Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080cboq o a 7 i rrom: Keia jonnson <reiaqonnsori&gmaii.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:20 AM To: Patty Charnas; jeffbocc; Michael Haas Subject: Comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR development Attachments: Pleasant Harbor MPR comments_Feb7-2018.pdf We will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting at Chimicum this evening but would like the attached to be included in the record on the discussion of the Pleasant Harbor/Black Point MPR development. Thank you, Reid and Lianna Johnson 221 Canal Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 February 7, 2018 Comments regarding the Black Point Master Plan Resort We live part time across the Duckabush estuary from the proposed Black Point Master Plan Resort. As I understand the proposal, the Black Point Master Plan Resort will include almost 900 residential units, a 9 hole golf course and over 50,000 square feet of commercial development. This massive development is totally inappropriate for the area. The accompanying deforestation and grading alone will effectively destroy the Black Point Peninsula as we know it. We are particularly concerned with effects on water quality, particularly with respect to the Hood Canal. Runoff/silting during the long construction phase is unavoidable, and maintenance of the golf course will require constant use of environmentally unfriendly chemicals that will end up in the Canal, despite what may be stated in the EIS. Over the past two summers, the local waters have experienced major phytoplankton blooms. Crabbing in the area has deteriorated to the point where few bother to go out. The Hood Canal in this area is clearly under stress; water quality in the Pleasant Harbor marina area is really poor in the summer. The increased boating and fishing pressure by this development will no doubt have a strongly negative impact on the Hood Canal and Duckabush estuary waters. We are not aware of any independent scientific studies that address these issues. We are strongly opposed to the proposed Black Point Master Plan Resort. Sincerely, Reid and Lianna Johnson 221 Canal Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 reidcjohnson@gmail.com HBO IF=Rqvl MENTAL COUNCIL i Aur? "" _ rnnquc Heritage 1 0v iC,l P.O. BOX 87 > S BECK, WASHINGTON 98380 DC [ I vh February 6, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Development Agreement and Development Regulations Drafts for Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Attention: Commissioners Kathleen Kler, David Sullivan and Kate Dean: It has come the attention of the Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCFC) that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has decided not to allow the Jefferson County Planning Commission (P.C.) additional time for reviewing and deliberating the above-named documents. The purpose of this letter is to request that the BOCC reconsider its decision. At the county's January 16, 2018 briefing, P.C. members expressed concern about not being allowed more time, citing the fact that the Draft Regulations (Title 17, Article II) had been considerably "marked up" by Jefferson County planning staff, i.e. the P.C. had no previous knowledge of some of the changes made to the document. They also contended that the Draft Agreement did not include some of the P.C.'s recommendations (issues which had not previously been agreed to by P.C. members). For instance, in its July 6, 2016 letter to the BOCC, the P.C. recommended that the BOCC give careful consideration to reducing the density of housing units, since some P.C. members believed that the housing unit density should be no more than 300 units, while the Draft Agreement still calls for 890 units. There are a number of major issues which need to be resolved during an extended public comment period. In particular, the proposed 25 year buildout period is likely to be hotly debated. In addition, the Hood Canal Tribes and county staff have not even agreed to the treatment of the kettles, let alone which kettle (B or C) should be left in its natural state. The question of SEPA applicability is another issue raised by the P.C. members. These are just some of the many issues for which additional involvement by the P.C. is needed as all the parties involved work toward conflict resolution. As one county commissioner has pointed out, "these drafts are imperfect" and the county staff could use the assistance of the P.C. We agree, but this will only happen if P.C. members, who may not be able to deal with the draft documents until after June, 2018 due to their current work on the county's comprehensive plan, are given sufficient time. In her January 16, 2018 presentation to the BOCC and the P.C., Jefferson County Planning Director, Ms. Charnas, stated that the county plans to allow "an exceptional length of public comment time" in the Development Agreement and Development Regulations approval process. We believe that the next step in the process should be for the county to allow the P.C. additional time to review and deliberate the drafts and send its recommendations to the county, before the official public comment period begins. Again, we request that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners reconsider its decision regarding the continuing role of the Planning Commission in the project approval process for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Donna M. Simmons, President Hood Canal Environmental Council Cc Patricia Charnas Cynthia Koan C:(crcc rrom: Philip Hunsucker Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 2:29 PM To: Carol Morris Cc: Patty Charnas; jeffbocc Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR Draft development regulations Attachments: Hunsucker memo 2-9.pdf Ms. Morris: Thanks for your comments. I sent them to the Department of Community Development and to the Board of County Commissioners for inclusion in the public comments on this project. Philip ON ` Philip C. Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney lefferson County Prose_cutin2 Attorneys Office P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-38S-9180 Fax: 360-385-0073 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. 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. From: Carol Morris [mailto:carol_a_morris@msn.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 2:05 PM To: Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR Draft development regulations Please see the attached. Carol Morris, Morris Law, P.C. 3304 Rosedale Street N.W., Suite 200 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 253) 851-5090 F: (360) 850-1099 carol@ carolmorrislaw.com Website: carolmorrislaw.com This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged,and/or attorney work production exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the e-mail address or telephone number above and delete this e-mail from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client product or other applicable privilege. Thank you. 1 Morris Law P.C. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 9, 20181 TO: Phillip Hunsucker, Civil Prosecutor, Jefferson County FROM: Carol Morris, Morris Law, P.C. RE: Draft development regulations -- Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Version updated 12/10/17 The County's website provides notice of an upcoming public hearing on the draft development agreement for Pleasant Harbor. However, nothing in this notice provides any information about the purpose of this public hearing. Does the County plan to approve the development agreement? What is the proposed action? The County needs to carefully consider the timing of the adoption of the development regulations and approval of the development agreement. Development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.7013.170 - 210. RCW 36.70B.170(1) provides that "a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under [the Growth Management Act]." Jefferson County plans under GMA. It is impossible to determine whether or not the development agreement is consistent with the applicable development regulations, if they haven't been adopted. The County doesn't explain whether it plans to adopt the development agreement first or concurrent with the proposed development regulations. To make matters worse, the County doesn't even havd one version of the development regulations for the public to review. There are two different versions (one proposed by staff and another proposed by the Planning Commission). The County's distribution of two different versions of development regulations to the. public, as well as a development agreement which purports to include the development regulations in a blank exhibit violates due process and fundamental fairness. Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 I prepared another memo dated February 7, 2018. This memo supersedes that earlier memo. Sorry for the inconvenience. 3304 Rosedale Street N'. W., Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol@carolmorrislaw.com MEMO 2-8-18 Wn.2d 707, 712, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). Providing a 60 day comment period doesn't solve this problem. Here are my comments on the 12/10/17 draft of the development regulations prepared by the County staff: 17.60.020: "The regulations in this title shall be known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code, ..." The "title" is Title 17, which includes more than the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code, it also includes the Port Ludlow MPR. It appears that the County has divided up the Title into Articles, so if Port Ludlow MPR is Article I, then it should be stated here that the Pleasant Harbor regulations in chapters 17.60, 17.65, 17.70, 17.75, 17.80 and 17.85 are in Article II of this Title. 17.60.030: The former language stated that the purpose of this chapter was to set forth development regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The language has been changed in a way that makes no sense: "The purpose ... is to regulate land development uses that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development ..." So, does this mean that these regulations only apply to those uses that are consistent with the Comp Plan? It doesn't apply and can't be enforced where the use" is inconsistent? 17.60.040: Here, it states that the Master Plan for Pleasant Harbor consists of: (1) regulations the ones in this chapter?); (2) the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (3) Final Environmental Impact Statements (how many are there? There is no identifying information here, like the dates of the EIS's or what they cover); (4) Final Supplemental Impact Statement (again, there is no identifying information, no dates); (5) maps (which maps?); (6) mitigation measures (in what? The unidentified EIS's and FSIS?); and the Development Agreement. This vague language does not provide sufficient information for the public to understand what applies to this development -- and it is too vague for the County to enforce against the developer. In Section 17.60.060, there is another list of the codes, regulations, etc. that apply to the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This list is more detailed and includes additional regulations. Why are these two sections (17.60.040 and .060) different? 17.60.050: The provisions of this title apply to all "land use actions and siting of infrastructure There are no definitions. in the County's code for "land use actions" and "siting of infrastructure." A definition is needed so that there is no confusion in the future about applicability. The public shouldn't have to guess about the situations that will trigger enforcement of certain codes based on ambiguous language. PA MEMO 2-8-18 17.60.060: Here, the County states that "any land disturbing activity" must comply with other titles of the Code, and various other documents. If there is some reason to distinguish between the undefined "land use actions" in 17.60.050 and the "land disturbing activity" in 17.60.060, why isn't the reference to Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code included in 17.60.050? My point is that the developer must comply with chapter 18.35 JCC, Land Divisions, to divide the property prior to any sale, lease or transfer of any parcel or lot. Division of land is not a "land disturbing activity." (See, 18.10.120.) Although Title 18 is mentioned here, the procedure in chapter 18.15 JCC doesn't contemplate any subdivisions, short plats, or binding site plans in a MPR. (The Planning Commission's draft mentioned a binding site plan, but this appears to have been removed in the staff.version of the development regulations.) It is stated that: "where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and other applicable code provisions or other regulations, the more restrictive shall apply." Are the documents listed in 1 through 4 covered by this? They are not all codes or regulations. 17.60.060: Why were the exemptions deleted? If they were deleted because "it is confusing and potentially difficult to interpret," (staff comment on matrix), I have the same concern with 050 and 060 above, unless the activities that this "title" triggers are defined. 17.60.070: Where did the 890 residential unit cap come from? More terms are used here, and . they need to be defined so that this can be enforced. What is a "short term visitor accommodation unit? Is that the same as a "short-term rental?" There are no definitions of these terms and they will be difficult to enforce. 17.60.080 and 17.60.090: Here, the County is establishing new regulations for legally nonconforming uses and structures. Given that the County has already adopted regulations for nonconforming uses and structures in Section 18.20.260, and incorporated Title 18 into this chapter or Article, the County is creating confusion about which apply and how conflicting language must be interpreted. Has the County inserted these regulations because only "land disturbing activities" (in 17.60.060) have to comply with Section 18.20.260? 17.60.100: Why are "structures" exempt? 17.65.010: The "purpose" section in a particular zoning district is supposed to explain the purpose of the district. For example, in a residential district, it might be: "This R-1 zoning district is intended to accommodate a pattern of land use that is predominately single-family." The purpose section is needed for each zoning district because the development regulations cannot list every single type of use that may be proposed in the future. When a property owner proposes a particular use that is not listed in the development regulations as either a "permitted," conditional" or "prohibited" use in that district, the Planning Director is required to issue an administrative interpretation of the code and make a decision whether the proposed use is MEMO 2-8-18 compatible with the purpose of the district and the other uses allowed in the district. If the County doesn't describe the purpose of the district, then only the permitted uses provide the basis for the administrative interpretation. This problem is exacerbated here, because the types of uses "permitted" (there are no conditional" or "prohibited" uses,) are widely different in nature. As a result, it is possible that the Planning Staff could allow any ZTe of use not listed as permitted. For example, the land use impacts of a tavern are totally different from a more sensitive use like a single family home, yet they are permitted outright in the same zone. 17.60.020(5): Here, "public facilities" are permitted outright (there are no conditional uses listed, which would allow the decision -maker to address needed mitigation in a zone that also allows sensitive residential uses). The County has procedures for conditional use permits in Title 18, so the question is why all uses, even the most intense, are permitted outright in the same zone as single family uses. The definition of "public facilities" in JCC 18.10.160 demonstrates that no one has spent any time thinking about whether or not these uses are compatible with each other or the other allowed uses. in this zone. (The definition includes: "facilities serving the general public, streets, roads, ferries, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, community water systems, community sewage treatment systems, storm water systems, park and recreational facilities, libraries, fire and police stations, emergency medical services, municipal and county buildings, power houses, cemeteries and public schools." In other words, the developer could build single family homes immediately adjacent to a community sewage treatment system. Or, a county jail (county building) could be built right next to a public school. In Niemi, et al. v. Northwest Cascade, et al., Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 16-2- 11216-7 (currently pending), a class action suit was brought by owners of single family homes surrounding a F1oHawks facility which collects and treats sewage from honey buckets. Even though the City of Pacific imposed numerous conditions on the F1oHawks facility through a conditional use permit, it is alleged to have released odors, gases and fumes which substantially interfere with the property owners' enjoyment of their properties. The neighbors are suing, alleging nuisance, negligence and trespass as a result of the activities of this facility, which is located in close proximity to single family uses. This lawsuit was filed even after installation of upgrades to the odor suppressing equipment. In (6), the County has allowed, as uses permitted outright, "other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development." Again, 17.65.010, which is supposed to describe the "purpose" of this zone, does not include any purpose statement. It only describes the uses that are allowed in the zone, and these uses are extensive and varied. The County doesn't even require that the most intense uses obtain a 4 MEMO 2-8-18 conditional use permit, so that the impacts of the use can be mitigated on a site-specific, ad hoc basis. If the County allows every possible use of property other than heavy industrial in this zone, what does the Community Development Department need to do when the developer proposes an intense use not listed in 17.67.020? Nothing, other than to rubber stamp an approval. We question why there are no conditional uses in the MPR zoning districts, when the County actually implements a conditional use permit process in other areas of the County. 17.65.030: Here, the County is allowing the developer to build a building of any height, as long as the developer buys a ladder truck or other equipment for the Fire District. A variance isn't even required, so the adjacent property owner will have no notice of the developer's receipt of a building permit to construct a structure that will dwarf others in the neighborhood. The fact that the Fire District may need additional equipment to put out a fire in a building over a certain height is not the only negative land use impact resulting from excessive height, especially adjacent to single family uses. 17.65.040: So that there is no question that no consideration whatsoever was given to the persons who would eventually visit, live and work in this zone, all yard and setbacks have been eliminated. We assume that this has been added in order to eliminate any restrictions on the developer's ability to maximize its investment. 17.70.010: Here, there actually is a purpose section. It also states: "The dimensions. of the MPR-OSR zone do not preclude applicable buffers and setbacks as required under this title or under Title 18 Jefferson County Code." However, in Section 17.75.040, it states that "there are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR -MV zone," but "new structures located within the shoreline shall comply with the setback requirements of the SMP. Does this mean that there are setbacks for new construction in this zone or not? 17.75.010: The purpose of the MPR -VM zone is again, not stated. Instead, there is a summary of the types of uses allowed, totally eliminating any mention of the fact that there are few differences in the uses permitted in this zone and the MPR -GR zone. 17.75.020: Again, my concern is that all listed uses are permitted outright in the MPR -MV zone. There are two prohibited uses, but the County has not classified any use as a "conditional use." A conditional use is not a permitted use. It is listed in the zone as a use that may be made within a zone, but only upon the grant of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner or other decision -maker (after a hearing). The reason certain uses are permitted only upon the grant of a conditional use permit, is because there are certain uses that may be desirable, but are not completely consistent with the permitted uses. Therefore, the zoning code requires that the decision -maker evaluate the proposed development under certain criteria for approval, which allows the decision -maker to consider the facts relating to the property and the proposed use. MEMO 2-8-18 For example, schools are not normally allowed in a single family residential zone as a permitted use. They may be allowed with a conditional use permit, which would consider whether the piece of property for the school is large enough to absorb all of the land use impacts relating to a school, such as noise, parking and traffic circulation. It is difficult to understand why the County would allow a marina as a permitted use, not a conditional use, in this zone. While it does appear that the developer would have to obtain a shoreline permit for the marina, it is difficult to say whether the shoreline permit would address the impacts of a marina that would normally be addressed under zoning regulations. The words "overwater structures" have been eliminated here (17.75.020(1)). However, in 17.75.020(4), there is a reference to how "overwater buildings" shall be constructed. Does this mean that "overwater structures" or "overwater buildings" can or can't be constructed in this zone? Again, 17.75.020(l 0) allows uses of every type and description, many of which are not compatible with each other or the residential uses allowed outright in 17.75.020(2). Same comment with regard to 17.75.020(12). There is no purpose section, only a summary of the uses allowed in this zone. Therefore, any type of use can be allowed, as long as the Department of Community Development approves. There are no criteria for DCD to.use in such approvals. What is the procedure for the County to make the decision whether or not a use is allowed in a particular zoning district? I could not find any procedure for an administrative code interpretation. State law requires that the City adopt this procedure: "As part of its project review process, a local government shall provide a procedure for obtaining a code interpretation as provided in RCW 36.70B.110." RCW 36.70B.030(3). If the County doesn't have this procedure (as required by state law), then the public will have no notice or opportunity to apply a decision of the Director to allow an unlisted use within one of these MPR zones: The developer could propose an outdoor shooting range that will cause tremendous noise and pollute the ground water with lead, and the County may permit it, claiming that it is consistent with Section 17.65.020(4), as an "outdoor resort -related recreational facility." 17.75.030: In 17.65.030, no buildings could be constructed in the MPR -GR zone over 35 feet in height unless the Fire District approved. Here, "one structure may exceed 35 feet, but may not exceed 45 feet." No approval is required from the Fire District to exceed 35 feet in height. So, it appears that the limit in the previous zone was not based on any safety issue (like the fact that the Fire District didn't have a ladder such that firefighters could fight a fire in a building over 35 feet high) and was totally arbitrary. Also, what does it mean that "one structure" can exceed 35 feet in height? One structure in the entire zone? 6 MEMO 2-8-18 17.80.010: Here, the County has established the process for "reviewing major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan." Wouldn't the developer also need to obtain approval of a major or minor revision to any subdivision or binding site plan approval for any of these activities? 17.80.020: It appears that this section has been added so that everyone can just see a sampling of the mitigation measures that apply to the proposed development. (The mitigation measures are listed but it also states that they are not limited to these measures, yet these measures are listed for reference") Given that the County has determined that it will impose mitigation or conditions on the development from at least four different documents, is there. some reason that the County can't simply list all of them here, so that everyone knows what they are? It would also be helpful to look at them in one place, so that we could determine whether any measures conflict with each other or this proposed code. Also, this list of documents is not the same as the list of documents in 17.60.040 and 17.60.060. What is the reason for the difference? 17.80.020(1): Here, the developer is required to put the southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal into a permanent conservation easement. Who will be the owner of the underlying property? Who will be responsible for maintaining this easement? 17.80.020(2)(a): The County should charge the developer for the County's costs relating to the hiring of an independent consultant who will perform water quality monitoring and to submit a summary water quality report to the County., 17.80.020(2)(d): Here, it states that the permits "shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor .MPR." First, has anyone done any testing of the current situation? If not, won't the developer argue later, if the water quality deteriorates, that it was not responsible, and the County can't prove otherwise? Second, why would the County only state that the permits require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures? The permits will issue and then the developer will be required to do some water quality testing. There isn't much to this testing program, other than it has to be done monthly. If the development agreement is signed and the permits issue, how will the County require additional mitigation? The development agreement has been crafted such that the developer is not only vested to every development regulation administered by the County, but also includes a paragraph that covers any development regulation that the developer forgot to include. It is difficult to understand why the County wouldn't adopt a water quality standard, and then use its enforcement procedures if the development doesn't meet the standard. The public receives little, if any benefit from this development, given all of the many concessions provided to the developer. Therefore, public funds shouldn't be spent on, the enforcement of the development agreement. The County should require that the developer pay MEMO 2-8-18 the County's costs associated with hiring an independent consultant to do this water quality monitoring. There is no other way for the public to know that the water testing is accurate. 17.80.020(3): As I pointed out in my comments on the development agreement, property owners can't vest to storm water drainage regulations, regardless of the language of that agreement. Here, it states that the developer will only be required to capture and treat the storm water to the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington" before discharge. Does this mean that the County acknowledges that the developer is not vested to stormwater regulations? 