we don't want to put the developer out of business, we want a workable solution. We want the environment protected and I think we all want that. ??: I think there's also another issue, quickly, Washington State University (WSU), their low impact development work that they've done here in the Puget Sound is considered some of the best in the world. Right now I deal with on a project by project basis, digging holes in the ground, putting in soil amendments, running all of my storm water into the hole in the ground, and then it recharges aquifers, it filters, it does all these great things and you're able to monitor in the material in the rain garden. And that kettle is nothing more than a large rain garden that could very well be eloquently deal with the issue of storm water. I agree that the monitoring needs to be there, I believe that you'll be able to talk to the point, I believe that the list of compounds that they're using in the iandscaping, I don't recall have anything with phosphates in it. They provided a list of what and why they're using and I can double check the list. Certainly WSU, has some of the leading minds in this kind of discussion are right here in our back yard, so that might be one resource that we can tap into. I can even make a contact and ask them to come and talk to that point, P:36o-379-q45o Ft g6o379-445t plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us PageT of t3 6zr Sheridan St. Port'llownsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MBETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c.2,2ot6 p:36o-379-44So F:36o-379-445r plancomm@co jefferson, wa.us ??: I'd been wondering if the DOE is worried about the salt water in the well? And worried about aquifers and water levels, etc, Is that DOE or D0H that monitor contaminants? Df : That would be DOE but it sounds like you're talking about chemicals that aren't being regulated? ??: I understand that the feeling in the documents is: all of the chemicals being applied to the golf course remains in the grass and web of roots. But I also saw where there is engineered into layers of gravel and sand underneath those to allow the natural water to go through. So the question I have is: what's getting washed through? I'm not buying into that it just gets applied and goes away. I think there's going to be some that gets into the ground water, How much? What levels? MS: I think if could just summarize, what it looks like is that there's mandatory components, and then there's more voluntary components because of the type of green restoration we see in river is probably would be considered as one of the voluntary components. And then there are a set of mandatory components that falls quite a bit short of what would be considered organic or sustainable. Certification, At the same time it's focused on fish, in particular young salmon. One chemical that I pulled out (that's prohibitedJ is on our list. Any chemical that I can think of is on that list. There's a lot of them. The advantage of asking the applicant to adhere to a standard is that standard is updated as soon as new products come out on the market. And it's a third party, so it takes it out of the County or publics control to a degree, to be nit-picky. So I think that it would be appropriate to offer an amendment to what's currently on the table, which then can be tabled at the end of the meeting, Regardless of what the Tribe comes up with, regardless of how the County responds to the Tribe, regardless of whether or not they move forward as using kettles as the design, these are still things that we would want in the agreement. Regardless of how the project would move forward, I don't think there's a problem with us sending a clear message that we want the same in State Certification in addition to monitoring of nutrients and contaminants integrated into that. It's prerry basic I think, I think almost everything the applicant has done to date, appears to be in line with the Salman Safe Certification, When you get certified with Salman Safe they actually help you design your project and it appears that this project has been designed with that thinking in mind. Again there's a lot of voluntary components. There's probably some things that could be better, like with any project, more impervious surfaces. Maybe some holes in roads. They're allowing for the fact that this could be subscribed to by major projects that cause large amounts of impacts. I'm not sure that that's a disqualifier. It's not a shoe in, it's a certification that you have to fight for and work towards. It's not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to save fish. LS: The beauty of using young fish, salmon, is that they are the indicator species, of life. They are among the most sensitive, shellfish and salmon. If you're not effecting young salmon you're doing very well. CK: This Salmon Safe Certification is like an organic label. It actually increases the value of your product. I think it's something that the resort can advertise that they're green and salmon safe. They're right on Hood Canal, they need to be able to say these things so I don't think it's necessarily just additional economic impact I think it could be a marketable future. MS: I think it could be a nice gesture for the Commission to make in terms of letting the process play out and yet indicating that we're not just sitting on our hands, that we're actively thinking about 1. If this should happen and 2 If it does happen, how could it protect the public? CK: It's important to note that with the nutrients and fertilizer's is not only the quality but the amount. So in perfect application in theory, it's all used up. So if soil scientists were applying the nutrients to the landscaping at the golf course, that would probably be happening very accurately. It may not be soil scientist that are apply fertilizer. So then the question is over application and it doesn't get filtered or treated out. And it ends up in the l)agr: tl of r3 6er Shucirlan St. Porl 'fownsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEBTINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March 02,2c-16 P:36o-379-44Sr) Ft 360879-445r plancomrn@co j efferson. wa.us aquafer or the canal where balloons and dye offs cause great problems. It's not only the monitoring of the chemicals the contaminants but also the nutrients because they won't be processed out. My personal opinion is we have to address that chemical use at a level that puts all of us in compliance with the needs of Puget Sound and Hood Canal because this is not getting better. We're talking about putting a new small city on Hood Canal. This is a big deal, it's irnportant. It's not to say that we shouldn't also, all of us, at all levels, address some of these chemicals. TB: I'm impressed that the Commissioner's originally said design this so that there's no runoff. And if that works, no run off means anything that they put on top shouldn't get in the water down there, This is a good first line of defense. There's probably no need to put in a 2nd Jrd 61 {.th line of defense too, unless we anticipate that need. Let's make sure it's the safest we can do it. LS: Given that, the runoff will be infiltrated, ultimateiy it will infiltrate on site. What is to stop lateral movement and having it still end up down on the shore line? I live at Cape George and a lot of water moves through laterally and we're having big erosion problems because of it so that's something I'd like to understand better, how is that not going to happen? ??: All of the geo technical studies that were done, and just looking at the cliffs on the south side. They're aren't a great number of seeps coming out of those. And the soil samples that were taken, the water moves down, not laterally, Because it's so permeable that it's not driven sideways. ??: Overall it's a pretty decent aquifer recharge area that a lot of places would Iike to have. ??: Bio-toxins with the DOH Report, Section 3.5-1 reports very few historical closures in there related to bio-toxins with the exception of the beach right off of Brinnon. Basically the Doci Wallops and the Ducca Bush never get closed for shellfish harvesting is how I interpreted that. Let me summarize: There's three pollution sources that I see: There's the golf course with the chemicals on it. There's the runoff from the parking lots, which I'm very clear goes into bioswales or rain gardens which is filtered through the grass into those areas and then the clean water is piped back to kettle pond b or it permeates right there. The third source of pollutants is Section 1, page 18 which is in the tables there, refers to chemicals used in sewage treatment process. Those chemicals they were talking about hauling off the heavy waste off of site, but about any chemicals used in the waste treatment process, I want to know if there's going to be any anti algae chemicals put into kettle pond b, and what the chemical will be. ??: I don't believe that there's any plan to put any anti algae products into the pond. The pond is currently sized as L20,000,000 gallons. That's about 40'. So the pond you're referring to at Port Ludlow is probably quite shallow, and would heat up and promote algae growth. Because this pond is so big, algae won't be a problem. The Sewage Treatment Plant produces Class A affluent, which is just short of drinking water, It's very clear, There's coagulants that you put into sewage treatment plants that helps solids drop out, which are trucked away, There's chlorine residual, which also has to be processed out before it hits the pond. In order to produce that affluent, there's a number of processes that are taking place in the plant, The water quality leaving the plant is tested continuously, Some of the contaminants you're worried about getting into the pond, and then being irrigated out of the pond onto the fairways for the plants to uptake, is where the treatment continues by default, it's not required, When you irrigate it across all of that grass, it helps further improve the water quality going through the soil