17.80.020(3)(b) and (d): So the County states that there shall be no discharge of sewage or bilge waters at the marina, and that fish cleaning can't take place in the controlled access areas of the marina. There doesn't appear to be any program that the developer is required to adopt to enforce this. These are issues that will be difficult for the County to enforce with limited time and resources. In 3(n): What does it mean that "the marina operations shall collect water quality data from State sources so long as available ... " The County should be charging the developer for the County's costs relating to hiring an independent consultant to perform this water quality testing. These conditions are drafted so that the developer can claim that it isn't required to comply -- and instead, it is the "marina operator" who hasn't complied with the conditions. It is important to identify the entity/individual that the County will bring its enforcement action against if these conditions are not met. 17.80.020(4)(b): Again, "the golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by the County, as a result of the water quality monitoring program ..." More details are needed, such as the entity/individual that must perform this condition should be identified. The development agreement has added language that prohibits the public from enforcing the terms and conditions of development approval, so the public's hands are tied if the County does nothing. 17.80.020(4)(d): The location(s) for water quality testing to take place should be identified so that it can be determined whether or not the developer is complying with the prohibition on any storm water discharge into Hood Canal. 17.80.020(5): We question why the developer would comply with this condition, requiring calculation of greenhouse gases, if all it was required to do is "identify techniques to mitigate such emissions." Clearly, there is no need to identify any techniques if there is no requirement to actually implement them. 17.80.020(6): This section is not enforceable. The County can't enforce a requirement that the developer "strive" to do anything. MEMO 2-8-18 17.80.020(6)(h) The conservation easement is granted to Jefferson County, and the County is required to "prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement and to require restoration of the Easement Area damaged by activity or use that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement." In other words, the County is required to spend public funds to monitor this easement and address any damage to it. Apparently, this is the only consideration obtained by the County in exchange for the MPR and its concessions to the developer in the development agreement. 17.80.030: Did the environmental documents address the impacts associated with 890 residential units? Is there something in these documents which requires not less than 65 percent of the total units be "short term visitor accommodation units?" What is the County's enforcement plan for determining whether or not the developer has short term visitor accommodation that constitutes less than 65 percent of the total units? It will likely be difficult for the County to monitor all sales and rentals to determine whether or not this condition is satisfied. 17.80.060: What is the duration of the MPR? We already know that the County doesn't plan to impose any deadlines on the construction of any phase, and so the development agreement could be in place for 100 years or more (whatever is 5 years longer than the completion of all phases). Under 17.80.070(1)(i), the Planning Staff can even grant extensions to the non -deadlines for timing of approved development." 17.80.070: The procedure for the adoption of development regulations and a development agreement associated with the adoption of development regulations is le 'siglative. not quasi- judicial. Take a look at 18.15.129. Here, the County plans to adopt a quasi-judicial procedure to amend legislative development regulations. This is like establishing a procedure for the adoption of development regulations that is legislative (and follows all procedures for the adoption of development regulations in a GMA County), but allowing the planning staff or hearing examiner to modify the same development regulations through an administrative, quasi-judicial process. 17.80.080: Again, the County provides a quasi judicial procedure that will purportedly amend legislatively adopted development regulations. Apparently, the County recognizes this problem in (2), and states that if the proposed major revision involves a change to the boundaries of the MPR zone, a comprehensive plan amendment is also required, and it is processed as a legislative action. This doesn't cure the fact that other revisions (major and minor) are still described as a quasi-judicial procedure. It is difficult to understand how these procedures mesh with the development agreement, which requires that "the Board of County Commissioners must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public hearing." 9 MEMO 2-8-18 17.85.010: Here, it states that a MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the applicant fails to meet the conditions in the approved phasing plan. Apparently, the developer can take 50 years to construct a phase, but the MPR is only null and void if the developer fails to meet some other condition of the approved phasing plan. This needs to be eliminated so that it is not interpreted as some exclusive basis for enforcement. The County can revoke the MPR for other reasons. 18.15.129: Here is the procedure for approval of a MPR. If the County wants to establish criteria for amendment (major or minor), this criteria should be in chapter 18.15. Otherwise, it appears that the County is establishing different criteria for major and minor amendments only for the Pleasant Harbor MPR in chapter 17.85. Why are the criteria for a major amendment of the Pleasant Harbor MPR in 17.80.080(1)(a) through 0) different from the criteria for the original MPR approval in 18.15.1357 The danger in establishing different criteria for a major amendment is that the developer may propose a smaller, less, intense development initially, and then once approved, use the less stringent criteria for a major amendment to obtain massive changes to the original MPR. The procedure for approval for a major revision should not be different from the original approval of a MPR. In 17.80.080, the Planning Commission has been eliminated from the legislative process. In 18.15.132, the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes recommendations. If the activity is legislative, there is no deadline for a final decision (as would otherwise be required by RCW 36.70B.080), so it appears that the reason the Planning Commission has been removed from the process is to reduce public awareness of changes proposed within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Staff version of the development regulations. cc: Client 10 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGF' Parks and Recreation Impacts nt Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP is designed to identify those park and h the development of the Pleasant Harbor eview by the County. igraph 63(c) which provided a condition dment MLA 06-87 that the Developer or memoranda of agreement (MOAs) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Service (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and recreation and transit ... WHEREAS, the November 27, 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort (2007 FEIS) provided the following commentary: 2.4.1 Recreation on Hood Canal The state recreational areas near the proposed master plan are both significant and popular, with more than one-half million visitors to the area annually, principally in the summer season. Washington State Parks has developed a Management Plan for the state - managed parks in the Dosewallips Area, near Brinnon: Dosewallips State Park, 424.5-acres/5,500 feet of shoreline - has picnicking, hiking, boating, fishing, public recreational shellfishing for oysters, clams, crabs, shrimp (387,221 visitors in 2004); Triton Cove State Park, 28.5 acres/593 feet of shoreline - has picnicking, shore fishing, public recreational shellfishing, and boating (42,212 visitors in 2004); Pleasant.Harbor State Park, 1 acre/1 00 feet of shoreline - has sheltered moorage (2,439 visitors in 2004); Toandos Peninsula, with 1 0,000 feet of shoreline, has public recreational shellfishing with boat access; 01/09/2018 1 Page 64 of 69 Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory on the tip of Pt. Whitney has a boat launch available for public use. Right Smart Cove, 1 acre/200 feet of shoreline - has kayaking and limited access. An on-line version of the approved June 2006 Dosewallips State Park Area Management Plan may be obtained at: http://www.parks.wa.gov/plans/dose/Dosewallips%20Fina1%20PIan.pdf. See also the Dosewallips State Park web site at http://www.parks.wa.gov/parkpage.asp?selectedpark=Dosewallips. Additionally, the state-owned Duckabush Tidelands, located off US HWY 101 about 3.9 miles south of Brinnon, are open year-round for public recreational shellfish harvesting. 2007 FEIS at p. 2-7. 2.5 The Olympic Mountains The other outstanding natural and recreational features of the area are the Olympic Mountains, and its combination of National Forest, National Park, and recreation areas. The Brinnon Subarea includes access to the Olympics through three trailhead systems: the Duckabush and thSJD.Qsew,lli s to the north, and the Hama o the south T' e Seal Rock Park campgroun , ocated just orth of Brinnon, pr ides public access to the shoreline. The U.S. Forest Service, and the Olympic National Park by the National Park Service manage the Olympic National Forest. Significant information about both systems is available on line: Olympic National Forest website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/olympic/ Olympic National Park website: http://www.nps.gov/olym Published reports identify more than four million tourists per year visit the National Forest and National Park annually, and here again, the use is heavily skewed to the tourist season from May to October. See: http://www.olympicpeninsula.org/research.html. Access to the Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park will be one of the attractions of the resort. 2007 FEIS at p.2-8. 2- 01/09/2018 1 Page 65 of 69 WHEREAS, the County Parks are listed in Table 4.1 of the 2015 update of the Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS PLAN) which is repeated below: Table 4.1 Jefferson County Parra Acres PlanningGeographic Area Location Map NTIGlBORHOCRL1 PARKS Xlap4.2 Colut'.v Cow'th u^e "ark 0 W or, Tot. -m -end NT -i hmulale Conunuruty-Park 3.0 Port Iidlock r-2 QLiilcene River &- Bat* Park East 2.0 10 cene Sub -total 7,0 CC i i 1 'i;l t ii I1 ° iT4 Map 43 Bola Bates Field 12.0 6 Port?-itdlock C-1 Cape George Tra lhead 43.0 2 Fort Totvrlsend C-2 Cl-amacum Cotuttt- Park 14.0 b chem taint C-3 East Beach County- Park 1.0 3 1lirrowstcme Island C-4 I-Udz County Park m Shim 1.0 SA Port Ludlow C-5 Iron s le Beach Count-' Park 12.5 4 Port Hadlock C-6 Lake Leland County Park 9.0 10A Quilcene C-7 North Beach Cotult7 Park 1.0 1 Port Totkmsend C-8 ouilcene comity Park S.0 10 e„ wlcenr C-9 L.hmkene 5 its Parks Smaclmt-tlt Field 1 .0 10 C?uilcerte C-10 Sub -total 115.5 IAFCiTO AL Beausate Lake Lound Park &'4NVY' Usti ar" CAmp 30.0 6 clunhacurn R-1 Gibb, Lake Comity Park 001.0 6 ChirrLlctrnr R-'_ HT. Carroll County- Park and Trail 50.0 6 Clumacum R-3 Lam, Scott Trail 0 {5,5 nil# 1 Port T(nk7uend R-4 C1ak Bay Count v Park Loww vi 7 Port Ludlow R-5 Oak Ba,. Cotmtv Park Upper 5.0 7 Port I ndlow R-6 51111 -total 7233,0 RESC-1URCE CONSERVANC-1 NATURAL orE SPACE Map 1,4 Indian Lland C'omir. P.uk T11,11 110.0 y Port Hadlock Cr5-1 Broad spit Cotuxty Park 43. ° 10 Qtuilcene Total Conservancv 153.5 RECREATIC)N FaCILMI=S SPECIAL USE AREAS sag # efxersan Cotult5' Memor al ;titletic Field 5.0 1 Port Tokm5,1nd Jeff ersonCounty Fair 'oun& 2i.f 1 PortTovmrAnd SU -2 e€ erson Count, Horse Park 50.0 2 Mini , r SU -3 ConumutitV Centers Port Tot4zt end Corttmmuty Center 1:0 1 Port Tots mSen+.'l SU -4 Brim -ton Conunurtit*1 Center NTA 11 Brinnon SU -5 Cosqe Comnuu itt-Center fi turel B. ohmorr) 1.0 9 South Toanodos SU -6 Gardiner Contnturuty Center 2.0 5A Gardner SU -7 Tri -Area Coumnu itv Center 1_0 4 Port F3adlock SU -8 Quilcene Conttmuury Center 1.1 10 Quilcene 9 Total Recreation Facilities 122.8 TOTAL jEFFERSO COUNT -1 PARKS 1,15:.2 WHEREAS, although the County does not provide local parks in Brinnon, the service area of the County's regional. parks as defined in the PROS PLAN encompasses the Developer's Property. 3- 01/09/2018 1 Page 66 of 69 WHEREAS, the County's regional parks such as Indian Island Park, Gibbs Lake Park, HJ Carroll. Park, Broad Spit Park, Lake Leland. Park, and North Beach Park, are highly accessible and attractive to day use recreationalist such as guests at the Developer's Property. WHEREAS, the County's regional parks do not require a State of Washington Discover Pass, National Forest Service Pass, or National Parks Access Pass, making them more accessible. WHEREAS, the County, state and federal facilities are supported by a combination of tax dollars and fees for service. WHEREAS, the Resort is expected to provide a significant property and sales tax revenue and guests of the Resort need to pay any day or use fee for the park and recreation facilities used. WHEREAS, neither the County nor State or Federal services have identified an impact fee basis for use of public parks and use of the parks is encouraged as part of the attraction of Jefferson County. WHEREAS, mitigation can best be addressed by facilitating use and reducing parking and associated impacts of individual use by providing shuttle and transit services. WHEREAS, the Resort also provides a residence for tourists, which supplement the camping facilities that are often full. WHEREAS, in 201.7, the County General Fund, which funds Jefferson. County Parks Recreation, receives 18.2% of all real property tax generated in the County. As the Resort builds out this percentage is expected to remain relatively constant. WHEREAS, with the Developer's Property expected to create a property cost in excess of $300,000,000 at build out of the resort, which adds substantially to the l" ssessed value of the County, the incremental property tax. revenue to the County is xpected to more than cover any incremental costs attributable to patron's use of tax pported parks and recreation facilities in addition to fees charged for service or use. AGREEMENT V 1. Definitions. a. "County" means Jefferson County, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. b. "Developer" means Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership, including its successors and assigns. 4- 01/09/2018 1 Page 67 of 69 Draft: November 7, 2017 Water Quality Monitoring Plan - For Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort January 8, 2018 IAP + 4,M OAN CO, i - A, 01 /09/2018 1 Page 1 of 9 0-1 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Table of Contents Draft: November 7, 2017 Tableof Contents.............................................................................................................................. 2 WaterQuality Monitoring Plan......................................................................................................... 3 I. Part of Development Agreement................................................................................................ 3 II. Ordinance Requirement for a Water Quality Monitoring Plan .............................................. 3 III. Use Designation...................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Numerous Potential Impacts on Water Quality in and around Pleasant Harbor .................... 3 V. Comparison of Water -Related Impacts of Current and Planned Development by Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP Compared to Other Operations in the Area .................................... 4 VI. Performance Standards........................................................................................................... 4 VII. Pleasant Harbor Sampling...................................................................................................... 5 B. Surface Water Quality Criteria............................................................................................... 5 VIII. Black Point Groundwater.................................................................................................... f X. Quality Assurance/Quality Control........................................................................................ 7 XI. Sampling Management........................................................................................................... 7 2 of 9 01 /09/2018 1 Page 2 of 9 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Draft: November 7, 2017 Water Quality Monitoring Plan I. Part of Development Agreement This Water Quality Monitoring Plan is a part of and is enforceable under the Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP, the developer of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in Brinnon, Washington. The primary goq i this Water Quality Monitoring Plan is to comply with Ordinance No. 01-0128- 08 Condition 63- is to establish the requirements for a comprehensive water quality monitory plan to provide a means of ensuring that the Resort does not add to any existing water quality Y challenges. To that end, this Water Quality Monitoring Plan provides a system to verify that the no impact plan of the Resort is and will be effective to protect sensitive natural resources. H. Ordinance Requirement for a Water Quality Monitoring Plan Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 Condition 63-R requires the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort to prepare and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan: A County -based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site- specific action, utilizing the best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program. III. Use Designation Per WAC 173-201A-600 and WAC 173-201A-610, Pleasant Harbor carries an "Extraordinary" marine water quality use designation. IV. Numerous Potential Impacts on Water Quality in and around Pleasant Harbor In addition to the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina and the proposed resort to be built by Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP (Resort), there are a number of other uses that potentially could negatively impact water quality in Pleasant Harbor other than the Resort. These include, but are not limited to: Home Port Marina in Pleasant Harbor; 2. Vessels anchored in Pleasant Harbor, sometimes unattended for weeks or months; 3. Land owned by the State of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), including a WDFW boat launch; 4. At least 6 private docks; 3 of 9 01/09/2018 1 Page 3 of 9 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Draft: November 7, 2017 5. Private development owned by a number of persons, including at least 10 private residence structures on septic systems visible from the water, in lung one house owned by Pleasant Harbor Marina; !! 6. Septic system failures in the Duckabush nd Dos ewallips River watersheds; 7. On-going construction on at least one building site on the southeastern bluff of the U.,. Comparison of ater-Related Impacts of Current and Planned Development by r Marina and Resort LLP Compared to Other Operations in the S r Area C 1. The new WDFW public boat launch sees increased use each year, includingSeesiecommercialusebyTribalfisheries. n 2. With the improvements at the parking area and access to the State Park dock nearv /the entrance of the harbor, the dock attracts more visitors; f 3. The proposed Master Planned Resort development will not increase the number of moorage slips; 4. Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced and improved fuel dock and fuel systems to meet strict environmental requirements; 5. Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced and improved the marine sewage pump out system to offer more pump out stations and more reliable equipment to the public; 1 6. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently offers the only pump out service and fuel for visiting boaters in Central Hood Canal; 7. Pleasant Harbor Marina strictly enforces Best Management Practices (BMP's) including a no discharge policy concerning black water, contaminated bilge water, fuel, oil or any r / rather chemicals hazardous to the environment; 8. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently is recognized as a Washington Clean Marina and has achieved the EnviroStar Clean Marina certification; 1 9. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently publishes a monthly newsletter with information einforcing the BMP's of the Marina; 10. The Resort Development will follow strict environmental standards during and after construction. In the context of the affected environment described above, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP (Resort) proposes to participate in a program to monitor the impact of developments, both private and public, to the water quality of Pleasant Harbor. VI. Performance Standards 1. The Resort will not cause a violation of any water quality criteria. p 4 of 9 e 01/09/2018 1 Page 4 of 9 r t Water Quality Monitoring Plan Draft: November 7, 2017 2. Prior to the date of application of the application for the first development permit, the Resort must provide a report to the Jefferson County Public Health's Water Quality Division JCWQ) of the best management practices to be applied so that when all appropriate combinations of individual best management practices are utilized, the Resort will not cause a violation of water quality criteria. 3. Best management practices for the Resort established in pursuant to this Water Quality Monitoring Plan permits, orders, rules, or directives of Ecology or JCWQ shall be reviewed annually and shall and modified, as appropriate, so as to achieve compliance with water quality criteria. 4. If the Resort is applying all best management practices appropriate or required by the Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") or JCWQ and a violation of water quality criteria occurs, the Resort shall notify JCWQ within 48 hours. 5. For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort. 6. If any violation of water quality criteria occurs, the Resort shall modify existing best management practices or apply further water pollution control measures, selected or approved by Ecology or JCWQ, to achieve compliance with water quality criteria. 7. Activities which potentially contribute to nonpoint source pollution shall be conducted utilizing best management practices to prevent violation of water quality criteria. 8. Activities which potentially cause pollution of stormwater shall be conducted so as to comply with the water quality criteria. The primary means to be used for requiring compliance with the water quality criteria shall be through best management practices required by Ecology or JCWQ for activities which generate stormwater pollution. 9. Performance standards will meet Washington State Ecology requirements in WAC 173-201A and 173-200 as appropriate and as may be revised. 10. Methodology and Quality Assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the best management practices for this program are approved. VII. Pleasant Harbor Sampling A. Locations 1. Initial sampling locations will be the THREE locations identifies as points 1, 2 and 5 on Figure 2 (page 3) of Appendix 2 of the 2007 DEIS (copy attached). 2. Sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies, to avoid duplication of effort data from other agencies may be used if possible. B. Surface Water Quality Criteria Table 1 below illustrates proposed water quality parameter goals for the marine sampling locations in Pleasant Harbor based on WAC 173-201A-210. Table 1 5 of 9 01/09/2018 1 Page 5 of 9 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Schedule Comments Pre -construction Draft: November 7 2017 Water Quality Parameter Category Criteria Ecology Regu____1__a_t__i__o____i__n____s__ As analyses are evaluated and results are favorable, the sampling can be modified with approval from JCW Within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with ag WAC 173-201A- Aquatic Life pH Extraordinary human -caused variation of less than ! 0.2 units a -- -- 210(1)(f) Turbidity must not exceed: 5 NTU over background when Aquatic Life Turbidity background is 50 NTU or less: orExtraordinary WAC 173 -201A - A 10 percent increase inturbidity 210(1)(e) when the background turbidity is Aquatic y than 50 NTU Life Dissolved Oxygen DO more Extraordinary07.0 mg/L for lowest 1 -day minimum AW173-21A- 210(1)(d) Aquatic Life Temperature Extraordinary ' 13 degrees Celsius for highest 1 -day WAC 173-201A- maximum (1-DMax) 210(1)(c) Fecal coliform organism levels must s not exceed a geometric mean value Water Contact Recreation of 14 colonies/100ml, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or WAC 173 -201A - Bacteria Criteria any single sample when less than ten 210(3)(b) sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean i--___--------•--•---=-_value exceeding 43 colonies/100mL C. Monitoring Schedule Phase Schedule Comments Pre -construction Quarterly Establish baseline conditions in marine waters of Pleasant Harbor Construction Monthly Monitor water quality during construction Post -Construction Monthly As analyses are evaluated and results are favorable, the sampling can be modified with approval from JCW VIII. Black Point Groundwater A. Sampling Location and Frequency Developer shall also conduct semi-annual sampling from MW 2, MWS, MW 7 and MW 8 depicted on Figure 1 of the map prepared by the Subsurface Group LLC. Sampling shall begin no later than the date of the application for the first development permit. Developer shall sample groundwater for primary and secondary contaminants list in Table 1 of WAC 173-200-040. w oj 0Y ( 5v-e 0 11..E d z, 6 of 9 it U2' " `- ` ! J L) 01 /09/20181 Page 6 of 9 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Draft: November 7, 2017 Sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable groundwater standards for a period of five years. B. Criteria Sample results shall be compared to Washington groundwater standards set forth in WAC 173- 200-040. IX. Reporting of Sampling Results. Sampling results must be reported to JCWQ immediately, but no later than within 48 hours after receipt by the Resort. X. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data submitted must include verification of appropriate Quality Assurance/Quality Control QA/QC). To meet this requirement, the Resort must prepare a Quality Assurance Plan (QAPP) in accordance with the requirements of the latest version of Ecology's Publication No. 04-03-030, December 2016 Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies and the most recent versions of EPA Documents QA/R-5, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, and QA/G-5, Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. See Ecology's Publication No. 04-03-030, Appendix D. A template for an acceptable QAPP is in Ecology's Publication No. 04-03-030, Appendix K. XI. Sampling Management This water quality monitoring plan may be modified based on an analysis of results, comparison of existing data sources and consultation with JCWQ as results exceeding applicable water quality criteria are analyzed. The monitoring plan may be revised over time so that it remains effective, complies with applicable law, and industry standards. Examples of revisions that may be addressed include but are not limited to: 1. Sampling sites may be added or removed depending on appropriateness of sampling locations to final design; 2. Monitoring schedule may be modified based on the evaluation of results; 3. Updated or improved sampling techniques based on new technology; and, 4. Revise parameters to reflect changes in existing environmental concerns. 7of9 01/09/2018 1 Page 7 of 9 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Draft: November 7, 2017 8 of 9 01/09/2018 1 Page 8 of 9 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 12, 20. ANN& 10 21.23, W. 04 10.11, 22. 