year round. The Water Quality Testing that DOE is requiring is water quality testing that's required out of drinking wells as well, So those samples that come out of drinking water wells are tested thoroughly at all levels. DOH will monitor those as well, As far as sampling out in the salt water there is a memorandum of understanding that's been produced saying were the samples can be taken in cooperation with the Tribes, And if the Tribe comes up with more sampling stations that they want fine. That's not an issue. Pagc 9 of 13 6zr Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98968 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2,2ot6 CK: I would like to continue deliberations on the motion on the table at the Brinnon MPR on April 5, 2016. The next meeting will be on 03 /76 / 76 a Comprehensive Plan Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Todd Wexman from Port Townsend: An architect, planner and teacher I've worked alongside SzvW, Brinnon group members in opposition to Garth Mann's plans to build a rich man's Shang-ra-la alongside the Hood Canal. Much of what I've written on the subject has been scanned for placement on your website. Please take a look. For now let us look back some 15 - 20 years when a couple Jefferson Co Planners got together with Brinnonites to talk of their hopes of the town's future. During these events much value was assigned to a natural setting Pregnant with Possibility. For backpacker's, camper's and boaters alike all agreed that the town center, which then as now, might be described as having no their there, was in dire need of imaginative help. All of the above was passed over when corporate home builder Garth Mann burst onto the scene. Having purchased an abandoned camp ground and marina, on prime waterfront property, he cherished plans to build what is now in financial circles as CID. These are corporate sponsored private sub divisions. Often times gated to keep the rebel out, sometimes not. CID's have been around a while but really took off in the 1970's. When financially strapped Iocal governments saw in them a way to add property taxes to their rolls without substantial investments. Here and elsewhere County Commissioners, here and elsewhere moved heaven and earth to promote CID's, bending rules and regulations in the process. Not always smooth sailing for NEPO National Environmental Protection Ordinance, required that every recommendation for future legislation significantly effecting the human environment must include a detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action. It's adverse environmental effects, alternatives to it and the long term resource commitments it would entail. Ostensibly projects that caused too much in the way of a destructive environmental impact would be outlawed after an EIS had proved a point had been revised by a higher authority but this was only implicit and now a days the filing of an EIS is much too often considered a pro form of nuisance. Much to my dismay Garth Mann's company town may well become a reality. An EIS has been helped along by County Staffers to in large part suite Garth's needs, Well,after all, he's paying them for it, Jean Ball from Quilcene: I like to refer to mysel f as a rabid tree hugger. I've frequently seen fish die offs in south parts of the Sound and I'm concerned about phosphates and nitrates making their way into the waterway, Barbara Moore-Lewis from Snohomish: I built a house in Brinnon and have been in there for about eleven years. We've all took care of our land. Didn't use chemicals, had our wells, etc. Here's this discussion like it's this wonderful alternative with all these chemicals in the environment and in the Hood Canal as if you allowed private homes there it would be worse. That wasn't my experience there. People where very respectful of the land. That's why we lived there, If we didn't want to do that there were other places we could live. And it's really much harder to weed than use chemicals. Phillip Morley: County Administrator: I've got two comments: First: I just wanted to complement the Planning Commissioner's. Once you got past your parliamentary impasse, I witnessed you listen to each other and engage in thoughtful dialogue. So I wanted to complement you for listening to each other and allowing each other the space to ensure all points of view were heard. Secondly: I wanted to go back to an item that was discussed earlier in the meeting and that was the Development Regs vs. the Development Agreement; Certainly under the planning Enabling Act, The Planning Commission has the responsibility and a duty to address the Development Regs but I think it's certainly permissible for the Planning which the Board of County Commissioners, as P: 36o-329-44So Fr 96o-329-44Sr plancomm @co j efferson.wa.us Commission to offer commentary on the Development l']age to crf rg 6::r Shcridan St. Port Townsenrl WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March 02, 2cl6 P: 36o-37q-445o F:36o-379-445t pl ancomm@co jeff erson.wa,us David