44, 45 1) Well locations are approximate. Domestic well location.; typically to nearest quarter quarter unless better known- 2) nown2) See Appen x for well lags Draft: November 7, 2017 Monitoring WeU Location (NAV = moratonnv bell: VNXT = u bratiuns wire pieicuneter Water Supply X1 ell Locafa m u b S U rf a c e Group, Pleasant Harborl'Marina and Golf Resort Domestic Well and -03 LLC Groun&vc ter Impact Evaluation Monitoring well Statesnian Corporation Locations Figure t 01/09/2018 1 PaU e 9 of 9 Patty Charnas kv V) From: From: Dianne Hammons <dhammonspt@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:39 PM To: Patty Charnas Subject: Re: MPR (This article is recently published in Seattle Times about dangers of Atlantic Salmon https://www.seattletimes.comiseattle-news/environmentlwashington-state-cancels-lease-for-atlantic salmon farm -off -cypress -island/ I know you're incredibly busy but this speaks to the legality of Atlantic Salmon Pens by WA State. Thank you for your time and consideration, Dee Sunalee Hammons To c Patty Charnas EAR From: Whitney Gardens < info@whitneygardens.com > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:42 AM To: Patty Charnas Dear Jefferson County, Re: The Purposed development at Black Point When Garth Mann indicates in his rhetoric the "Mayor of Brinnon", what a disconnect of understanding for this area. He has continued to make public comments, while at community meetings, about putting all of Brinnon out of business. To gift" a Recreational Center to the community while placing this building in his gated development, with a price tag for it's use, while enhancing his pockets on his terms is "not a gift". To indicate the whole community needs this development for its' Health Care is ludicrous. We have had Health Care for years without his intervention/development. He also indicates, the only people who disagree with this development don't live here. That is a bunch of Elk do do. After these many years, we all keep hoping this nightmare will disappear. Eleanor Sather Whitney Gardens Brinnon, Washington Virus -free. www.avq.com EAPINGeffbocc RECOP- From: Sent: To: Subject: Jefferson County Public Officials: ncecil583@aol.com Monday, February 19, 2018 1:28 PM jeffbocc Pleasant Harbor Resort I am a property owner in Brinnon Wa. I have been an owner here for almost 30yrs. and my home is located at Pleasant Harbor. I can't imagine why the Pleasant Harbor Resort is not already completed and providing Brinnon and Jefferson County with the badly needed revenue resources from the obvious enrichment of year round tourism and job growth. I look at the health of our State and our surrounding counties and wonder what's going on here? We need/Jefferson County needs more resources and support for all of our communities (fire, police, school, parks, recreation etc., etc.). to survive. This project would certainly help. We can not survive on the existing tax base alone. I am in favor of this project and hope that others understand that this project is in fact good for all! Concerned Brinnon/Jefferson County full time resident. My opinion, Nick Cecil Brinnon, Wa. 9. From: Miriam Murdoch <mimimurd55@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:06 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR at Black Point Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by o injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer o destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area o drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollu Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, t wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Along with these reasons, from my experience of serving tourists as an employee of Hama Hama retail store and as former Air BNB host, I know that people come here to get out of the hustle bustle, hike into our beautiful wilderne: up the valleys, enjoy the pristine waters and abundant shellfish and wildlife, see the stars at night and enjoy a quiet night's sleep. This is timber country. I can drive down 101 and pass 5 or 6 loaded log trucks within 6 miles. This is a 2 lane hiway; logging is here to stay; any car who hits one of those trucks LOSES! We do not need a mega resort and gol course in this cleanest part of Hood Canal The marina and restaurant are perfect. Let's leave it Pleasant! Miriam Murdoch Brinnon 1.9 teeY ' I 0 hEARING RECORDCharnas Say From: Miriam Murdoch <mimimurd55@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:21 PM To: Patty Charnas Fi P w 3 2018 Subject: Black Point MPR Dear Ms Charnas, I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by o injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer o destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area o drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Along with these reasons, from my experience of serving tourists as an employee of Hama Hama retail store and as a former Air BNB host, I know that people come here to get out of the hustle bustle, hike into our beautiful wilderness up the valleys, enjoy the pristine waters and abundant shellfish and wildlife, see the stars at night and enjoy a quiet night's sleep. This is timber country. I can drive down 101 and pass 5 or 6 loaded log trucks within 6 miles. This is a 2 lane hiway; logging is here to stay; any car who hits one of those trucks LOSES! We do not need a mega resort and golf course in this cleanest part of Hood Canal The marina and restaurant are perfect. Let's leave it Pleasant! Miriam Murdoch Brinnon From: Tim Lewis <zooterincm@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 9:42 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: resort I am in favor of the Pleasant Harbor Resort. The entire state of Washington teeters on needing help to survive. How could the area of Brinnon be so lucky to have an influx of prosperity as good as this? Road improvment, Fire suppression, school funds, Jobs for the locals as well as craftsmen from all over the state and a steady income for every business in the area. More business might be built for services and supply. Would it be nice to have a hardware store here? A new gas station with pumps you can read. A local marine supply? How about being able to just buy a chain for your chain saw? Does anyone really think that a $300M project is going to risk being put out of business by destroying the ground water or the hood canal? Some of you should look at your own back yard messes. Junk cars, washing machines, car batteries, tires, cans of old oil, rotting boats and just about anything that you would not want in the Hood Canal, however, almost every "Home" in the area has a pile of crap out back (or front). I will admit that I have one too. So, the Resort could bring us more than money, it could upscale the entire area in a way that might create a nicer and healthier neighbor hood for full or part time residents. A place with a future. It is time to stop pissing on each other, send the Lawyers back to Seattle and let the Statesman Company get on with a great project. Tim Lewis Black Point C effbocc From: Scott Culp <Scott.Culp@outlook.com> x Sent: Friday,FebruaryFebrua 23, 2018 2:07 PM; To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Planned Resort I am writing to express my support for the planned resort at Pleasant Harbor and encourage you to approve the project to go forward. Ten years ago, my wife and I purchased land in Brinnon and were excited to learn of the plans for the Pleasant Harbor resort. We considered it a boon to the area, inasmuch as it would bring jobs and investment into a part of the county that's obviously suffering. As well, we looked forward to it for our own recreational purposes. It's simply unbelievable that, after all this time, the project is still tied up in the approval process. It's hard to avoid concluding that the county is deliberately slow -rolling the process. In my view, the developers have exhibited great good faith, not to mention patience, in complying with the seemingly unending demands for more studies and plans. What unanswered questions can possibly remain after 10+ years of study? The land in question is not virgin soil; much of it was a campground until relatively recently and there are residences scattered across the proposed site. The developer's published plan reflects careful stewardship of the land and an eye for detail and quality. It's time to let it move forward. Regards, Scott Culp Brinnon, WA Sent from Mail for Windows 10 C' h? effbocc\ ; 44-1 From: cgermaine@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February27, 2018 8:15 PM To: Planning Commission Desk Cc: jeffbocc; Michael Haas Subject: MPR at Black Point As residents of Black Point across from the proposed development we have some serious concerns about the impact on Brinnon, and definitely on our property. The size and scope of this project is way too large for the area. We will list our major concerns and why we are against the current plan. 1. We have our own personal well and feel that this development could destroy our well. It is amazing as when we applied for a permit to add on 800 square feet to our home, with no increase of occupancy, the county at first said no to our using our own well to water any plants on our own property because of concern of salt water intrusion. We are careful with our water, but depend on our well as we grow most of our own fruit and vegetables. How can you approve water for a golf course and so many units? Also we read about contingencies if there is a problem with the water. They are vague and give the developer total control of what to do, taking away our rights. Without our well our property value would go way down. Also if there was a problem with our water the if the developer gave us access to his water there was no statement about if this would be free or he would charge. We have had our water tested twice and it is pristine, and we do not think testing for only a limited number of years is adequate. It needs to be for life of the project because if the development is successful more water will be used in time. 2. We bought our 5 acres to be in a quiet and peaceful spot. If the development can be built over an indefinite amount of time we are going to be subject to noises and traffic that will ruin our lovely spot at BlackPoint. Trucks will be on the small road in and out of our area, and this was not constructed for this type of traffic. Once it was finished the traffic flow and noise would change our home forever. 3. The Hood Canal is a special place for shellfish, and with such a fragile eco system we think a development of this scope is an huge risk. Already the amount of shellfish has diminished with the existing population. Thank you for taking seriously our concerns and we hope you will listen to the residence of Brinnon who will be negatively impacted by this large of a development. Sincerely, Cindy and Terry Germaine 104 Rhododendron Lane, Brinnon, Wa 2-aJ.l jeffbocc M I From: SfWhen Babuin <babuin20@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:37 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor I'd like Pleasant Harbor to expand. I've spent many weekends in Roche Harbor as a boater and love the only place from Seattle that you don't have to take a boat for three hours to get to a great place. Pleasant Harbor is literally the only great boat destination that is not in the San Juan Islands. Please take this into consideration. I love it there. Favorite local boating destination. DR STEPHEN BABUIN. Sent from my Whone c-%-a-i6 hEAPINGREC9RJ From: John and Sally Nuerenberg <NUERENBERG@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 8:23 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments Regarding Pleasant Harbor Marina Development Good Day! We would like to offer a few comments concerning the Pleasant Harbor Marina and its attempt to begin developing the area as designed. First, we know some people may be upset over an increase of traffic around the entrance of the marina, but I don't see it as an issue. The apron has been expanded with ample visibility. The only thing that might be considered in the future is a left turn lane headed South on Hightway 101 at the marina's entrance. The density of housing is also not a problem as many of the properties of single family homes have enough acreage to allow for low density; condos of course are higher density but not too many of them. Quality designing, construction, and maintenance are essential to keeping the marina and resort looking good. Residents of the area will expect nothing more. Water, sewer/septic, and electicity are not an issue. The only issue would be Internet, which is somewhat above and beyond the developer's capability. Centuryl-ink or another firm would lay fibre optic cable if they felt their were enough increased business to warrant the cost. Once laid, other non - marina residents would also benefit by gaining better Internet service. All in all, we have been very pleased that this development is progressing and can only wish them success in the building and sales/rentals of housing facilities. It will benefit the entire area. No negatives; only positives! Any questions, please don't hesitate to get back to us. John & Sally Nuerenberg 51 Birch Ct., Brinnon, WA 98320 623-975-0503 nuerenberg@msn.com From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Whom It May Concern: HEARING RCoprjs Jim Redmond <jcr_redmondl@yahoo.com> Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:44 AM jeffbocc James Redmond; Sandy Redmond Pleasant Harbor development comment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development proposal. So you know, I and my wife Sandra have permanent residence in Jefferson county in Brinnon, right at the impacted area. We have been there since 2oi5 as voting residents and many years before that as boating visitors to Pleasant Harbor. We know that part of Hood Canal verywell. In short, we are enthusiastic supporters of the development. Hood Canal in general and more specifically the Brinnon area desperately needs employment opportunities for residents. Outside of a very few restaurants (mostly biker bars really) and logging, there is no work in Brinnon area. Drugs and other illegal activity is now the leading activity in the area by far. At times it is very depressing to go to Brinnon. Getting the PH development built will dramatically change this landscape and give the region a "lift" as well as hope. I strongly encourage the BoCC to not only approve this development, but also get behind it. The'no growth' attitude of Jefferson County should and must change. Give your fellow citizens something to look forward to! We will watch this vote very carefully and hope it gets a positive outcome with little or no additional restrictions. Just to be clear, this is an important voting issue for us. Thank you for hearing us out, Sincerely, Jim & Sandy Redmond Sent from Jim's Mad From: Da ish <dalgleish@comcast.net> "r1 wI Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:04 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Community Development Comments Jeff We strongly support the planned development. We live in Kingston, but frequent the existing Marina on our boat. Some of the past improvements are in the right direction, but there is so much more potential for the site to be an asset to the community and surrounding area. It is important for the community to be able to experience the beauty and offerings of the area in multiple ways. Sports, recreation, activities, cultural exchange, economic benefit are all supported and provide for valuable future memories to be shared for the greater good. It is important that you preserve. Best Regards Ken Dalgleish ieffbocc From: Cliff'Ruthrauff <CliffUSN@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort I understand the Empire State building was completed in one year and 45 days. Cliff Ruthrauff U(,WqCft effbocc Oct> r From: Eric uhl <EricW@familytreefarms.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:55 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments To whom it may concern, I am a home owner in Brinnon on the bluffs of the Hood Canal approximately 5 to 8 minutes north of the purposed Pleasant Harbor Resort Project. My wife and I have our home on VRBO to help offset the expense of having a house in Brinnon. We use our home as much as possible for vacations alone or with family. We absolutely love coming to Brinnon and cherish its natural beauty. I believe that this aroiect without aettina overly specific is ultimatelv a aood thina. It will make Brinnon a destination for travels with much to do and much to see. The project as currently planned will result in job opportunities and permanent employment for full time Brinnon residents and others in local communities. It will bring more shopping choices, recreational activities, and emergency care for visitors, ourselves, family and guests. I hope the design of the project will allow (as promised) the Brinnon community to access some of the facilities for events, local recreation and or meetings. I pray and trust the resort will be constructed with extreme consideration for the environment and will do everything needed to maintain and not pollute or litter this treasured location of the North West. I believe in the long run when the project becomes successful, Brinnon's popularity will increase resulting in our property values going up, and I don't think that is a bad thing. In closing I am in favor of the project as long as the environment is not unnecessarily sacrificed or abused. Sincerely, Eric Eric Wuhl 32447 Rd 60 Visalia, CA 93291 USA Mobile: (559) 305-5004 Phone: (559) 651-0663 Fax: (559) 651-0664 Email: EricW familytreefarms.com CC` Cc t / Jeffbocc From: Jim Boldt <duckabushcommunications@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:40 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Folks, I am writing to support and encourage Jefferson County to finally, approve this project. Our community is literally in the middle of nowhere. There a few jobs short of supporting the influx of summer visitors. The Resort Project has been reduced to a respectable project that will fit well within the profile of our area. It will provide a few jobs that are sorely needed. And, it will safely develop an area that now supports nothing but third growth timber and neglected roads and buildings of a former camp ground. I support the project. thank you Jim Boldt Jim Boldt President, Duckabush Communications/Public Affairs 40600 Hwy 101 North Lilliwaup, Washington 98555 253-797-1617 The STAND a person takes on an issue is usually determined by where they SIT for dinner!" Please consider our environment before printing this document. The information contained in this message and its attachments is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. This information may be privileged and confidential in nature and protected bylaw, including litigant contractual matters and copyright. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please delete the message with its attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank you. jeffbocc'` From: 6dh Mann <Garth.Mann@statesmangroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:02 PM To: Jim Boldt; jeffbocc Subject: RE: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Thank you Jim. Please plan on speaking April 9th before the Board of County Commissioners in Port Townsend and let them know the importance of attracting clean tourist orientated business to Jefferson County. The community will eventually disappear if employment is not available. Thanks M. Garth Mann From: Jim Boldt [mailto:duckabushcommunications@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 12:40 PM To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Folks, I am writing to support and encourage Jefferson County to finally, approve this project. Our community is literally in the middle of nowhere. There a few jobs short of supporting the influx of summer visitors. The Resort Project has been reduced to a respectable project that will fit well within the profile of our area. It will provide a few jobs that are sorely needed. And, it will safely develop an area that now supports nothing but third growth timber and neglected roads and buildings of a former camp ground. I support the project. thank you Jim Boldt Jim Boldt President, Duckabush Communications/Public Affairs 40600 Hwy 101 North Lilliwaup, Washington 98555 253-797-1617 The STAND a person takes on an issue is usually determined by where they SIT for dinner!" Please consider our environment before printing this document. The information contained in this message and its attachments is intended only for the reciplent(s) named above. This information may be privileged and confidential in nature and protected by law, including litigant contractual matters and copyright If the reader of this messag& is not the intended recipient, any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. Ifyou received this communication in error, please delete the message with its attachments and notify the sender Immediately. Thank you. cC t C(\ 57, p#t t' MAR 0 12018 3/1/2018 TO: Jefferson County Commissioners: Kier and Dean SUBJECT: Pleasant Harbor Recreational Community During the past several years, the Community of Brinnon has benefited from its generous, Corporate Neighbor, Pleasant Harbor Marina/Statesman Corporation. Pleasant Harbor Marina (PHM) not only has contributed financially to Shrimpfest annually but also provides it's Van for local transportation during the Event. Since the remodel of the Marina Complex, PHM has offered Summer Jobs to our teens and has increased its seasonal employee base. It's food service offering has added both the boating and road traveling public, a great place to stop and relax in an extraordinary setting. PHM personnel have responded to several projects needing attention at Brinnon School. Be it painting or light construction, PHM employees have been loyal volunteers responding to the School needs. PHM has offered Brinnon School's summer program it swimming pool, during the school's s Summer Program . Brinnon Park and Recreation District looks forward to working with the Pleasant Harbor Recreation Community in developing community fitness programs for all of South County citizens. We will all benefit from Statesman's long history of successful retirement community development. I am going to venture to say that every U.S. County in this Country would do anything possible to attract the Statesman Corporation to invest in their Community. Let's work together and create a FUTURE for Jefferson County, Washington and get this Project going. y 348C5wallipsRoad, Brinnon, Washington TO: Jefferson County Commissioners: Kier and . . soft Pleasant Harbor Recreational Community' ' 2018l Positive Development for Brinnon and Jefferson County" F E R Concern about Water: Ae f r.. p_yxp The Pleasant Harbor Recreational Community will draw most of its water from an aquifer located under its property. There is concern among Duckabush residents that the Resort will lower the valley's water table and adversely affect existing wells. The USGS Washington Water Science Center charts daily, real time water flow on most Washington Rivers. From 2008 to 2016 the Duckabush River annual flow rate averaged 438 cubic feet per second. (7.48 cubic feet per gallon x 438 = 3054 gallons per second... 183,240 gallons per minute, 1,099,200 gallons per hour and 26,380,800 gallons per day.) 2018 will be a" close to record" year for snow the Olympics.( This is just surface water) The hydraulic water pressure from the Eastern Olympics along Hood Canal allow wells drilled along Highway 101 that serve all of the development along Eastern Hood Canal with high quality water year around. The designed reservoir (400,000 gallons) serving the Community Development could replace is entire capacity daily and use .02% of the River's average 9 year daily (24 hour) flow rate. By design, the Resort will reclaim almost all of it water.. Once it is in operation, the water draw from the aquifer will be seriously reduced. Concern about Size: In order to incorporate all the desired "state of the art" environmental engineered water, waste water and power technologies, size of the Recreation Community becomes a factor. The reduction of size of both the golf course and the Community development is a major consideration by the developer given to those who oppose the project. The Government is not building this project. Private Investment is... Private Investment needs to see a return on investment. Private Investment drives the health of the American Economy. This project replaces a 500 unit RV Park that had a series of conventional septic systems. It is precisely the type of development we need in rural Jefferson County in order to employ both our contemporary work force and our retired aged workers that need to continue to work. it also complies with the Brinnon Sub area Plan developed by the community during the 1999-2002 GMA Process. The Statesman Corp has a solid reputation for quality building projects in Canada. Size of this project started at over 1200 units and is now just above 800. Statesman has done due diligence in answering the additional EIS considerations put forth by Jefferson County. Considering Traffic on Highway 101: In 2012 the State estimated that there were 1.6 million vehicles traveled highway 101 through Brinnon and Quilcene. I could not locate current numbers but they are probably higher. For the 28 years that I have lived in Jefferson County, sales tax leakage to bordering counties has been a hot topic. We don't have the business infrastructure for Jefferson County citizens to spend their money here. The Pleasant Harbor Project represents business infrastructure. The traveling public will have a reason to stop and spend money benefiting all of Jefferson County. During the debate on traffic impacts, no one considered water transportation. With the addition of the Pleasant Harbor project to the already established Alderbrook Resort, water transportation could become a viable option. Considering the County's Economy: Jefferson County has been hit hard by several economic factors: The Federal Forest policy(enacted in the 90's)which curtailed timber cutting on Forest Service lands has severally impacted County revenues and South County Jobs. County Leaders who opted the County into the GMA process in the 90's never considered the long term effects/costs of forcing "dense/urban" growth standards on rural zoned County land. Jefferson County is a Western Washington leader keeping its "claimed" unemployment percentage above 8%. (Currently our rate is low as families leave Jefferson County in order to work... negatively impacting school student counts) Over 50% of children enrolled in our public schools qualify for free/reduced meals.. (90% in Brinnon) The Statesman Corporation is offering Jefferson County an opportunity to reverse 20 plus years of economic neglect. The build out of the project will produce badly needed property tax revenues, JOBS and youth employment opportunities that don't exist presently in South County. The project infrastructure will be an example of "next" generation development. County needs to move NOW on this project. Statesman has answered the Commissioner's s. Let's get to work! Brinnon, Washington Z12, is / i 55- Robert Mitchell 4ARING RECOR 10 4246 Duckabush Rd MAR 01 2018 Brinnon, Wa. Planning Commisioners DCD Development Regulations Meeting 02/21/18 Thank you for your hard work. FFERSON COUNTY In the original EIS the proposed Build Out Period was 4-7 years. In the HIS and Supplementary HIS it grew to 10-15 years at the Developer's request. Now DCD has changed this to 25 years or 5 years after the completion of all phases. Because here is NO Deadline for the completion of any phases the county is giving the developer a Perpetual Agreement. The Eis's are all horribly outdated. The Traffic Study in particular. This binds the county to these out dated studies. This does not allow for future changes in code that may arise as new ecological impacts and any other threat to the health and safety of our citizens are realized. This is all to the advantage of the Developer and does not protect the citizens. Not only have we citizens been subjected to a process that has dragged on for 15 years because of the Developer's actions but will subject the surrounding areas and citizens to undo hardship, loss of quality of life and utility of our properties, for as long as the Developer wants. What about our rights? J-4 From: Al Paulsen <alanplsn@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:40 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project I am strongly against this project. It will affect my property taxes. I moved to Brinnon in 1990 for the solitude and this project will destroy Brinnon's solitude. Also, I don't believe they will find people willing to come to Brinnon in the winter months and this place will go bankrupt. Then we will be stuck with a decaying property. Thank you for your time. Alan Paulsen Sent from AOL Mobile Mail r wr, From: Cheryl D. Petrick <cd4petrick@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 6:07 PM To: jeffbocc To whom it may concern, I'm sending this email to express my disappointment in the amount of time it has taken this project to go forward. The areas of concern have been addressed and taken care of. What's the hold up? This is an upscale development that will bring not only employment opportunities to our community but areas of activities that would benefit local residents. I see this as only a positive addition to our community. Let's get this project up and running. No more dragging your feet!!!! CDP effbocc Ir... Mwrnn From: Jeannie Ianelli <jeannie.ianelli@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 6:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina Project Hello, We bought a house on Hood Canal, in Brinnon one year ago. We love our new place. We have moored our sailboat at Pleasant Harbor Marina and enjoyed eating at the Marina restaurant from time to time. We support the Marina project. The new version of it is reasonable and well -thought out. It's significantly scaled back from the original project, taking into consideration all of the different constituencies involved. We would definitely take advantage of the new facilities that the project would add and feel that it would be a great complement to the area. We, obviously, enjoy the natural beauty of the Canal and the Olympic Park. Having more opportunities for community and sports activities, as well as enhancing the current marina facility, would only make the area better. Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope it passes. Thank you. Jeannie Ianelli 1 r. effbocc From: Ted Williams <t.mwilliams@frontier.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:35 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Hello, I own a home in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor Resort.I have watched for nearly 10 years for this project to be completed. I have grand kids, friends and family that too are awaiting for this project to be completed. I have read a lot of material on this project and am trying to understand why this is taking so long to complete. It is such a beautiful location with so much to offer to our local population as well as visitors. The Resort would also offer such a positive economic to the local region. It is my understanding that those owning the resort have me all requirements which have been scaled way down from the original plans I saw. If you could please share with my why this is taking so long and if there is an ETA on completion of this project. Thanks, Ted Williams Jefferson County Board opcounty Commissioners, 0effbocc(@co Jefferson wa us) M I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for thhC10% ss / reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer, destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, anS&wing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Additional Comments Signature, Printed Named Address 131, C C. CAN P. O. BOX 8 ENVI } NME`A lnteri<a' rnique Heritage 7 > SEABECK. WASHINGTON 98380 i VEDl MAR 0 2 2058 FFA R, ON r,9 February 25, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Court House P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Public Comment Period - Draft Development Agreement and Draft Development Regulations for Proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Attn: Commissioners Kathleen Kier, David Sullivan and Kate Dean: At the February 7, 2018 meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC), the county's Director of the Department of Community Development, Patty Charnas, announced start and end dates for a 60 day period for public comments on the above-named documents. Ms. Charnas also stated that this comment period might be extended by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) beyond the April 9, 2018 deadline. The Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) firmly believes that there are several good reasons to extend the public comment period. At the PC meeting on February 21, 2018, Commission members voted to continue their involvement in the decision-making process by resuming their review of the drafts, and spending as much time as they deem necessary to adequately address a number of unresolved and controversial issues surrounding the proposed MPR. Some of the issues discussed by the PC members were procedural in nature. Chief among these issues is the timing of the adoption of the development regulations and approval of the development agreement. Another issue of concern involves the 25 year buildout period. Controversial issues concerning the proposed MPR are not limited to process, but include a number of environmental and economic concerns as well. These include the still undecided plan on how to treat the kettles, assigning responsibility for water quality monitoring and enforcement, determining whether the economic analyses need to be revisited, and acknowledging how the project might impact traffic on Highway 101. These and other concerns are shared by the HCEC, the Brinnon Group and other organizations and individuals throughout the Hood Canal area and beyond. Jefferson County's decision regarding the draft documents is critically important for a project that, if constructed, will dramatically change the rural character of the Brinnon area and the broader Hood Canal watershed. It is in the best interest of Jefferson County and the public to make sure that the draft documents do not disproportionately benefit the proposed MPR project developer. For the above -stated reasons, the HCEC requests an extension of the public comment period to allow Jefferson County's Planning Commission ample time to review and deliberate the issues raised by language in the Draft Development Agreement and Draft Regulations for the proposed Master Planned Resort and to provide its conclusions and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your attention to this matter. The HCEC would appreciate a response to this letter. Sincerely, Donna M. Simmons, President Hood Canal Environmental Council Cc Patty Charnas Nicole Allen Planning Commission Phillip Hunsucker effbocc C( (' 7`/7 I B qEAPIING RECOPOVC From: Allison Shaw <allison37322@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 5:44 PM To: Patty Charnas; jeffbocc; Michael Haas Subject: DCD Dear DCD representatives and all persons reviewing approval, I am writing in opposition to the proposal for further development of Pleasant Harbor Marina. I love our home and have already witnessed the peril the canal faces from malfunctioning septics and sewers, marine traffic and automobile traffic waste. We do not need to escalate these problems in our beautiful home. This proposed development will not only strain the natural areas but also our roads, fire departments, and police. This is not reflective of the families and property owners of this area. Please act in the interest of our community by voting down all but those businesses with sustainability and non draining business planned. Thank you and kindest regards, Allison Shaw 241 Seamount Dr Brinnon, WA 98320 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Virus -free. www.avast.com 1 effbocc REARNG RFCOI O From: saildabob@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 12:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Comments We are writing in support of the Master Planned Resort at Pleasant Harbor. While we live in Kitsap County, we have been frequent boaters on Hood Canal, Dabob Bay, and Pleasant Harbor for approximately 40 years. For about the past 15 years, we have been able to spend considerable time each summer at the Pleasant Harbor Marina. During that time, we have been favorably impressed with the high quality environmental stewardship demonstrated by the Marina management. Two examples are: The care with which fuel is dispensed to avoid any spill into the water is second to none. The dockside holding tank pump out system is easy to use and makes it very convenient for boaters to responsibly dispose of sewage. We are confident this level of environmental stewardship will be found in the planned resort. We are also impressed with the quality of recent upgrades around the Marina. The restaurant, pub, upgraded pool area, and children's play area are high quality additions. We are confident this level of quality construction will be replicated in the other parts of the Master Plan. During our longer stays at the Marina, we have frequented other local Jefferson County businesses, such as the Geoduck Restaurant, the Brinnon General Store, and the grocery in Quilcene. The planned resort expansion will lead many visitors to these businesses. So, in summary, we urge the Board of County Commissioners to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. Thank you. Terry and Kathy Dolan Bainbridge Island, WA Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: ttcb@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:08 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina Resort It is time to say yes to this development. 1. What has been done so far is quality. 2. Brinnon has a right to appropriate development, like our neighboring communities. 3. There is no real reason to say no. 4. The decision has taken far too long and Garth has done what has been asked of him. Trey and Trish Beathard C(: -Pq I ( -3. , I From: Robert Gash <gashalot@gashalot.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Commentary on Plesant Harbor Resort Approvals Jefferson County Commissioners: I'm writing you to express my support for the Pleasant Harbor Resort Project, and requesting that the board instruct and/or work with the DPD and issue its final approval so construction can begin. As part of my work to help bring Internet services to the south county, I've had the opportunity of working with the property owners and a number of people in the local community over the past several years. While our plans for a community broadband network were mooted by the deployment of a commercial network, Pleasant Harbor's team was consistently engaged and worked to provide support to our cause in the form of interest in being an anchor commercial client, and offering use of their land to increase access to those further south. Having discussed the issue with a number of other land owners, their engagement sets them apart in their willingness to support the community through our challenge and interest in improving the local area. Almost two decades ago, the area was graced with multiple larger campgrounds (including the property where the proposed resort would stand.) There was a hotel nearby, and more traffic in nearby communities like Quilcene. Although some undoubtedly are happy those amenities closed, the traffic they generated helped support employment and generate profits for local businesses. Those bonds also help strengthen ties needed when the county has to reach outside its own voter base for things like federal grants and improvements to parks. As commissioners, you are also undoubtedly aware of the potential impact on the tax base, which is already under duress in the south county (struggling to pass fire levys is rarely a good sign.) I'm sure you are also aware of the multiple years the company has worked with the DPD and the community to adjust their designs to incorporate the feedback of various tribal parties, local community members, and the planning department itself. While I am not an elected official, I suspect that the intersection of a developer that has a genuine interest in investing in a community, who respects and incorporates their inputs, and stands to help significantly improve the finances and economic position of a rural area is a rare opportunity. As a taxpayer and future voter who pays their share in supporting the county, please don't let this opportunity pass us up. Robert and Kelly Gash Brinnon, wA rrom: wn nAarquarat <wnmseattwo-)gmau.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 10:25 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort Project To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and Jefferson County Planning Commissioners, I'm writing you today to express my support for the Pleasant Harbor Resort Project. I've lived in Jefferson County for almost 20 years and during most of that time I've looked forward to the approval and completion of this project. But time and again I've been dismayed at the lack of progress. I fail to see why our county's planning board is not wholeheartedly attempting to make this project work. Jefferson County should be forward looking in the development of projects which create jobs, increase the tax base for much needed infrastructure development and provide incentive for more tourism. An increase tourism which will only encourage yet more businesses to locate here in a virtuous cycle. The project's detractors, many of whom do not even live here, cite massive environmental damage and the loss of the quiet, bucolic lifestyle we all enjoy in south Jefferson should this project move forward, But I feel these fears are overblown. The Statesman group has greatly scaled back the size of this project and their current plans are sized appropriately. They have made every concession asked of them to ensure that they meet Jefferson County's requirements. The time for delay is over. My neighbors and I are in agreement that healthy economic development in south Jefferson County is greatly needed and long overdue. Please move forward with the approvals required to make this project a success. Wil Marquardt 568 Juanita Drive, Brinnon, WA 98320 206-234-1252 r 0 (-( I (,- 14 - "- , /' P - I K From: Mark Fischer <SCUBA-PROF@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:28 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort: Move to approve To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners From: Mark and Jane Fischer Regarding: Support for approval of the Pleasant Harbor Resort We have been visitors to the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Hood Canal since 1992. As an active scuba diver I am deeply concerned about the health of Hood Canal and Puget Sound as well as the economy of communities on Highway 101 from Hoodsport to Quilcene and beyond. In 2013 we purchased a vacation home at Hidden Cove retiring in 2016 and are now full time residents. Living just south of the planned resort in a very rural area we care deeply about communities north and south of our home at Hidden Cove. We are members of the Brinnon and Lilliwaup Community Clubs. I serve as a volunteer fire fighter with Mason County Fire District 17 which frequently is called to provide mutual aid to the Brinnon Fire Department. We buy groceries, fuel, support restaurants, attend community fairs and in all ways we can shop in our local area to support local merchants. It is our feeling that it is time to allow the Pleasant Harbor Resort to be developed. The resort will improve property values and tax revenues for the County, provide improved infrastructure on Black Point, create living wage jobs that are desperately needed in southern Jefferson County and in general provide substantial economic and social benefits to residents of southern Jefferson County. We encourage the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners to vote to allow development of the Pleasant Harbor Resort. Yours truly, your neighbors to the south, Mark and Jane Fischer Lilliwaup WA 98555 From: Lorraine Bartlemay <Bartlemayl@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 8:51 AM • To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Development To: Jefferson County Community Development Subject: Pleasant Harbor Development We would like to express our support for the continuation of the Pleasant Harbor development. As property owners at Pleasant Harbor, we have been impressed with the integrity and well planned activities we have witnessed so far. The extraordinary attention the Statesman Group has given to protect the environment, attention to every detail has been nothing short of amazing. As we read about and discuss the Statesman's plans for the future, we are excited that the well thought out plans for development of condominiums, homes, activity centers, and shops etc will bring much needed jobs, services and revenue to the community. Please support this well planned development. The Statesman Group have been excellent neighbors to this community. Regards, Marvin & Lorraine Bartlemay 206-856-4152 253-929-9865 Sent from my iPhone ieffbocc o A _,a r _ , From: Beverly Polacek <bevron56@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor development Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, We are writing to you regarding the Pleasant Harbor development. We purchased our water front property in 1985, started building the house in 1996, finished it in 2000. We both retired in 2003 and have been living in Brinnon ever since, with that said my husband and I strongly support the development. This would be a great improvement to our community. Please support this project. Ron and Beverly Polacek 112 Wildwood Shores Brinnon Sent from my iPhone 1 1 0(( (( k 3 -3" , jeffbocc,.,': p s4r' ab 6% From: William J. C. MacAliff <w7jc7@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:08 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor project I think this is a wonderful and beautiful idea for the community it will create jobs and have all kinds of opportunities for the surrounding area. Pleasant Harbor Marina is one of the best managed harbors I've ever seen in the Puget Sound and most environmentally Friendly marina friendly marina to, I am positive that they will do a wonderful job for everybody. Best wishes Will & Jobe oc { 72 effbocc From: Phil Thenstedt <phil.thenstedt@zones.com> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 5:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County DOW Planning Commissioners and all whom this concerns: I'm writing to express my support of the Pleasant Harbor Resort Project. This project has been needlessly delayed by Jefferson County. The property owner has been working the project for 12 years. It's time to approve this important project for our community. The project will be good for our community. It will bring jobs, recreation facilities and restaurants to an area devoid of quality options. The developer has dramatically reduced its original plans and met every obstacle thrown by the county with a willingness to work together. The proposed development will be attractive and environmentally friendly which is a far cry from the property's current dilapidated state. The Statesman renovation of the buildings and docks in the Marina are a testament to this. The county is quick to raise taxes on its citizens but it's been needlessly willing to forgo 12 years of property taxes, lodging taxes, along with the ancillary income which would be realized from the $45 mil project. This makes no sense and puts more burden on overtaxed citizens. It's time the county roll out the red carpet and welcome the Statesman Group and the Pleasant Harbor Marina Resort as good neighbors. Phil Thenstedt Jefferson county resident and tax payer) 384 Talons Roost Road Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4456 1 clk 3 effbocc From: Clayton Swanson <tarboosh@embargmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 10:17 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Project To whom it may concern, I feel it to be extremelely import for the Pleasant Harbor Project to finally be approved. it would have better for the entire community from the very beginning and a real benefit for South Jefferson County and all of the Brinnon area. The project has always been right on with all the permitting and doing exactly what every process called for. Please vote this project through. Sincerely, Clayton L. Swanson 1 C From: Kay and Doug <eagleshore08@embargmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 3:19 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: Pleasant Harbor/ Black Point Resort Project Honorable Commissioners, We, as full time residents of the Brinnon community, are sending you this note in support of the proposed Black Point Resort project. It is a project that will benefit our community and Jefferson County. Frankly, it should be an embarrassment to the commissioners that you have allowed this project to be delayed now for approximately ten years by a small group of obstructionists who are largely non residents of the Brinnon community. As a result of this delay the developer has incurred significant unnecessary expense and the county has lost significant revenue from the failure to move forward in a timely manner. It is time for the commissioners to show leadership and approve "go ahead". Sincerely, Doug and Kay Peterson 62 Old Point Whitney Rd. Brinnon, WA 98320 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 C4N - 7 jeffbocc®. d 4"07 ', From: Gordan Lacey <GordanL@live.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 6:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Commissioner Jeff I live here in Brinnon and would like to encourage your vote to approve the Pleasant Harbor Restort project and enable development to move on to the next phase. This project has been a positive influence and has now met all of my concerns around future steps. Thanks Gordan Lacey 1 c:4 b c From: Duane Knoll <knollbeach@embarqmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:19 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant harbor master plan After ALL these years and all the concessions by the development group it is about time they are permitted to proceed with construction. South Jefferson county needs this NOW. We should be thankful this group has stuck it out this long! Duane & Roxann Knoll Duane Knoll Sent from my iPad ver wUf LQW- LUFI W rytemet Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 11:57 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort My wife and I live south of Portland, OR and have been visiting Pleasant Harbor for 11 years and are very much in favor of the MPR project. We have been watching the present management make improvements after improvements in the last few years. They are obviously very concerned about quality in each step and the environment has been painstakenly protected while enhancing the area with their building projects. These updated project will only make Pleasant Harbor an even nicer place to visit or stay and provide employment for those wishing to live in this beautiful area. Everything they have done so far has been respectful of this gorgeous recreational/living area and I feel they deserve and have earned our full support. Ken & Barb Verboort, 23905 Butteville Rd NE. Aurora, OR 97002 1/29/18 Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Development/Resory*AP ) 1. This background paper is being written by Dale Ngo s b D_ 1. Committee members on the PHMPD project. o give members enough background to allow them to form general opinions tgeKrortdo additional research. Any conclusions or expressions of opinions are my own and should not be taken to represent either the MRC or Jefferson County. I have provided links to other infor- mation through -out this document if you are reading this Word document electronically. There is a huge amount of information on this topic so I can only scrape the surface here. 2. There are approximately 238 acres just south of the town of Brinnon under evaluation. This includes the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina which has already received improvements of ap- proximately $22 million. Most of the rest of the property is natural habitat although there have been some rough -cut roads and some cleared areas done in the past. The Black Point peninsula has a number of homes already there although these properties lie outside the 238 acres under consideration. A site plan of the PHMPD is at http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExtemal/O/edoc/I 757870/Exhibit%202.pdf. 3. In 2005, the PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership (referred to as "the Developer") with ownership (to some degree) by the Statesmen Group of Companies Ltd. development group of Arizona and Canada became in- terested in a master planned development on Black Point costing approximately $300 million. The area previously had been an RV park with as many as 500 spaces allowed although the quantity used hadn't approached nearly that many. A supplemental EIS was started in Novem- ber 2008 with addenda done since until finalized in 2015. 4. 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;" There are many other factors as well but it is clear that our County is in the driver's seat on allowing the development to go forward. Ac- cordingly, a very detailed development agreement has been drafted and is nearing approval. http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExtemal/O/edoc/I 757848/2017%2012%2014%2OPHMPR 20Development%20Agreement%20-%20DRAFT.pdf. Per that document the PHMPD would allow for resort -related development including, but not limited to, a golf course and other on- site indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, conference center, resort -related commercial uses, long-term and short-term residential units not to exceed 890 units, and open space. After initial planning, the total homes was reduced from an original 1200 to now 890 and the golf course from 18 holes down to 9 holes. The area would be built -out over the coming years per- haps for as long as 25 years once approved. 5. Per the Development Agreement, "The Pleasant Harbor MPR is located between two public beaches located at the mouths of the Duckabush and the Dosewallips Rivers which provide both commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to Native American tribes tribes') with usual and accustomed fishing rights in the area. To protect water quality the De- 3/6nn 1 u veloper shall construct the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Stormwater Management requirements attached as Appendix B, Shoreline Master Program attached as Appendix F and Wastewater Treatment Plan attached as Appendix I. The Developer will operate the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix N and the Neighborhood Water Supply Program attached as Appendix O. The Property sits atop a bluff above these two public beaches. Further, though located between these two public beaches, ac- cess to the public beaches on the trail from the Property has been curtailed and will continue to be curtailed permanently. " Hunting rights, culturally significant areas, stormwater and, wastewater issues as well as well water recharging, Critical Area requirements, greenbelt protec- tion, Hood Canal water quality, wildlife management, intrusive species, dark sky provisions, and nearby natural resources are also discussed. All development would be subject to the County's Shoreline Master Program. 