has said, they're in charge of ultimately what gets adopted as the Development Agreement but I think they would be interested and welcome, not expecting you to offer comments, but if you wished to, I think they would be welcomed and certainly considered in their deliberations. Brenda McMillan from Port Townsend: I'm concerned about the lack of a bond. There's a lot of earth moving and tree cutting. There is no bond in place that would recompense the county for destruction of land that could happen if the project fails. FOLLOW.UP ITEMS: LS: There is an issue that I'd like addressed we didn't address that the Tribe brought up. That's the elk crossing on Hwy 101 and the path that the Golf Course and other lawns could serve as kind of a nuisance attraction. In Sequim that's a big issue and they have that collared herd that actually turns on those warning lights when they approach the highway. We possibly have to look at something like that, Do we need to hear from Department of Fish and Wildlife on the movement pattern or maybe the Tribe has some resources that they know of. That issue the Tribe raised has got my attention. TG: I'm just anticipating that if the Commission or any set of it's members believes there needs to be increased monitoring, or any type of monitoring, that somehow we need to get some research on what the Best Practice is, I just don't want to get to a place, where the conclusion is this is not good without monitoring and no proposal to deal with it. ??: l'm kind of concerned about the tidal zones around that peninsula in the Ducca Bush Delta down there. Can you ask if there's any recent eel grass surveys? I'm not even sure there is but eel grass there, I believe there is and it is an indicator species for the salmon. LS: Where did we leave things with the Tribe? Are they going to present to us? Df ; We're meeting with them on 03/tB/16 with the planning staff and DCD so I can talk to them, and ask them to present fo you. ??: ts there any way to get, on the Water Quality Testing, this might be another question for the Tribe, what methods are used and what chemicals are being looked at for and the methodology. And how long are they to continue? Forever? Is there a timeline? ??: I'd like the staff s recommendation on the content of the Development Agreement that should be extended in the regulations. Is there something in the Draft Agreement that should go in Title 17? I believe the Draft Agreement itself had a 20 year expiration. I'd like to make sure, ourselves, what ought to be in the Development Agreement vs. The Regulations. Should it be in perpetuity or is 20 years long enough? ??: In the Department of Ecology their recommending 10 years on the Water Qualiry. ??: When they re-ballasted at the port area down there, the plan was to pave the whole yard but they didn't have the money to. So the ballasted material is a sand & gravel mix and the put French drains in to collect it all. They were required by the Department of Ecology for the tin and copper and all that stuff. Everything was fine for about ten years, they were using Best Management Practices there. The wind was blowing the dust off the tarps. The first effort I believe was a grant from the Department of Ecology, lt didn't work. They yanked it out and did something different. Page tr of t3 6zt Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98S68 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTHS Tri-Area Community Center March oz,2o16 P:36o-37'l-445o F: 36o-379-445r plancomnr@co jefferson, wa.us CK: David you guys will be working on the Public Participation Plan for that next meetingon03/L6/16. ??: Do we have a scheduled time when we start jumping into the elements of the Comprehensive PIan? We've got to get into the elements. DJ: Part of the scoping process which is part of the Public Participation PIan l'm proposing is going to identify what elements need work and which don't, We will talk about that at the next meeting. There's mandatory elements based on law that need to change. You're all going to get a timeline with the schedule on03/16/76 and then the Public Participation PIan. TG: This is where we were about nine months ago. We need a Director and an Assistant Director. The schedule as we have it now, allows the Commissioners three months. Last time it was sixteen months. If we don't get more support from the Commissioner's and Mr. Morley, so that they've got more support, so that we've got the suppor! this isn't going to get done and we're ALL (collectivelyJ going to end up in a jam. We've got to get this thing going. DJ: David Goldsmith was at the last meeting, what did he talk about? Schedule. That it was extremely tight. ??: We've moved up our meetings as a Planning Commission, to get going. CK: It's the perfect storm: No Director, No Assistant Director, the largest development project the County's ever seen, and the Comprehensive PIan. TG: There's no doubt in my mind, that there will be at least one, probably three or four extensions by the State before we get this done. We