6. The Jefferson County Planning Commission has spent considerable time reviewing the devel- opment possibilities and after public meetings and much discussion has endorsed the project with many additional considerations. The project would be the largest in the County since 1990's statewide Growth Management Act. There are strong opinions from several directions — pro - economic, anti -development, Native American, nature protection, and more. The process itself is also confusing to some people and perhaps as caused some misunderstandings. There are a number of issues as well as a number of different groups of people each with separate concerns which have been going on for over ten years. I list some of the concerns below: Traffic on the highways will increase with an estimate of 4,100 more cars daily. The three kettle holes made by nature are historic from a Native American perspective. The storm water and water run-off effect will be significant on the Hood Canal. The economic effects will swamp a part of the County that is sparsely populated. This huge development could do wonders for helping the Brinnon and south County area. Doubt that the developers can adequately address all 30 of the Agreement's concerns. Building all this will saturate the capacity of the area and will forever change things. 225 new permanent jobs in the area will change the social and pay structure. Adequacy of mitigation actions to protect cultural resources, shellfish, water quality, wildlife and habitat. Degree of nutrients for the golf course. Tree retention amount. Height limits of structures. A binding site plan should be required (but isn't in the Agreement) and many more issues! (There are thousands of entries on Google). Dale Moses pv ntu" From: Andy Visser <andy@connectionseap.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 12:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina Resort Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Project. When I moved to Brinnon from small town Midwest in 2005 Jolene and I were appalled to learn of the lack of enterprise, good jobs and economic opportunity for younger local families, many of whom have generational roots in Brinnon. The Pleasant Harbor development is an opportunity to raise the bar and move in an exciting direction! This team led by Mr. Mann has been more than flexible and cooperative since approval of the county ordinance allowing this project to proceed back in January of 2008. The ordinance listed specific conditions that have been met such as: o no runoff allowed into Hood Canal o MOUs with local agencies such as Fire, School, Transportation and Sheriff o Water quality o Traffic mitigation o Housing o Reduced golf course to 9 holes o Impervious surface has been reduced o Natural landscape and vegetation has been increased o Number of units has been reduced o Miscellaneous changes resulting from listening carefully to meet concerns of citizens and local Tribes. o The applicant has proposed changing the use of the main building in the resort (terrace -1) from convention & resort focus to community activity and sports focus. This would provide a facility for local and regional schools to participate in indoor sports like soccer, basketball, swimming and more. It would give adults opportunity for indoor recreation as well, with training and spa facility, pro shop, restaurant o Main building upper floors with short term accommodations to meet requested balance for short term rentals The applicant has consistently listened to concerns and modified the plan to meet concerns. I encourage anyone to read the county ordinance and conditions that must be met, study the subsequent reports, and understand the changes made as response to past public comment as well as to meet the ordinance conditions. In particular the Planning Commission Report 2016 is very explicit detailing the governing language to which all development within the Master Planned Resort must comply. It is unfortunate that the Jan. 6 t 2016 public hearing in Brinnon purposed to comment on the detail of the Planning Commissions regulations was instead perceived by many attendees to be some kind of referendum on whether the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort project itself should move forward. This may have contributed to the recruitment of out of town voices in the assembly calling themselves the `Brinnon Group' which continues to object and attempt to delay progress on this project. It is unreasonable for those that have not carefully studied this proposal and the changes that have been made to continue to raise the same concerns that have been addressed. It appears to me that the applicant has worked diligently over the last ten years to design a resort proposal that will provide economic development and opportunity that respects the character of surrounding environment, and is sensitive to neighboring communities. Brinnon citizens do not need more subsidized this and subsidized that. Unfortunately it is often `regressive' to proliferate demeaning hand-out programs. Citizens do understand that it is not `progressive' but 'regressive' to proliferate ideas and programs which fashion poverty plantations defining citizens by poverty statistics. Such ideas, though touted as `progressive' are actually cold, unfeeling, haughty and unconcerned about the internal sense of achievement and success critical to the human spirit — certainly not a dynamic that is `progressive.' The story of this land is the story of opportunity. The true spirit of helping is to respect governance of the people and by the people by maximizing opportunity. Please whole-heartedly endorse this opportunity to provide our community — it's individuals and families the dignity of work, problem solving, personal achievement and pride. The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort is an opening for economic opportunity, dignity and pride for our citizens. Andy Visser 395 Lee Way Brinnon, WA 98320 Andy Visser Licensed Mental Health Counselor Certified Employee Assistance Professional 395 Lee Way Brinnon, WA 98320 From: I ttalbott@cs.com ` ;" %k# 11 #40 1 1460 Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 1:53 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort To: Jefferson County Commissioners Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort From: Tim Talbott My wife, Kimberlee, and I moved to Brinnon in 2010 to build a home for a client on Pulali Point. By the time the home was completed, we had another build lined up and had decided to make our home here. When we first arrived, we became aware of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort Project and it was a primary reason we decided to stay. We had fallen in love with Hood Canal and all it has to offer, particularly the Brinnon area and Pleasant Harbor, and the project promised to fill in some of the final pieces in what we were looking for. Eight years later the much anticipated project remains only a proposal, and a somewhat diminished one. As we have worked here in Brinnon in both the building and real estate industries, we have come to know the community quite well. It is very sad to drive through some of the developments such as Canal Tracts and Lazy C and see what they are becoming. Many of the people who built and loved those places have become too old to use them, (or have passed on), and their offspring evidently have no interest in the area. The younger generations don't seem to have the same interest in this area that their folks did largely due to the fact that the entertainment they seem to require doesn't exist here. Consequently, there are many homes that have been virtually abandoned and fallen into disrepair. There are lots of tarps over roofs, roofs falling in on homes, abandoned RV's deteriorating in the woods, and homes overgrown with blackberries. In addition, there are a number of elderly people living here who have been here for many years and are now in a position where they would like to be nearer to family and/or services, particularly medical providers. For these people it can be, impossible to sell their homes to be able to move due to the depressed prices, the general neglect of some of the neighborhoods, as well as the lack of work and services in the area. The Pleasant Harbor Resort Project would bring a number of positives to Brinnon, among which are jobs, many additional activities to attract vacationers, additional services for locals as well as vacationers, and a reversal of the trend toward a ghost town that attracts squatters and others who don't come to contribute. I strongly urge the county commissioners to approve this project immediately and see that the appropriate permits are issued without further delay. Tim Talbott 15 Quiet Place Brinnon, WA 98320 effbocc From: D nis Haugan <dennishaugan@hotmail.cNEA pSent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:23 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: tward@soundpublishing.com; Ileach@soundpublishing.com; aarthur@ptleader.com; Dennis Haugan Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and Jefferson County Planning Commissioners, Like many of my neighbors in Brinnon we are continually amazed at where the elected officials of Jefferson county opt to invest energy from an environmental standpoint. It seems Jefferson County officials are perfectly fine allowing property owners to turn their property into junk yards and clear cut private property without replanting, yet you continue to block the Pleasant Harbor development who works tirelessly to meet your every changing requirements. On the subject of junk, you cannot tell me you don't notice that environmental mess as you past as you come into Quilcine, or the one that has existed for years on Mount Walker, or the one up where our house is located where you turned a blind eye for years until he started actually burying cars, then you finally intervened. Now we have his nephew who has hauled in at least 4 junk yard cars and has begun the family tradition of dumping old tires on the property. So how exactly is old cars leaking fluids into the ground water and old tires that never break down better than responsible tourist/business development? I drive past one entire 6 acre clear cut on the way up to our house and overlook what must easily be 10 acres of clear cut on Black Point —the very portion of land you care so deeply about. I am in total favor or the lumber and tourist industries as they are responsible and held accountable, what I am not in favor of is the private land owners who I imagine most would agree, are doing way more damage with junk cars leaking fluids, old tires, and clean cuts with no replanting. I completely agree the original plans for Pleasant Harbor were too aggressive and I supported you 100% in pushing back. I also applaud your efforts to work to improve the marina from both a business and environment POV. However, for the life of me I cannot understand why after more than 15 years of negotiation you cannot find a way in which this development (not unlike the Alderbrook in Mason County) can move forward in a responsible way as you enabled the marina improvements to move forward. My understanding is there is a single Brinnon resident an a group out of California that continue blocking this that you seem to be more aligned with than the majority of the voters in the area. Don't you own it to the citizens your elected to represent to try a bit harder to increase the tax base so you can back off the elderly and low income to support education? I appreciate the fact that you care about your community, otherwise I imagine, why would you have run for office. So please help me understand why you are so dead set against helping this portion of Jefferson Country progress in a positive managed fashion? Seems like a great news story and one that doesn't seem to come up so copying a few of the local press. Dennis Haugan 568 Juanita Drive, Brinnon, WA 98320 From: Barbara Moore-Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 1:36 PM To: jeffbocc; Planning Commission Desk; Michael Haas; Planning Commission Desk Subject: Comments on MPR These are the comments I made last night at the Planning Commission. I handed them in in paper form, but there is an electronic link in the electronic copy to the documents I reference. Please place these comments in the public record for the current comment period on the Pleasant Harbor MPR. M Destination_Resort_Impact_Study (1).pdf 12 LandWatch Releases Fiscal and Economic Impact S... Please let me know if you cannot access the documents. Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon sff tt X y z Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon March 2009 For: Central Oregon LandWatch By: Eben Fodor FODOR & ASSOCIATES LLC Community iiiiiiiiiiillllllllllillillillllllllllllllllI Planning Consulting Eugene, Oregon www.FodorandAssociates.com With research and analysis by David Hinkley Cover photo credit: Sandy Lonsdale Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page I Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 1. Destination Resorts in Oregon.................................................................................... 4 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study.........................................................................12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis......................................................................... 13 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort ....................................................................17 PropertyTaxes............................................................................................................. 17 RoomTaxes................................................................................................................. 22 5. Thornburgh Resort Costs........................................................................................... 24 Transportation System Costs..................................................................................... 27 SchoolFacilities Costs................................................................................................ 40 Fire& EMS System Costs.......................................................................................... 48 Public Safety System Costs ................................... Parks& Rec. System Costs......................................................................................... 59 General Government Facilities.................................................................................. 64 6, Fiscal Impact Summary.............................................................................................. 67 RevenueSummary...................................................................................................... 67 Costsof Facilities........................................................................................................ 67 ServicesImpacts.......................................................................................................... 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions......................................................................................... 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts.................................................................. 70 Job Creation and Employment Impacts.................................................................... 71 Who Will Fill New Resort Jobs: Locals or Newcomers? ........................................ 76 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort.................................................................. 78 Spending by Destination Resorts.............................................................................. 81 EconomicRisks........................................................................................................... 83 Economic Impact Conclusions.................................................................................. 85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon ................................... 86 Appendices....................................................................................................................... 89 A-1. Property Tax Explanation.................................................................................. 90 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation..................................................................... 94 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study................................................................ 98 A-4. Tax Bases for Jurisdictions Used in Study ....................................................... 99 A-5. About the Authors............................................................................................100 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 2 Introduction The recent proliferation of destination resorts, and the number of new resorts currently being proposed in Oregon, raises concerns about the potential impacts of these resort on local communities, cities and counties. Based on a literature review performed as part of the research for this study, there are no independent, third - party studies evaluating destination resort impacts. The only readily -available sources of information are the resort developers' own studies prepared as part of the land -use application materials. This report represents the best effort to date to assess the impact of destination resorts in Oregon. It is a complex task and there are an almost unlimited number of potential impact areas that could be studied. To establish a manageable scope of work within the project budget, the focus of this study is on the fiscal impacts of resorts. Fiscal impacts are those that affect local governments and local taxpayers. They include both the tax revenues that will be generated and the costs to provide the services and infrastructure required to support the development. In addition to fiscal impacts, the economic impact of destination resorts was evaluated in terms of job creation and housing impacts. This study does not address any of the environmental or social impacts associated with residential and recreational development of resorts in the State. Instead this study focuses on the monetary (fiscal and economic) impacts these destination resorts have on the local communities where they are being built. In order to study resort impacts in detail, the proposed Thornburgh Resort in Deschutes County was used as a case study. The Thornburgh Resort is to be located near Redmond and just west of the existing Eagle Crest Resort. The Thornburgh Resort would be a medium-sized resort and was considered to be fairly typical of past and future resorts in the State. This report is intended to be transparent. All sources of information are documented and all the calculations and methodologies are explicit. Where data were not available, reasonable assumptions were made. These assumptions are also clearly stated. In some cases, where good data were not available, alternative scenarios were used to examine a range of possible conditions. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 3 1. Destination Resorts in Oregon Destination resorts typically involve 500 to 3000 single-family homes and various recreational amenities, such as golf courses and clubhouses, in an attractive natural setting located away from existing cities and growth centers. The term "destination resort" has a unique legal meaning in Oregon. Special status was given to "Destination Resorts" allowing them outside urban growth boundaries under Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) of the Land Use Planning Program.' This action appears to be based on the assumption that the tourism benefits would outweigh the costs associated with this form of rural development. In 1987, provisions for destination resorts were enacted into state law and codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.435 through 197.467. According to ORS 197.440: The Legislative Assembly finds that: 1) It is the policy of this state to promote Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable segment of our state's economy; 2) There is a growing need to provide year-round destination resort accommodations to attract visitors and encourage them to stay longer. The establishment of destination resorts will provide jobs for Oregonians and contribute to the state's economic development; 3) It is a difficult and costly process to site and establish destination resorts in rural areas of this state; and 4) The siting of destination resort facilities is an issue of statewide concern. The State Legislature attempted to enforce the tourism aspects of these developments by requiring a certain minimum amount of overnight accommodations and certain visitor -oriented facilities! The intent was apparently that without such requirements, destination resorts would likely be little more than the classic, sprawling rural subdivisions that the Land Use Program was intended to prevent. However it is unclear that resorts are actually meeting their overnight accommodations requirements due to a lack of reporting and enforcement mechanisms. In spite of State requirements, residential lots and private homes outnumber overnight accommodations by more than two to one. Residential lot sales represent the primary feature of existing and proposed destination resorts. Questions remain as to whether the destination resorts are essentially rural subdivisions that are increasingly having adverse impacts on cities, counties and the state that are not Goal 8: Recreational Needs (OAR 660-015-0000(8)). State Law requires that destination resorts permanently allocate one overnight housing unit for every two residential units in Western Oregon and two overnight units for every five residential units in Eastern Oregon (see ORS 197.445(4)). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 4 adequately offset by tourism benefits. Our literature review found no studies examining these impacts in detail, other than those prepared by the individual resort developers themselves. So we are left with an inadequate understanding of the full impacts these development are having across the State. The Growth of Destination Resorts Destination resorts have proliferated rapidly in the State and will have increasingly significant impacts, both positive and negative. At this point, Oregon has eight existing resorts, most of which are historic or pre -Goal 8 resorts. Another seven are approved and under construction, and thirteen more have been proposed. Figure 1-1 shows these existing, approved and proposed resorts on a map of the State. Central Oregon shows the highest concentration of resorts in all stages of development. Southern Oregon and the Coast are also seeing resort development. Deschutes County has seen far more resort development than any other county, but Crook, Jefferson and Jackson counties are also seeing a high level of resort development. Figure 1-1: Destination Resorts in Oregon by Status Source: Toby Bayard Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 5 Table 1-1 provides a more -detailed summary of destination resorts that are completed, under construction, and proposed in the State. The land use and housing unit data from this table is illustrated graphically in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. It is evident that destination resorts are expanding rapidly. If the recently -approved and proposed resorts are built, Oregon's destination resort capacity will approximately triple. The rapid growth in destination resorts raises a number of questions. Is there going to be a market demand for so much resort capacity? Will new resorts compete with established resorts and undermine their viability? And will the economies of Central Oregon and other popular resort locations become vulnerable in the event of a possible downturn or collapse of the resort market? Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 6 Table 1-1 Destination Resorts in Oregon, January 20090) 1) Data Compiled by Toby Bayard and COLW on 2/25/09 2) Data on number of units not final at this time (TBD is to be determined). 3) Dwelling units only. Hotel rooms were not included in the overnight units when information was available to separate them from dwelling units. Where data for the number of overnight units was not available, required State minimums were applied to Goal 8 resorts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 7 Overnight Existing Resorts Goal 8? County Acres Homesites Units(') Total Units Bandon Dunes Goal 2 exception Coos 2,000 600 150 750 Eagle Crest Yes Deschutes 1,772 891 585 1,476 Sunriver/Crosswater No Deschutes 3,310 3,220 936 4,156 Black Butte Pre -Goal Deschutes 1,300 1,251 425 1,676 Inn of the Seventh Mt. Pre -Goal Deschutes 310 20 210 230 Running Y Ranch Yes Klamath 6,000 896 305 1,201 Offer Crest Pre -Goal Lincoln 35 144 130 274 Salishan Pre -Goal Lincoln 750 369 0 369 Subtotal: 15,477 7,391 2,741 10,132 Under Construction Brasada Ranch Yes Crook 1,800 600 300 900 Hidden Canyon Yes Crook 3,250 2,450 1,225 3,675 Remington Ranch Yes Crook 2,079 800 400 1,200 Caldera Springs Yes Deschutes 390 320 160 480 Pronghorn Yes Deschutes 640 430 215 645 Tetherow Yes Deschutes 698 379 298 677 Paradise Ranch Yes Josephine 320 200 67 267 Subtotal: 9,177 5,179 2,665 7,844 Proposed Resorts Crossing Trails Yes Crook 580 490 240 730 Pacific Rogue Ranch No Curry 592 500 150 650 Aspen Lakes Yes Deschutes 550 300 100 400 Skyline Forest No Deschutes 1,500 950 0 950 Thornburg Yes Deschutes 1,970 950 425 1,375 Heaven's Gate Yes Douglas 500 200 200 400 Hidden Valley Ranch (2) Yes Jackson 883 TBD TBD TBD Table Rock Yes Jackson 2,100 1,200 600 1,800 Ponderosa Land & Cattle Yes Jefferson 3,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 The Metolian(2) Yes Jefferson 640 450 180 630 Crescent Creek Ranch Yes Klamath 5,000 1,965 785 2,750 Naples Golf & Beach Yes Lincoln 576 1,155 0 1,155 Elkhorn Estates Yes Marion 464 150 40 190 Subtotal: 18,855 10,810 3,720 14,530 Totals: 43,509 23,380 9,126 32,506 1) Data Compiled by Toby Bayard and COLW on 2/25/09 2) Data on number of units not final at this time (TBD is to be determined). 3) Dwelling units only. Hotel rooms were not included in the overnight units when information was available to separate them from dwelling units. Where data for the number of overnight units was not available, required State minimums were applied to Goal 8 resorts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 7 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 8 The Destination Resort Controversy The booming growth in destination resorts has led to increasing concern about their impacts and more questions than answers. Do we need more destination resorts, or do we have too many already? Are these resorts beneficial to the local economy, or are they just generating profits for a few and low-wage jobs for the rest? Are local governments reaping giant tax windfalls, or are they incurring more costs than they can recover? Are resorts allowing more Oregonians to vacation in beautiful rural areas, or are they destroying the beauty of the landscape and rural character Oregonians currently enjoy? Are resorts well-planned developments that are carefully integrated with the natural environment, or are they just low-density rural sprawl and ecological disasters that threaten ground water and destroy habitat? Regardless of the answers to these questions, opposition to new resorts has grown. For example, last year residents of conservative, rural Crook County voted 2 to 1 to halt the spread of resorts in that county. According to an editorial in The Oregonian newspaper,3 Crook County opponents have some justification in warning that these projects are essentially large subdivisions under the guise of destination resorts. They will, as critics complain, have a significant impact on the county's vehicle traffic, water supply and wildlife habitat. Prineville boosters of the new resorts correctly point out that they contribute heavily through property taxes and create hundreds ofjobs. But opponents are equally correct in noting that the influx of homes will inflate land values, putting unwelcome pressure on farmland and making housing unaffordable for workers who will fill all those low-paying new jobs. Jobs for Whom? In spite of high unemployment in Central Oregon, alarming information was reported in the Bend Bulletin last year that many of the local resorts were hiring from outside the U.S. to fill their jobs.' According to the article, instead hiring locally, the Sunriver Resort actively recruited foreign workers at overseas job fairs, hiring 85 workers from countries such as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. Inn of the Seventh Mountain hired 11 workers from Jamaica and Indonesia. Other resorts may be doing the same. Even if some resorts are not hiring foreigners, studies show that many of the new jobs they create will go to newcomers rather than locals.' 