have a choice. Either we do it the quick and dirty way, or we get extensions, We're not going to do it the way we want to without extensions. I guarantee you we won't get it done without extensions. It's not possible. To involve the public, and release the plan, the way we want to do it, it will be at least a year and a half before our commission is ready to present to the other commission. OBSERVER COMMENT: PM: I wanted to address, as a matter of law, the question of further extensions on the deadline for our Comp Plan Update. The deadline for our Comp PIan is set through by RCW through State Statute. And under the statute there are certain criteria that allowed us to get a two year extension, which was offered us by the Department of Commerce. We've taken that We're lacking further action by the State Legislature. Commerce have no further latitude to offer us. So at that point if we don't meet the deadline, then were throwing ourselves at the mercy of the State not to impose sanctions. They don't have the latitude to give us a formal extension without further action by the State Legislature. ??: That's important to know and understand. At least from my point of view, that dictates how much detail and energy we can put into this and meet the criteria. Because if what you're saying is true, and I know how the County Commissioner's work, pretty well, they'll need more time than we've allocated in the Plan. If they have to meet the statutes they will. The question is, how is this organization going to get through what we want to do, in less than a year? So what's that nine meetings? CK; I think there is an option for us. We do that minimum we have to do to meet that deadline. Then we can still do some Comprehensive Plan amendments ahead of having to do them next time. We want to do. So those loftier policy's we want to get at we can take into next year and take the time. The part that's not mandatory, we're not under a sentence to do by a certain time. Page: rz of t'3 6zr Shcridan St. Port'fownsentl WA 98368 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETINGMINUTES Tri-Area Community Center March c2,2076 P: 36o-379"44So F:36o179-445t pl ancomm @co jefferson.wa.us TG: I'm not upset, I'm just trying to make a point that the rubber meets the road and our minds are not in sync with what we need to have. If the Commissioners are expecting a relatively simple set of ideas and changes, and we give them a Comprehensive set of changes, are we going to be out of sync? CK: No. I'm at the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting often, They are well aware of what we're wanting to do, Maybe we should all meet before our next Comprehensive Plan meeting and propose how we're going to do it. ??: Mr. Morley do you agree that the Commissioners are pleased and supportive of our efforts to make major changes to the Comprehensive Plan? PM: I would say the Commissioners have not asked for major changes. Given the fact that the population forecast are strikingly similar to what they were last time we did a Comp PIan and given that there are no large demographic shifts within the County that we've seen, I don't think there's a large expectation for a major change in division for the future for the County. However I'd say there's also an openness for considering enhancements. I think that the discussion that you're having, it would be a good idea within the next month or two, to have a check in with the board, once you have a better sense of how you might be approaching this. Are we on track? Are we potentially bringing you County Commissioner's something that you will or will not like? So that they can tell us at the front end so, we don't bring them rocks that they don't like, and they ask us to bring them different rocks. Along this lines, Monday, I believe David Goldsmith plans to talk a little bit about the timeline with the commissioner's and about the Public Participation Grantthatwe've received fromthe Departmentof Commerce forthisyear. Itmaybe a time to listen in, not for dialogue. It will be late in the day. I think two things Mr. Giske is saying are good: 1. a caution of looking at the time you have and your appetite for changes and reconciling the two and2. at some point soon when you have a better idea of the scope and timing of what you think you're bringing forward is to check in with Commissioner's and say: Here's where we think we're headed, tell us if this is in the right direction. CK: Thank you for your time. I want to say that while the demographics may not have changed, other things have increased their urgency and changed in our community. So those are our concerns with the environment and with the economy and housing. There have been big changes I think, like global climate changes we are feeling the urgency. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 03 /16/2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at B:45 pm These meeting minutes were approved this day of 20L6, Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD Page r3 of r3