3 "Putting the Brakes on Destination Resorts," editorial, The Oregonian, May 27, 2008. Unemployment might be high, but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin, May 11, 2008. See: Who Benefits from Local job Growth, Migrants or the Original Residents, by Timothy J. Bartik, Regional Studies, vol. 27, No. 4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 9 Resort or Rural Subdivision? It is increasingly clear that the primary incentive for building destination resorts is the traditional profit resulting from the real estate sales of residential lots. Developers rarely build more tourism accommodations than they are required to provide by law. The resort -oriented features appear to be little more than the vehicle by which the subdivision is allowed. Certainly the golf courses and resort amenities enhance the value of the residential lots, but developers recognize that the resort components are marginal, risky and often unprofitable investments. Meeting the tourism -oriented overnight accommodation requirements of Goal 8 has been challenging for resort developers. Newer resorts are focused more on residential lot sales and less on tourism accommodations. There has been an increased use of smaller, lower-cost units, such as hotels and timeshares, to meet overnight lodging requirements.' Resorts that are close to urban areas may end up functioning more like suburbs. The Eagle Crest Resort, for example, is less than six miles from downtown Redmond, making urban amenities and jobs just a 10 -minute drive away. Some resorts may evolve into rural communities or towns of their own. The Hidden Canyon Resort for example, which will be located in Powell Butte (Crook County), will have a population roughly equal to that of the City of Madras, if it is fully developed. The proposed Ponderosa Resort could have a population three times that of the City of Sisters. Effects of the National Recession The dramatic expansion of the destination resort industry in Oregon has been fueled in part by a booming real estate market that seemed to have no end. Ten years of unprecedented growth peaked in 2007 and has declined rapidly since. The economic models for destinations resorts were based on assumptions of continued high land values, high real estate demand, and rapidly expanding tourism. However, the ongoing collapse of the inflated national real estate bubble and the ensuing economic downturn requires that these assumptions be revised. In the past, the residential lots in a destination resort have been largely purchased by individuals as second homes and investment properties. The current economic recession will contract the market for second homes and will reduce the appeal of real estate investing. Unless the national economy has an unexpected, dramatic recovery, more and more potential homebuyers will be economically constrained. Potential tourists are likely to reduce travel and shun expensive vacations to save e See: Destination Resort Siting, a presentation by Bob Cortright, DLCD in Prineville, October 15, 2008, htty-//www oregon gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/101508/item4 att D.ydf. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 10 money.' A Central Oregon economic forecast shows tourism to be "extremely weak" and contracting through at least the end of 2010.8 Owners of second homes may find the cost of owning two homes to be too expensive. Under this scenario, it is likely that more of the lots created in destination resorts will be purchased for primary residences. We may see a similar shift in existing resorts, with more second homes and rental properties changing to primary residences. Resort developers may respond to the weak economy by downscaling homes to make them more affordable as primary residences. Infrastructure Needs The residential component of the destination resort functions much like any subdivision in a rural area. It is removed from the retail services and amenities people require. It is lacking adequate infrastructure and services required by an urban population. Greater travel distances are required for commuting and meeting daily needs. This generates demand for more roads with more capacity. When traffic growth is projected in Central Oregon, including destination resorts, the funding gap to bring the state highways to standards for traffic congestion is approximately $750 million over the next 20 years! Resorts located close to cities and towns run the risk of becoming more residential, as residents have access to the nearby urban amenities homeowners desire. The proposed Thornburgh Resort is to be located approximately seven miles from Redmond. Such resorts may have the effect of attracting higher -end housing away from the cities, which undermines the cities' property tax base while increasing their effective populations and adding to demands for more roads and schools. County and municipal governments will be severely squeezed for financial resources over the next few years as a result of: Decreasing property values that reduce property tax revenues; A weak economic outlook that may reduce other sources of income; Government costs increasing at rates exceeding Measure 47 and 50 limits on property tax increases of 3%; and, Decreasing Federal payments to counties in lieu of timber revenues. Will the new destination resorts be a golden goose, or the straw that breaks the camel's back? Fiscal impact analysis can provide the answer. Early reports indicate that major tourism destinations such as Las Vegas are seeing significantly lower tourism resulting from the recession. Gaming revenues there are down 25.8%, room rates have declined 14.3 %, and many construction projects have been canceled or scaled back, according to the Los Angeles Times (published in The Register -Guard Newspaper, 12/26/08). Presentation: United States and Central Oregon Economic Review and Forecast, by Dr. Bill Watkins, Executive Director, UCSB Economic Forecast Project, January 2009, http://www.ucsb- efp.com/PPT/`2009/0R Watkins.ppt. Source: Gary Farnsworth (ODOT), Meeting Minutes for Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation, COACT, September 13, 2007, page 3. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page I I 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study In order to examine the impacts of destination resorts in detail, a typical resort was selected for in-depth analysis. The proposed Thornburgh Resort has a similar profile to most of the resorts in Oregon. It is typical in terms of its size and mix of development. It is to be located in Deschutes County, home to more destination resorts than any other county in the State. Due to its pending application, extensive current materials are available on the planned resort. As shown in Table 2-1, the proposed Thornburgh Resort is to have 950 residential ownership units and 425 overnight units, for a total of 1,375 residential units. The application proposes a 50 -room hotel with restaurant, three golf courses, recreational facilities, and retail space. Table 2-1: Thornburgh Resort Profile for Impact Analysis 1) From Final Master Plan. Since the Thornburgh Resort is unbuilt, certain types of data were not available. For example, the ultimate occupancy rates and vehicle trip generation rates were unavailable. To reflect the most likely scenario for the Thornburgh Resort at full buildout, data was used from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. Eagle Crest appears to have a similar profile in terms of the mix of uses and relative price ranges for lots and homes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 12 Peterson Land Use Economic Report Application Used in Impact Metric 1/2005) 2/2005) Study Total acres 1,980 1,970 1,970 Acres open space (incl. Golf) No info 1,293 1,281(l) Residential ownership units 1,400 950 950 Residential overnight units Unclear 425 425 Hotel rooms 100 50 50 Golf courses (regulation 18 -hole) 3 3 3 Golf courses — par 3 1 0 0 Other facilities: Retail space 20,000 ft2 20,000 ft2 Real Estate Sales office 15,000 ft2 15,000 ft2 Hotel and restaurant 75,000 ft2 75,000 ft2 Recreational 60,000 ft2 60,000 ft2 Convention facility, Unspecified size Assumed part business center of hotel/rest. Water system 6 new wells, 2 6 new wells, 2 reservoirs reservoirs Sewer system 2 drain fields 2 drain fields 1) From Final Master Plan. Since the Thornburgh Resort is unbuilt, certain types of data were not available. For example, the ultimate occupancy rates and vehicle trip generation rates were unavailable. To reflect the most likely scenario for the Thornburgh Resort at full buildout, data was used from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. Eagle Crest appears to have a similar profile in terms of the mix of uses and relative price ranges for lots and homes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal impact analysis generally refers to the evaluation of the financial and budgetary effects of alternative land uses or public policies on local governmental jurisdictions or other local service providers. These may include cities, counties, school districts, special-purpose districts, water and wastewater service districts, and regional authorities. Sometimes state governments are also impacted. While the focus of fiscal impact analysis is on government revenues and costs, the broader public policy question is: How will this action or decision affect local taxpayers and the general public? Answers to this broader question allow elected officials to determine how the proposed action will affect local tax rates or the quality of local services. This question tends to be one of most interesting to local voters and the public in general. As shown in Figure 3-1, the fiscal impact analysis compares the changes in revenues with the changes in costs of a local government entity that result from an action or decision. Revenues include taxes, fees and other income. Costs include operation services) and maintenance (O&M) and new or expanded capital facilities and equipment. Figure 3-1: Diagram of fiscal impacts of land development on local government Fodor & Associates). Revenues Property Taxes Other Taxes Other Revenue fees, permits, etc.) Local Government City, County or School District) Costs operation (service! Maintenance Capital Facilities & Equipment Usually local governments must balance their budgets so that costs don't exceed revenues. While this is true for government services, it is not the case for major capital expenditures. Local governments may issue general obligation bonds for new capital facilities that enable them to carry debt. General obligation debt is a reasonable way to finance facilities that have a broad public benefit. However, when the new facilities are constructed primarily to serve new development, an inherent Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 13 inequity results, and all taxpayers pay to fund facilities that benefit a small segment of the population. One solution to this problem is the LID, or local improvement district, that limits funding of improvements to the beneficiaries. Another is the impact fee, or system development charge (SDC) in Oregon, that directly recovers some or all of the costs associate with providing certain facilities to new development. Deschutes County also uses "Community Service Districts" to assess the costs of some public safety, fire protection and library services directly to the geographic districts they serve. Public Infrastructure Required by Thornburgh Resort Development Table 3-1 below summarizes the categories of infrastructure required by new development. The costs associated with all onsite facilities and services (such as local roads and utility lines) are assumed to be borne by the developer. Only the offsite impacts are examined here. Of these, transportation and schools typically represent the greatest costs, so much of the analysis work focused on these two categories. Table 3-1: Basic Public Infrastructure Required by New Development All Categories Evaluated Transportation System Yes School Facilities Yes Fire & EMS Facilities Yes Police Facilities Yes Parks & Rec. Facilities Yes Sanitary Sewer System NA Storm Drainage System NA Water Service Facilities NA Library Facilities No General Gov. Facilities Yes Solid Waste Facilities No Public Open Space No The Deschutes County Code10 requires that the resort developer pay for onsite water and sewer systems, so it was assumed that the costs associated with these facilities and services are borne by the resort and its future residents and visitors. The long- term viability of these onsite water and sewer systems is unclear. For example, the current plans indicate that the resort's sewer system will rely on drain field disposal for an indefinite period of time. This method of disposal can contaminate groundwater and has a limited lifespan. The high water demand from the resort may 10 Deschutes County Code, Chapter 18.113. Destination Resorts Zone — DR. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 14 deplete local groundwater supplies and the resort may be obliged to indemnify nearby landowners. The County has no requirements for offsite stormwater management facilities or services, so it was assumed that onsite stormwater management will not have offsite fiscal impacts. These resort developments are contingent on provision of open space within the development." Therefore, additional open space needs may not be generated by the development.i2 However, any new residential development is likely to increase demands for certain County parks and recreational facilities, so these impacts were included in the study. Electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste disposal services to the resort are operated by private businesses. These services also require offsite infrastructure investments. Such costs tend to be added to the utility rates that are paid by all customers, not just resort residents. The costs associated with increased rates for these services were not included in the study because they are not public - sector costs and because it is difficult to obtain the necessary revenue and cost data from private companies. Impact Analysis Methodology In order to evaluate the potential impacts of the Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are compared: unbuilt and full buildout. The unbuilt scenario assumes no change in current land use. The full buildout scenario assumes the resort is entirely built out all proposed facilities are built and all lots are developed with homes). In all likelihood the resort will take many years to build out and may have undeveloped lots remaining long after most construction is completed. To simplify the impact analysis, both the unbuilt and full buildout scenarios were compared for the year 2008. This simplification enables a direct comparison of before and after costs and revenues and eliminates the time -values of various cash flows in different years. By comparing built and unbuilt scenarios, the vagaries of uncertain approval dates and construction schedules are eliminated. It is intuitively more useful to consider the alternatives of a resort that is either built or unbuilt under current economic and fiscal conditions than to consider one option today and the other 12 years in the future. A destination resort creates both direct and induced impacts. As described in the Economic Impacts section of this report, a resort induces additional growth and According to Deschutes County Code, DDC 18.113.060(Dx1), "The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas." Golf courses are considered open space. 1z Increased use of public lands surrounding resorts by resort residents is common. For example, the Pronghorn Resort recommended that their property owners use adjoining BLM land for exercising dogs in a recent newsletter. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 15 development beyond its physical boundaries. This is primarily the result of new jobs created at the resort. Many of these jobs will be filled by newcomers who will require additional housing and have fiscal impacts of their own. In this study the induced impacts were evaluated only for schools. All other impact areas reflect only the direct fiscal impacts of onsite development within the resort. The induced impact on schools was addressed because student generation will be significantly increased by influx of new workers at the resort and this information may be useful to school districts for facilities planning purposes. All revenue and cost figures are given in 2008 dollars and values. Costs from other years were adjusted to 2008 values based on the appropriate inflation index or construction cost index. Tax rates were based on the 2008-09 rates. The most recent available data was used throughout the analysis. It is important to note that from an accounting perspective, there are two basic types of costs and revenues: annual streams that occur every year, and one-time costs or payments. Tax revenues and service costs represent the former. Infrastructure costs and any associated System Development Charges are treated as the later. As soon as a new resort development is completed, the residents and visitors will need adequate road capacity, classroom space for their children, fire protection, and public safety services, so these facilities must be in place. There are a number of standard methods for estimating the demand for new facilities and infrastructure a new development will generate. Each method has advantages and drawbacks. The methods used here were selected to yield the best estimates of demand given the limitations of available data. In most cases the capacity of services and infrastructure must be adequate to serve peak demands. For example, police and fire protection capacity must be adequate to meet peak demand periods, not just average demand. In such cases, the demand for public facilities was based on peak season resort occupancy, rather than average occupancy. The terms "gross" and "net" are used to describe costs and revenues in this report. In the case of costs, a gross cost would be the total cost to provide a particular facility or service, while the net cost would be the gross cost, minus any payment or revenue from the resort towards that facility or service. In other words, it is the balance of costs after any revenues are deducted. Tax revenues are treated as gross revenues because they are used to pay for government costs. The net revenue for a particular service, if any, is the surplus left over after the costs of providing the service are deducted. The fiscal impact reporting begins by evaluating the revenues the resort is likely to generate from property taxes and room taxes. Then the costs are addressed. And finally, the costs are compared with the revenues to determine net impacts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 16 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort A significant selling point for new destination resorts has been the tax revenues they will generate for county governments. As described later, increased tax revenues are offset by increased costs for public facilities and services required by the resort. In this analysis, both property tax revenues and transient room tax revenues are estimated for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Property Takes The Thornburgh Resort Company LLC submitted a report by Peterson Economics, of El Cerrito, California, which provided their estimate of property tax revenues, but made no estimate of room taxes. The property tax revenue estimate provided by the developer was approximately three times greater than the revenue calculated here. This was partly due to use of overinflated real estate values that may have seemed realistic during the 2004-2005 boom period, but are out of line with current real estate prices and the assessed values at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort.13 The annual property tax figures by Peterson were also inflated at an annual 3% rate over the 12 - year construction phase so that the final annual tax revenues at completion were given for the year 2016 and are much higher than they would be today. The taxes calculated here are based on the revenues that would be generated if the resort were fully completed in 2008 under the 2008-09 tax rates. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the estimated property tax revenues from the residential and commercial properties planned for the Thornburgh Resort. The combined total property tax revenues are $5.1 million per year based on a total assessed value of approximately $375 million, as shown in Table 4-3." The $51 million tax revenue estimate is about one-third of the amount estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report.15 However the figure calculated here is in line with data reported by other sources for actual tax revenues from other resorts.16 In order to determine where tax revenues will go in Deschutes County, the individual tax rates for each taxing district applicable to the resort were used and the 13 Eagle Crest Resort is considered to be comparable to the proposed Thornburgh Resort in terms of its real estate values. 1a Assessed values are for tax purposes and not the same as real market values. s For comparison purposes, the tax revenues estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report were adjusted from the 2016 buildout year back to 2008, resulting in an estimate by Peterson of 17,500,600 per year. 16 Tax revenues were reported for 2005-06 tax year by Linda Swearingen (a lobbyist and consultant for destination resorts) for various resorts in a presentation to the League of Women Voters, November 2005. She reported annual tax revenues for Eagle Crest at $4,096,058 and for Black Butte at $6,315,414. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 17 results provided in Table 4-4. Technical details on the methodology used for property tax calculations are provided in the Appendix to this report. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 18 4 RI 2 CA x c Lo Ul) tto codo yam+ CL Lo 0 M0oERtf3 CL } d a w B 0 0 F 'c C ti d cr L N i co co o cmCL _ G9 V4 o i h O y Na7 E RE td O S y C U Q O R I- cm d o 3 L y O OC] CL cr i f!] 0 K'' Q d L c m Q co O d C Y C7- o R C) U2wt3 CD a) CLQ o 0 y p EC y o R CL) C LoL > Lo cz yN d N N' V3 &9 d QCL a d ' 03 a E z 0 C) C) o O O O H 00 pG O O CDO = ~ to tf7 N v b4 bt3 E ' Emd CL o U d d al p N m 0 CL) d E CD CD O O C.a Y j= O O O O Vto Cl) a 6co s n Q L aI O Y O Y R Q V id O O U y E o H 4w) K d c.d .O E c+J -om N ci n n y mr tn Cn d CD CD Q C) CL— o O J NJU 00 07 Q1 i d o o R o L d N Z R O C taE E gi-iL¢ aU m ea m E a ' to 0 Y R N to a W Z o C d O OanQdN i ci o> U j C) CL o wc R' 3 Q CL a m' a` CL cr cr OLn rti qrV9 is H w B 0 0 y U O p O fd QUCD y CD m N OI d cr U al o o =' L f- E U w N y y d N E RE td O S y C U Q O R U L Q d o 3 E 9 o R a R m E K'' c m Q co O d C Y C7- o R C) U2wt3 U y n y O d b tU tU L C700 y p EC y o R U al aJ y o O n y R p RJ d U n Y N C a CQU .p C a d ' a E 0 E 3 y y V Y O R p toil U 4l C O Q 6l yO S Q. L n Y OO C L tO R O wYdC pO R 'O laO O V U y w c p Eami a v o> U d d al p N m 2- Q d . yC tYYi1 ¢ E wal mpl A o w aUi tV a C N d A a x T> m U y H y •= N E J o w4.2 a rn p a rn `` o n Q L aI O Y O Y R Q V id O O U y E o H 3 a> Ea c.d .O E c+J -om ci n n y mr tn j R C U td R d R d. x Gl 2-8 d tad U -aa-- a o Vl dl a .n No `myaQ R o L d N Z R O C taE E gi-iL¢ aU m Y a L Y R E' y = Ol to O> a C d O OanQdNd> -o c E - R x Encam n oam o ¢ cafdac-^Ry mewL R po N a p cd E cd 2 'O c E .tg e d L R n N y w o0 tcv 3 > o - -p . mo2pyODU - cat„ .-. al y a 2 id a o> 'S ' y R d R U O R o w cc HE.2 0 Ol aa1 R d E Y y o> R R E= y T R y ay = a Q a Q S o C¢ O ~ U O^ In (o A y td r -O N y Zr.... .E "U " U CQ'- N d' m L N Q O OV C'd CL L 2 CD O. E -o E O Cn V ? CDO CD a O c N O E cz E O O V E O »O CL) E C EnU CD W- K H CDQ O CL IR E N W d m N7 _ Ri y cYcuA 07 O Q LCL c67c E CL) IG E W G J d y E Z Q M M M N M M t` V V MCDM O lO7 O O N (D LP] O r O CD O O N r CD 07 M lzj- Cl) N 69 64 to 69 69 69 d -J V 2 O Lf OD M tDM O M T O C O M LOy V CD pp ' t ; L()N T MrMMMMN 69 be 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 v% 69 V% 69 64 6% O cY O CD M "T CD O O M O O O O O r- O r- r` r- Ln N CT M (D N d' O V' N C CD OD N CD O N N N N 64 Ci} 69 (tJ 69 64 d3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) o In o 0 0 0 CD v ao aD o 1:3, a0 a M O M M Cd M CD d' M N r- M L!7 CTI 'ZI! [` LO! V r-vvLorivM 64 tO 69 EA 69 60- CD R O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L2 CT M t!J M V M696464Ei3EA64 64 O O O O O O O 0 0 LO) 0 0 0 0 O U O O O V OD COD VO M N M T Ln M V I,- LO7 r N (-A6s es 69 (f3 69 0! I T N M T N T T d tUU CuaQU O Tc cn CU U p oo :: V O O cz N z U U Li E w QJ O O O d d O U Z CD C7 (n cc U = r! A O m H y V L m a a x N wo g mcr o L d Ux O U N D N y O L U O E U = L Oi h A cmyUCdC a OLnNU C C C U CD p U> O N N C E ¢ E a y c n v y 00 y _ L C U N N O O E 3 U d ae E ca L R o > m m N U00 O O N C O` d Q N tt1 C Y td Z` S U N cO C U N o oE E a o N d= O O N > ¢ N C:3 Vl H9 clsN ct CO A Y «td+ L y Y O O y d c m = O— U v O N a C N d ci La no mcC%E O cE a 4;5 lF Ol.o d O e0 a N m E o= o o `m a s c o w o m w o E Y a y c m m o `° 20 N E U O COf36e cUO >+ V N N O c d N L .L] C y 'U Y ,C 3 D 0 aaEa o ; No o t N o rn m Y y aa`o a_ o o E no?3m N,c. iiY m tno y N C R L U U VJ N L O fO Cn O d d H 3) N O O d N 6l L O m E a» a a sE' d > U a> C 2 ld = y v y N d U= C C C J td U U iV cr> -E = = y L y 2 d L Q Ol 6J U¢ a Q C N ld N N VJ y Rs c ,d y °J d o¢ ' y Q o 0 0 o ECD O L CL CD 0 0 0 0 y w L C O U Cn x i U O O ai In c07 VO' M dForn-mo a w`-oo ? m ca ME p o 0 0OS„ a o y U~ y U C C U y n y 0 w m > a 0[ a m o o y oo m m oo `o 3 j gay 3.na aDaa O O O O O a o t0 a > c E o a-° dCD °J0000 E c ¢ o o> E o o E o 0 0 c O cc J O co icy ¢ 0 0 N C tyC O¢ N N i nhU ¢ d U C N UOH Q 06 Ov OLL Table 4-3 Estimated Total Property Tax Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and property values) Property Type Total Assessed Value Annual Property Taxes Residential Property $344,313,750 $4,677,150 Commercial Property $30,475,067 $413,973 Totals: $374,788,817 $5,091,123 Table 4-4 Distribution of Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Districts for Thornburgh(') Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates. Thornburgh estimated total assessed value of $374,788,817) ID Tax District Tax Rate Property Taxes(') 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 464,720 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 48,533 010 Fairgrounds Bond 0.141 51,260 011 County Library 0.55 199,950 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.95 345,368 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4 508,963 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 20,613 090 County Extension/4H 0.0224 8,143 093 911 0.1618 58,822 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.23 83,615 202 Rural Fire District #1 1.7542 637,731 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 135,130 620 School District #2J 5.0251 1,826,851 626 School #2J Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 301,997 628 School #2J Bond 2004 0.293 106,519 651 High Desert ESDO) 0.0964 35,046 670 COCV) 0.6204 225,543 671 COCC Bond 0.0889 32,319 Total 14.0041 $5,091,123 1) Tax rates from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. 2) Tax revenues = (AV/1000) x Tax Rate x 0.97. Amount to taxing districts assuming the property owner takes advantage of the 3% discount for paying in full prior to 15 November. 3) High Desert Educational Service District. 4) Central Oregon Community College. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 21 Room Taxes Transient Room Tax revenues are generated from hotels and other overnight lodging facilities in Deschutes County. The tax rate is 7% of the total room charge payable to the County. As shown in Table 4-5, the estimated room tax revenue from the Thornburgh Resort is $430,296 per year. A complete technical explanation of room tax calculation is provided in the Appendix to the report. Currently room tax revenues are allocated to rural law enforcement and tourism, as shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-5 Estimated Transient Room Tax Revenues from Proposed Thornburgh Resort Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and rental rates) Number Daily Estimated Estimated of Room Occupancy Tax Daily Tax Annual Tax Type of Unit Units(') Rate(') Rate(') Rate(4) Revenue(') Revenue(') Hotel Rooms 50 $121 29% 7% $123 $44,827 Residential Overnight Units() 425 $162 29% 7% $1,398 $408,115 Subtotal: $452,943 Less Collection Reimbursement('): ($22,647) Revenue to County: $430,296 1. Number of Units available as Visitor -Oriented Units is taken from page 4 of the Revised Application dated April 21, 2008. 2. Estimated Average Room Rate subject to the Room Tax. The rate for the Hotel is based on a weighted average of the rates for Hotels, Motels and Inns located in the Greater Redmond Area. The Inn at Eagle Crest showed standard room rates of $95 to $126 per night, depending on season. The rate for Residential Overnight Units is the average of the daily rate for 39 units in the Greater Redmond Oregon Area currently listed on the Vacation Rentals by Owner website for the area. Twenty-eight of these were located in Eagle Crest Resort. 3. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. So an occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then adjusted for the other months based on Total Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate of 29% for all rental types was derived. This table was also run assuming an annual occupancy rate of 100%, and 50% for both types of units. The resulting estimated revenue for Deschutes County was $1,818,010 for 100% and $909,005.13 for 50% annual occupancy rates. 4. The current Tax rate as set by Deschutes County Ordinance. 5. The number of units times the occupancy rate, times the daily room rate, times 7%. 6. The estimated Daily Tax Revenue times 365 days. For residential units, an 80% reporting rate for room taxes was assumed. 100% reporting was assumed for hotel rooms. 7. 425 is the number of units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for Short Term Rental at least 38 weeks a year. It is possible that some of the owners of the other 950 housing units in the resort might also want to rent their units at least some of the time, so the actual number of available rental units could be higher. 8. Deschutes County Code 4.08.120 requires the operator to bill the transient for the Room Tax as a separate line item on the invoice or receipt and allows the operator to retain a Collection Reimbursement Charge of up to 5% of all revenues collected. While it is possible for an operator to retain less then the full 5% permitted, for the purposes of this estimate a full 5% has been assumed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 22 Table 4-6 Distribution of Room Tax Revenues to County Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 room tax rates and rental values) Share(') Amount For Rural Law Enforcement 73% $314,116 For Tourism -Related Activities 27% $116,180 Total Room Tax Revenue 100% $430,296 1) This distribution assumes the same 73-27% split as was used in the FY 2008-09 Budget for the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 23 S. Thornburgh Resort Costs This section examines the fiscal impacts of the proposed Thornburgh resort on the following six major service categories: Transportation System Schools Fire & EMS Public Safety System Parks & Recreation System General Government As described previously, costs occur in two basic categories: 1. Capital Costs: Initial, one-time costs for the increment of new or expanded capital (facilities, infrastructure and equipment) necessary to provide adequate levels of service to the resort; and, 2. O&M Costs: Annual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the services provided to the resort. The capital costs for expanding facilities, infrastructure and equipment were calculated for all six of the above service categories. These capital costs tend to be the greatest costs associated with serving new development. The O&M costs for providing services were calculated for fire/EMS, public safety, and parks and recreation. The tax revenues for each of these service areas were also determined, so that service costs could be compared with revenues. For transportation and schools, revenues come from multiple sources (County, State and Federal) and are allocated based on formulas described in the following sections. Since revenues for these two categories could not be tied directly to the resort, it was not possible to compare the annual O&M costs with the revenues resulting from resort development. O&M costs were not calculated for general government services due to the complexity of assigning service costs to the resort. The cost impacts the resort will have on these systems may be offset by tax revenues and impact fees or mitigation fees the resort will pay. The only impact or mitigation fees identified in this study are related to the transportation system. Deschutes County enacted transportation SDC (system development charge) in 2008. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is seeking mitigation funding from the resort for impacts to intersections with state highways. Both of these potential revenues are computed and deducted from the transportation system costs. The County collects no other impact fees and the Redmond School District collects no impact fee from new development. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 24 The Thornburgh Resort is also credited with future tax payments that could potentially go towards repaying bonds for the infrastructure needs the resort creates. A new destination resort will increase the local tax base, which will distribute the bond repayment cost more widely. For example, if a new resort increases the local tax base by 5%, it will pay for 5% of the bond costs. The remaining 95% will be paid by the existing community. However, it is the new development that is creating the demand for new facilities that are calculated in this study, not the existing community. Therefore, new development will pay for only a fraction of the facility costs it creates (1/20` in this example). The actual 2008/09 tax bases for each category of service and the potential contribution of the resort towards future bond repayments is provided in the Appendix. To aid in calculating some costs, an estimate of the number of houses used as primary residences at the Thornburgh Resort and an occupancy rate of these residences was developed. Average occupancy per household in Deschutes County was 2.5 persons per the 2000 Census. The Census data is for all existing housing, and therefore does not accurately reflect the occupancy of new housing. New housing is typically larger than the average of exiting housing and typically has more occupants per unit. The American Housing Survey provides data on new homes for major cities in the US. The nearest city survey is for Portland where new housing units were found to have 8.2% higher occupancy levels than for all existing units." This same adjustment was applied to Deschutes County to produce an estimated household occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house. The percentage of housing in destination resorts used as primary residences has been the subject of some debate. Resort housing could be used for a primary residence, a second home (or vacation home), or a rental home (overnight unit). Undoubtedly, the mix of home uses will vary from resort to resort. The nearby Eagle Crest Resort appears to have a very similar profile to the proposed Thornburgh Resort and was used to establish a likely percentage of owner -occupied homes serving as primary residences. A complete tabulation of residential properties at Eagle Crest was generated by Deschutes County from County tax assessment data." There were 1,538 residential properties that were developed with homes on the tax rolls. Of these, 559 property owners received tax statements at their Eagle Crest address. Tax statements are usually sent to the property owner's primary residence, so this is highly indicative of a primary residence address. American Housing Survey for the Portland Metropolitan Area: 2002, Issued July 2003, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. a Result from this tabulation were provided in Excel format to COLW by Tim Berg, Deschutes County Community Development Department on February 26, 2009. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 25 According to a survey provided to the County by Eagle Crest Resort, an estimated 252 of the single family homes in the resort were being used as overnight units rental units) in March of 2008.19 Deducting the 252 overnight units from the 1,538 total residential units leaves 1,286 owner -occupied units (both primary residences and second homes). Based on the addresses of the tax statements, the 559 primary residences represent 43% of the 1,286 owner -occupied units. The actual percentage of primary residences will be higher if some resort residents have tax bills sent to a post office box or to an accountant's address. 19 Letter from Alan VanVliet of Jeld-Wen Development to Catherine Morrow providing results of an annual housing survey, dated March 25, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 26 Transportation System Costs A key issue in destination resort development is the demand they place on the transportation infrastructure. The new travel demand generated by resorts creates costs for the required transportation infrastructure. The full cost of the transportation infrastructure to serve new growth is reflected both in the new infrastructure that must be built and in the existing capacity that is consumed. Travel demand is a function of both the number of new vehicle trips generated and the average trip distance. The combination of the number of daily trips and the average distance of trips results in the daily "vehicle miles traveled" or VMT. VMT reflects actual roadway usage, and therefore provides a good measure for allocating transportation system costs. Another measure of travel demand is "peak -hour trips," which is intended to reflect demand on the system during the peak period. Peak -hour trips are widely used in transportation studies because they provide an indication of transportation system conditions at the busiest time of day. However, as roads become more congested, travelers shift their travel times to avoid congestion. instead, they contribute to congestion at other times. As transportation systems become more and more overburdened, peak congestion periods extend to multiple hours and can occur throughout the day. One deficiency of peak -hour trips is that they only capture those trips generated at the peak hour (usually 5-6pm weekdays) and miss traffic generation at other times. Schools, for example generate considerable traffic at other hours. Resorts will also generate most trips at other hours for golf and other recreational activities. With this measure, traffic sources that do not generate peak -hour trips are not counted as impacting the transportation system, despite increased travel demand. Peak -hour trips are based on the peak traffic hour of the adjacent roadway, and not the peak for the source of the trips being studied. Destination resorts are typically sited in relatively remote locations outside of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and away from existing cities and towns. Due to their remote locations, residents and guests will travel farther to reach common destinations, such as employment, grocery stores, department stores, etcetera. As a result, VMT generation will tend to be higher per unit of development than it would be in an urban location. Studies show that even in urban areas, the per capita VMT increases by a factor of two to three, or more on the urban fringe compared with the urban core. Daily per - capita VMT was found to be two to four times greater in the Atlanta suburbs than in Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 27 the city's core area.ZO Similar findings were obtained for Eugene -Springfield in a 1994 travel study by Lane Council of Governments." According to a study in Rhode Island (1999), rural towns had on average 16.5 miles of local roads per 1,000 housing units, or almost three times as many as urban core communities (6.1 miles per 1,000 housing units)." Figure 5-1: Time of day for trips in rural Oregon (Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey,23 Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips. This is lower than the 9.57 trips that would be estimated using the ITE Trip Generation manual.24 Average rural trip time was 16.52 minutes. While this trip time is comparable to that in urban areas, rural trips will tend to cover more distance and be at a higher average speed, requiring 20 Source: Atlanta Journal -Constitution, 12/9/02, based on data from Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. 1994 Estimated VMT per Capita by Production Zone, by Lane Council of Governments. u The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island, Executive Summary, by Grow Smart Rhode Island, 1999, Providence, RI, The Rhode Island Foundation. Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000, Table 4.2. According to ODOT, survey data involves some underreporting, so actual daily trip will be higher than reported (see footnote, page 9 of Oregon Travel Behavior Survey). Institute of Transportation Engineers' reference manual for trip generation, 8`h Edition. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 28 more road infrastructure. if an average rural speed of 40 mph is assumed, the average trip distance would be 11 miles and household VMT would be 80.5 miles per day." The Cost of Transportation Facilities The "projection -based" method for estimating transportation system costs uses a planning estimate or projection of the future system improvements that are needed as a basis for allocating costs to the new development that will occur over the planning period. The County has prepared a 20 -year list of transportation projects as part of its adoption of a new transportation System Development Charge (SDC) in 2008. This list covers all projects in the unincorporated areas of the County that are anticipated from 2008 to 2028. The total cost of all projects is $280 million. Project costs are funding by a mix of County, State and Federal sources. Most of these projects are capacity -increasing and will serve the needs of new growth in the County. However, a portion of the projects are maintenance -related and will not expand the system capacity. Only a very brief description is available to characterize each project on the 20 -year list and no further information was available from the County. A simplified system was used to allocate individual project costs between capacity expansion and maintenance functions. New roads were allocated 100% to meet the needs of new growth. New bridges were allocated 75% to new growth. Road "widening and overlays" and "road reconstruction and widening," were allocated 500/,o to new growth. None of the costs for pedestrian and bike lane improvements were allocated to growth as they were considered system -wide upgrades. Based on this cost allocation, $240 million or 86% of these costs are growth -related capacity increasing), while $39 million, or 14% are for maintenance. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the project cost allocation. As shown in column 5 of Table 5- 1, Deschutes County will fund less than one-third of growth -related transportation facilities, while the State will fund two-thirds. (The Federal funding is shown as being fairly small, but Federal transportation funds that are distributed by the State are listed under the State funding, so the actual Federal contribution is larger than shown.) n The average speed of 40 mph was used to reflect overall average trip speed, including stops, starts and turns on roadways with typical 55 mph speed limits. This was intended to be conservative, as higher trip speeds would result in longer travel distances and greater road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 29 Table 5-1 20 -year Transportation System Project List for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028)(') 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percent Percent of Growth Cost per Total Project of Total Growth -Related Growth Cost per Typical New Funding Entity Costs Costs Project Costs Costs Capita(') House (4) Deschutes County 96,614,339 35% 70,165,715 29% 2,273 6,137 State of Oregon (2) 157,500,000 56% 157,500,000 66% 5,102 13,775 Federal Gov.(2) 25,431,250 9% 12,715,625 5% 412 1,112 Totals: 279,545,589 100% 240,381,340 100% 7,787 21,024 1) Source: Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. 2) State funding includes funds from the Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. 3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20 -year period. 4) Costs associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described earlier in this section of the report The per -capita cost for population growth can be estimated by allocating the growth - related (capacity increasing) components of the County's total future transportation system costs for the next 20 years ($240,381,340) to the estimated population increase for the same period. During this time period the population of the unincorporated County is projected to grow from 56,609 in 2008 to 87,480 in 2028, an increase of 30,871 people.26 This results in a cost of $7,787 per new person column 6 of Table 5-1). The County's share of this cost is $2,273 per person. The cost per new house can be estimated based on the typical occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house (calculated earlier). At this occupancy rate, the total cost per new house is $21,024. The County's share of this cost is $6,137 per new house. A new transportation System Development Charge (SDC) was approved by Deschutes County in July of 2008 to help recover a portion of the County's share of capacity -increasing transportation costs. While the State SDC Statute27 allows for a reimbursement component, the County's fee does not include a reimbursement component to recover the cost of existing roadway capacity that will be consumed by future growth. The SDC fee will be phased in gradually up to $3,504 per new peak - hour vehicle trip by 2011. For a new single-family dwelling, 1.01 peak -hour trips are generated and the SDC is $3,539 per SFD (not including the $45 administrative charge allowed by State Statute). Deducting the SDC (full 2011 rate) from the County's gross cost per new house ($6,137) results in a net transportation system cost to the County of $2,598 per new house for the capacity -increasing components. 16 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast was extended to 2028 using the growth rate for the 2020-2025 period of 2.2%/year. Z' ORS 223.297-314. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 30 Reimbursement Value of Existing Transportation Infrastructure As noted, the Deschutes County SDC project list does not address the value of transportation infrastructure capacity that has already been built that will be consumed by new development (also referred to as "excess capacity"). If average roadway congestion levels on existing roads did not increase over the 20 -year project timetable, then there would be no loss in mobility (or increase in congestion), and therefore no "consumption" of existing excess capacity. However, it is unlikely that the County will be able to build enough new facilities to prevent such congestion increases. Nationwide the roads have become increasing congested as cities, counties and states across the country have been unable to keep up with demand.28 To investigate changes in traffic levels on existing roadways, historic traffic count data must be analyzed. The County's traffic count data reports Average Daily Traffic ADT) for 281 roadway segments.' Data was obtained from the County for the 1I - year period, 1998 to 2008. Data was not available for every year for every segment, so the average of the traffic counts in the first four years (1998-2001) was compared with average of the last four years (2005-2008). Only the 212 road segments that had traffic counts in both time periods were analyzed. The results show that traffic increased from an average ADT per road segment of 1,473 to 1,780, an increased volume of 20.8% on County roads in a roughly seven-year span.30 It is therefore reasonable to conclude that new development in the County is generating transportation system demand faster than the County is building new capacity and that new development is consuming existing excess road capacity. There is no data on the existing excess capacity of County roads. The County's Level -of -Service (LOS) standard for rural roads is "D" or better. A LOS of D represents average daily traffic (ADT) of up to 9,600 vehicles for a two-lane road. Therefore, 9,600 vehicles is the effective capacity of the roadway under the LOS standard. The County's 1996 Transportation System Plan shows ADT and LOS for the 36 busiest roadway segments in the County at that time. None of the segments exceeded a LOS of D and most were rated B or C with 3,000 to 5,000 ADT. Based on this somewhat dated data, it appears that the County had more than 500A excess capacity on its main road network in 1996.31 2' The 2007 Urban Mobility Report, by the Texas Transportation Institute reports that over last 24 years we have built only 41% of the transportation infrastructure necessary to keep up with growing demand. A sample of this data can be found on the Deschutes County Road Department web site at http://www.co.deschutes.or. us/download. cfm?DownloadFile=OD8135CF-BDBD-57C 1- 98378109FA737581. The full data set was used for this study. 30 This increase in traffic occurred over a period of approximately seven years, based on using the midpoint of each of the two periods compared. The period is approximate because traffic count data was not available for all years. 31 The more -recent County traffic count data referred to earlier shows an average ADT at 212 road locations of 1,780 for the 2005-2008 period. If all of these roadways have a capacity of 9,600 ADT, Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 31 The value of the County's excess roadway capacity is significant, however, due to data limitation there is no direct way to accurately determine either the value of this capacity or the amount that will be consumed by new development. However, rather than leave this cost area completely unaddressed, a very rough, but conservative estimate was developed. To make this estimate, the following rough assumptions were used; 1. Excess capacity in 2008 is at least 40% of existing roadways. 2. New development over the next 20 years will consume half of the remaining excess capacity. 3. The value of the excess capacity can be indexed based on its replacement costs today and the population increase served by the total value of the capacity - increasing projects on the SDC project list. To roughly estimate the replacement value of the existing transportation system it was assumed that the value could be based on the estimated costs necessary to serve future population growth. The value of the growth -related (capacity increasing) projects in the 20 -year SDC project list is $240,381,340. This results in a cost of 7,787 for each new person projected in the County over the 20 -year period. Applying the per -capita cost to the 56,609 persons currently living in the unincorporated County in 2008 results in an existing system value of $441 million. This figure is the approximate replacement value for the system required to serve today's population. The figure is low, since it does not account for building the excess capacity that exists today. None -the -less, as a very rough estimate, the value of excess capacity consumed over the next 20 years is 20% of $441 million, or $88 million. Dividing $88 million by the projected population growth over the next 20 years of 30,871 people, results in a reimbursement cost of $2,856 per new person. Based on an occupancy rate for new homes of 2.7, the reimbursement cost per new home is $7,711. Table 5-2 combines the value of new facilities and the value of excess capacity used to serve new growth in the unincorporated area of the County. As shown, total transportation system costs (from all funding sources) for new growth are $10,637 per person, $28,720 per new house, and $3,929 per daily vehicle trip. Note that the estimates in Table 5-2 are based on planning projections and are therefore only as accurate as the projections they are based upon. then there is approximately 80% excess capacity in the road network. However, the data is not adequate to assess the actual capacity of each roadway segment. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 32 Table 5-2 Estimated Transportation System Costs to Serve New Growth for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028) 1) Derived from Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. 2) Rough estimate based on estimated excess system capacity consumed by new growth. 3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20 -year period. 4) Cost associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described at the beginning of this section. 5) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips 6) State funding includes funds from Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Estimating the transportation system impacts associated with a destination resort is more complex because standardized data on destination resort travel demand is unavailable and the use has unique characteristics. These resorts contain a variety of commercial and residential uses. The commercial uses cannot be readily estimated from the same per -capita basis used for residential land uses. Also, resorts will accommodate a certain percentage of vehicle trips internally. Internal trips are those that do not leave the resort, and would include residents visiting the golf course or resort restaurant. Since the road structure within the resort is funded entirely by the resort developer, these internal trips do not create an impact on the external public road system. There are various estimates for the number of external vehicle trips generated by resorts. The Thornburgh Resort submitted their own traffic study showing that a vast majority of vehicle trips would be accommodated internally and that the resort would generate a total of 517 peak PM hour trips (5-6pm weekdays).32 However, the peak PM trips" metric failed to capture the peak trip generation by the resort, which occurred earlier than for the adjacent roadways. Peak resort traffic occurred between 1pm and 4pm. Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 9B. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 33 County Costs State Costs(') Federal Costs Total Costs Value of New Capacity for Future Growth(') 70,165,715 157,500,000 12,715,625 $240,381,340 Value of Existing Capacity Consumed (21 share unknown share unknown share unknown $88,000,000 Total Growth -Related Costs share unknown share unknown share unknown $328,381,340 Cost per Capita for New Population(') 10,637 Cost per New House (4) 28,720 Cost per Daily Vehicle Trip() 3,929 1) Derived from Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. 2) Rough estimate based on estimated excess system capacity consumed by new growth. 3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20 -year period. 4) Cost associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described at the beginning of this section. 5) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips 6) State funding includes funds from Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Estimating the transportation system impacts associated with a destination resort is more complex because standardized data on destination resort travel demand is unavailable and the use has unique characteristics. These resorts contain a variety of commercial and residential uses. The commercial uses cannot be readily estimated from the same per -capita basis used for residential land uses. Also, resorts will accommodate a certain percentage of vehicle trips internally. Internal trips are those that do not leave the resort, and would include residents visiting the golf course or resort restaurant. Since the road structure within the resort is funded entirely by the resort developer, these internal trips do not create an impact on the external public road system. There are various estimates for the number of external vehicle trips generated by resorts. The Thornburgh Resort submitted their own traffic study showing that a vast majority of vehicle trips would be accommodated internally and that the resort would generate a total of 517 peak PM hour trips (5-6pm weekdays).32 However, the peak PM trips" metric failed to capture the peak trip generation by the resort, which occurred earlier than for the adjacent roadways. Peak resort traffic occurred between 1pm and 4pm. Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 9B. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 33 A study by Kittelson and Associates33 measured the traffic generation from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort by counting trips in and out of the resort for several weekday periods. The study concluded that 4.4 offsite trips are generated per residential unit and suggested that this is an appropriate value to use for destination resorts. These trip counts include all the commercial and recreational activities at the resort, as well as the residences. Therefore, they are an indication of the total trip generation by the resort, indexed to the number of residential units. The Thornburgh Resort has 1,375 residential units. Based on the Kittelson Study, the resort would generate at total of 6,050 daily vehicle trips. These would all be external, or offsite trips. For comparison purposes, the trips were estimated using standard trip generation rates for conventional development (see Table 5-3). As a conventional development, the uses at Thornburgh would generate approximately 17,054 daily vehicle trips. However, since destination resorts are likely to accommodate more vehicle trips internally than conventional developments, the empirical data from Kittelson was used instead. Using the estimate based on the Kittelson Study of 6,050 daily trips and the cost per vehicle trip of $3,929 from Table 5-2, the total gross transportation system cost associated with the resort is $23.8 million. To obtain a net cost for the Thornburgh Resort, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. That step is done at the conclusion to this section. Table 5-3 Conventional Trip Generation Estimate for Thornburgh Destination Resort(') Expected Expected Daily Description (ITE Code) Units") Units Trips Single Family Homes (210) DU 1,375 13,159 Hotel (310) Rooms 50 446 Health/Fitness Club (493) TSF Gross 60 1,976 General Office (710) TSF Gross 15 165 Shopping Center (820) TSF Gross 20 859 Quality Restaurant (931) TSF Gross 5 450 Total Trips: 17,054 1) Based on ITE Trip Generation manual, 71 Edition. 2) DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet of gross floor area Central Oregon Resort Trip Generation Study, by Kittelson and Associates, September 12, 2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 34 Standards -Based Costing Method The transportation system costs calculated above in Table 5-2 are based on the projected population growth of the County and the projected transportation infrastructure needs for the next 20 years. Both projections are estimates for a long period of time and could involve substantial errors. It is notoriously difficult to estimate future population growth, but it is even more difficult to anticipate and accurately estimate all the transportation infrastructure needs for a county 20 years into the future. To examine the transportation system costs from another perspective, a standards- based impact analysis was performed. This method is based on meeting County level -of -service (LOS) standards. Travel demand was used to determine the number of new lane -miles of roads that are needed to serve new homes. A roadway cost per - lane mile was developed and the number of lane -miles required by new development was used to estimate road costs. Estimates of new road costs were not available from Deschutes County, so road costs per lane -mile were compiled from three sources, including the County SDC project list and ODOT in order to develop a reasonable estimate. Values for two-lane, rural roads on flat terrain were selected. As shown in Table 5-4, the average cost per new lane -mile for all sources is $3.4 million. The seven new roads on the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Project List were used to develop one road cost estimate. The average cost of these roads per lane -mile was $3 million. The cost for one road segment included an overpass, so that some other roadway costs are included as well. Representative road costs should include the costs of intersections, signalization, bridges, and other associated system costs. For comparison, Table 5-4 shows the road costs for a rural road on flat terrain from ODOT's Highway Economic Requirement System ($2.7 million/lane-mile) and an estimate for rural roads from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute ($4.5 million/lane-mile). These figures bracketed the Deschutes County road costs, so the 3 million per lane -mile figure was used for road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 35 Table 5-4 Road Cost Estimates from Various Sources All costs adjusted to 2008 dollars) Cost per Lane -Mile Construction Land Source Cost Acquisition Cost Total Cost New Roads in Deschutes Co. SDC Project List(')' 2,807,982 240,000 3,047,982 ODOT New HERS Improvement Costs (2) 2,461,980 240,000 2,701,980 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (3) 4,199,040 263,340 4,462,380 Average of Sources: 3,404,114 1) Average cost for new roads on list. Land values based on total road ROW width of 80 feet and land acquisition costs of $50,000 per acre. 2) ODOT New Highway Economic Requirement System (HERS) Improvement Costs, lane -mile costs for constructing new rural major collector on flat terrain. 3) Source: VTPI Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II — Roadway Costs, Table 5.6.3-4, January 2009. Value for undivided highways in outlying areas. Year 2000 dollars were adjusted to 2008 using Oregon Highway Construction Cost Trends. As described earlier, the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey provides the best available travel demand data for rural households in the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. From this survey data it was estimated that the average daily rural household VMT is 80.5 miles. To translate this into a lane -mile demand for new roadways, a level -of -service standard must be assumed. The County's minimum LOS standard of "D" represents the maximum congestion limits acceptable on County roads. The ADT at LOS D is 9,600 vehicles. A two-lane roadway operating at LOS D could accommodate 4,800 vehicles per day per lane in each direction. At this congestion level, the lane -mile distance required to accommodate the 80.5 miles of daily VMT generated by the typical rural household is 0.017 lane -miles. The cost of building 0.017 lane miles at $3 million per lane -mile, is $51,000 per new household. To maintain a higher LOS standard of "C" (ADT of 5,700, closer to what County residents now enjoy), requires 0.028 lane miles per new household, or $84,000 in new road system costs per new household. The costs on a per -trip basis are shown for both LOS standards in Table 5-5. While costs of $51,000 to $84,000 per household may seem incredibly high, they should be adjusted even higher to reflect the higher occupancy rate that can be expected in a new home compared with the average of existing homes from which the travel survey data was derived. Using the 8% higher occupancy rate of a new house relative to an existing house, the costs would be $55,000 to $90,700 for LOS of D and C respectively. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 36 Table 5-5 Standards -Based Transportation System Costs per New Vehicle Trip Cost Per Household Cost Per New Vehicle Trip(" Cost to maintain LOS "D" $51,000 $6,977 Cost to maintain LOS "C" $84,000 $11,491 1) Based on 7.31 trips per household reported for Deschutes County in the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey. These standards-based costs are much higher than the $28,720 per new house cost estimated by using the County's 24 -year projections for new road infrastructure and population growth. One possible reason for the higher standards-based cost is that the County is not planning enough future road capacity to maintain current LOS standards and will see roads become increasingly congested in the future. As mentioned previously, road congestion is increasing nationwide and planned road construction is inadequate to maintain current standards. The high cost of maintaining even the County's minimum LOS standard under continuing growth may be too high for the public to bear. Instead of paying for construction of new roads, county residents will likely pay indirectly through the travel delays and increased fuel use associated with growing congestion. Standards -Based Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort As noted previously, a destination resort generates a complex mix of uses and accommodates many of its vehicle trip onsite. The trip generation estimate from Kittelson and Associates is a total trip generation rate of 4.4 trips per dwelling unit that includes all uses in the resort (residential and commercial). For Thornburgh this would be 6,050 daily vehicle trips. Using the cost per vehicle trip to maintain a LOS of D of $6,977 from Table 5-5, the cost for building the offsite road capacity for 6,050 new trips is $42.2 million. Depending on the fiscal impact analysis method employed, the gross transportation facilities costs for the Thornburgh Resort would range from $23.3 million to $42.2 million (see Table 5-6). While both figures are reasonable estimates, the higher, standards-based figure probably does a better job of representing the full cost of transportation system impacts. This is because the standards-based method assures that the current minimum LOS standard of D is maintained, while the projection - based method does not. It is also worth reiterating that the LOS standard used here still allows for a considerable increase in average road congestion that is not included in the $42.2 million cost, and therefore is a conservative (low) estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 37 Table 5-6 Estimated Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Impact Analysis Method Cost Planning projection -based estimate $23.3 million Standards-based estimate (LOS=D) $42.2 million Net Transportation Cost from Thornburgh Resort To obtain a net cost, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. The Thornburgh Resort will pay a Transportation SDC for each development. The SDC may be based on the standard rate indicated in the SDC adoption resolution, or an alternative rate based on the applicant's data showing that a reduced number of vehicle trips will be generated.34 The approximate total SDC payments under both methods range from $1.8 million to $6.5 million, as shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 Alternative Method with Trip Reductions Resort's Estimated PM Peak Trips(2) 517.0 $3,504 $1,811,568 1) Excludes administrative fees. 2) Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision Il, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 98, prepared for Thornburgh Resort. According to an unsigned "Cooperative Improvement Agreement" between the Thornburgh Resort and ODOT, the resort will mitigate its immediate, direct Deschutes County Resolution #2008-059 establishes the SDC charge, standard rates, and the allowance for exceptions to the standard rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 38 Estimated SDC Payments for Thornburgh Resort — Conventional Method Assumes full rate charged with no trip reductions) ITE Expected PM Trip Cost per Full SDC Code SDC Category Units Units Rate PM Trips Trip(') Rate 210 SF Detached DU 1375 1.01 1388.8 3,504 4,866,180 310 Hotel Rooms 50 0.59 29.5 3,504 103,368 493 Athletic Club TSF Gross 60 5.76 345.6 3,504 1,210,982 710 General Office TSF Gross 15 1.49 22.4 3,504 78,314 814 Specialty Retail TSF Gross 20 2.71 54.2 3,504 189,917 931 Quality Restaurant TSF Gross 5 2.15 10.8 3,504 37,668 Totals: 1851.2 6,486,430 Alternative Method with Trip Reductions Resort's Estimated PM Peak Trips(2) 517.0 $3,504 $1,811,568 1) Excludes administrative fees. 2) Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision Il, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 98, prepared for Thornburgh Resort. According to an unsigned "Cooperative Improvement Agreement" between the Thornburgh Resort and ODOT, the resort will mitigate its immediate, direct Deschutes County Resolution #2008-059 establishes the SDC charge, standard rates, and the allowance for exceptions to the standard rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 38 impacts on a nearby intersection with the State highway. This mitigation includes payment of up to $1,125,000 towards improvements at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection in Tumalo. The improvement to the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection is included on the SDC project list, so this contribution should be deducted from the resort's gross transportation system costs. The maximum potential payment of $1,250,000 is applied. The increase in State gas tax revenues resulting from the resort should also be considered. Gas taxes are collected from gasoline sales, but the State distributes them to counties based on the number of registered vehicles in the county. The extent to which the resort increases the number of county -wide registered vehicles will determine the increase in gas tax revenues attributed to the resort. Only permanent, year -around residents of the resort are likely to register their vehicles locally. There was no clear method for estimating the increase in the number of register vehicles resulting from the resort, so this impact could not be computed. However, the impact would be quite small. For example, if there were 400 additional registered vehicles, County Road Fund revenue would increase less than $16,000, which would be insignificant relative to the costs.35 The final cost estimate for the transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort assumes that the resort will apply for trip reductions to lower their SDC payment to a total of $1.8 million. As shown in Table 5-8, the final cost range is 20.7 million to $39.1 million, depending on the impact method used. The higher standards-based figure is used in the final impact analysis because it does a better job of reflecting the full impacts of this development, as discussed previously. Table 5-8 Estimated Net Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Maximum SDC Developer Method Gross Cost Payments0) Contribution(2) Net Cost Planning projection -based estimate $23,770,450 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $20,708,882 Standards-based estimate (LOS=D) $42,210,850 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $39,149,282 1) Assumes afternate SDC calculation method with tip reductions. 2) Maximum possible contribution towards ODOT expenses at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection. ss For the 2007-08 fiscal year Deschutes County received $7,963,277 in State Road Funds and had 205,402 registered vehicles, equivalent to $38.77 per registered vehicle (based on Oregon Department of Transportation, Financial Services, Highway Revenues Apportionment data). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 39 School Facilities Costs Destination resorts will generate new K-12 school students and additional demand for school facilities. This section looks at the likely impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort on the revenues and costs of the Redmond School District. The resort will generate school students both from the new resort housing and from the newcomers attracted to fill jobs created by the resort. According the current Working Draft of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan:` Schools One of the basic problems with larger amounts of residential development is that it rarely pays in property taxes for the services that must be provided. This is particularly true for the most expensive public facility --schools. Additional permanent residences require more facilities and teachers. When this plan was written, much of the new development had been provided for seasonal recreation and was therefore not likely to require schools. However, the County was realizing that much of the seasonal development was becoming full-time residences. This forced the school districts to seek additional funds for new buildings and more teachers. In addition, costs rose because many of the new residences were in rural areas and required ever more expensive busing. Student Generation by Resort Housing The new, private resort homes that are occupied as primary residences will generate new school students, but the specific level of student generation is unknown. There is no data that clearly differentiate the student generation rate of a private home in a destination resort from a typical new home in the same county. If resort homes are occupied full-time by their owners, they may have a similar demographic profile to other new houses in the area. If they are used as part-time second homes (or vacation homes), they will generate few, if any new students. It is assumed that homes built exclusively for overnight lodging purposes will generate no new students. Therefore, homes designated for overnight lodging are not included in the following analysis. As described at the beginning of this section, homes used as primary residences were found to constitute 43% of owner -occupied (non overnight) units in the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. This percentage may vary considerably from resort to resort. In order to examine the potential impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are used to model the range of potential student generation by the private, owner occupied homes in the resort: Working Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, draft of 5-14-08, Page 3-18. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 40 Scenario #1: High student generation. Private, owner -occupied homes in the resort are assumed to generate the same demand as new private homes elsewhere in the County. (Overnight units are assumed to generate no demand.) This scenario may become increasing likely if resort homes are purchased and used as primary residences. The Thornburgh resort has no age limits or household limitations regarding children, so the market will decide who owns these units and how they are used. A continued weak national economy may encourage consolidation of home ownerships, reducing the number of second homes. A weaker economy may also reduce the sizes and prices of future resort homes, making them more attractive to families. Scenario #2: Low student generation. This is the "vacation resort" scenario. Private, owner -occupied homes in the resort are assumed to be used largely as retirement homes and as second (vacation) homes and to generate only 25% of the new students generated by new homes elsewhere in the County. This scenario would be more applicable if expensive, higher -end housing is constructed, which would favor more -affluent owners and may reduce the number of families with school-age children and increase the percentage of retirees without school-age children. If a resort were age -restricted (such as 55 and above), it might generate no students from the new homes. However, we are not aware of any destination resorts in Oregon with age restrictions. In Deschutes County, 16.1% of the population is of K-12 school age, 5 through 17 years of age.37 This is slightly lower than the statewide school-age figure of 16.9°/0 of the population. Applying the percent of school-age children to the occupancy rate of 2.7 for new homes, yields a school-age generation rate of 0.43 students per new house. State Law requires that destination resorts provide a certain amount of overnight accommodations to assure that they meet their tourism function. In Deschutes County there must be at least one housing unit available for overnight accommodations for every two private, owner -occupied housing unit created at a destination resort. Most resorts build only the minimum number of overnight units, and therefore adhere closely to this ratio. It is not clear that resorts continue to adhere to the minimum number of overnight units once construction is completed, and some overnight units may convert to owner -occupied status. For the Thornburgh Resort, 950 of the 1,375 housing units will be owner -occupied. A 50 -room hotel will be used to meet the balance of the overnight housing requirement. There are no age or demographic restrictions on ownership, so the use 37 The most recent US Census estimates for households in Deschutes County are for 2006. This data includes the incorporated areas of the county. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 41 of these homes will be market-driven. These homes may be used either as primary residences or as second homes (vacation homes). Table 5-9: Estimated K-12 student generation by residential housing at Thornburgh Resort. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Total owner -occupied housing units 950 950 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 0.11 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Student Generation from Resort Employment In addition to student generation from the housing in a destination resort, there is a secondary demand resulting from the new jobs created at the resort. These new jobs will attract new households to the area and generate new students. Since the construction jobs are temporary, the number of new students generated by resort employment will fluctuate as households move in and out of the area to meet employment needs. Employment impacts are addressed in more detail in the Economic Impacts section of this report. The direct and induced employment resulting from the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to peak in year six at 2,015 jobs and then decline by 1,471 jobs to a steady level of 544 jobs from year twelve onward. There is no straightforward method for estimating school system impacts resulting from short-term employment. Undoubtedly the students generated by the 1,471 temporary jobs will significantly impact the school system. This study evaluates the school impacts resulting from only the permanent jobs generated by the resort. These employment-related school impacts are included in order to better account for the full impact resort development has on the local school district. Based on estimates developed in the Economic Impacts section, 347 new households will be created by the 408 jobs filled by newcomers. Table 5-10: Estimated K-12 student generation by newcomers filling permanent jobs at Thornburgh Resort. Total new housing units for resort -related employment 347 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 Students generated by resort employment 149 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 42 Table 5-11 shows total student generation for new resort housing and resort employment. Under Scenario #1, resort housing will generate a similar number of new students as other new housing in Deschutes County, resulting in a total of 558 new students. Under Scenario #2, resort housing will generate only 25% of the students of a typical new house in the County, resulting in a total of 253 new students. These two scenarios provide a reasonable range of 251 to 558 new students generated by the Thornburgh Resort. Table 5-11: Total K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Students generated by resort employment 149 149 Total students generated 558 251 School Funding in Oregon Schools in Oregon are funded primarily by a combination of state and local sources. The primary local source is property taxes. The State School Fund formula determines how much state funding a school district gets. The formula bases the state funding on the number of students served and deducts the local property taxes going to schools. The state funding is directed to school operations, maintenance, repairs and transportation needs. If the local property tax revenues increase due to a new destination resort, the state contribution to local school funding will be reduced by an equal amount. For new students generated by the resort, the district will receive the same funding per student as they do for the rest of their students. Therefore, new developments provide no extra funding to local school districts for general operations. New school facilities needed to serve growth are funded primarily through issuance of voter -approved local general obligation bonds that are repaid through local property taxes. Local property tax revenues for bond repayment are not deducted from the State's operation funding. The tax base for the Redmond School District comes from the total assessed values of the District in both Deschutes County and Jefferson County. Table 5-12 shows the total tax base is $4,937,455,942 for 2008-09. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 43 Table 5-12: Assessed value for the Redmond School District 2J tax base. Assessed Value Total County 2008-091" Deschutes County $3,594,082,824 Jefferson County $1,343,373,118 Total School District Tax Base: $4,937,455,942 1) Source: Redmond School District Assuming that the Thornburgh Resort is fully built out as planned, the estimated increase in the assessed value of the school district's tax base would be $374,788,817. At full buildout, Thornburgh would represent 7.1% of the tax base available to the school district. Based on the estimated increase in the total tax base available to the Redmond School District that would be created by the Thornburgh Resort, the resort will pay for approximately 7.1% of facility bonds issued for new construction by the District. This percentage will be deducted from the school facility costs generated by the resort. School Facility Costs To estimate the cost of expanding school facilities to increase student capacity, the total costs for new facilities at all grade levels must be determined. The Redmond School District passed a bond in May of 2008 for a new high school and new elementary school. A new middle school was built by the District in 2006. The costs for these new facilities are added to the land values to obtain a total school facility cost for each grade level, as shown in Table 5-13 below. Table 5-13: School facility costs, Redmond School District, 2008. Total School Grade Level Building Cost Land CosP) Facility Cost High school(') 80,000,000 13,600,000 93,600,000 Middle school(') 22,764,955 3,000,000 25,764,955 Elementary school(') 20,000,000 2,600,000 22,600,000 Notes: 1) Building costs based on a bond issue by the Redmond SD approved by voters May 20, 2008 as Measure 9-56. 2) Building cost based on Elton Gregory Middle School completed in 2006 for $20 million. Costs adjusted to 2008 using ENR Construction Cost Index for closest location (Seattle). 3) Based on actual acreage and a current land value estimate of $200,000 per acre. The total school facility cost is divided by the capacity of students for each facility to calculate at cost per unit of student capacity (see Table 5-14). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 44 Table 5-14: School facility costs per unit student capacity, Redmond School District, 2008. Cost per Unit Total School Student Student Grade Level Facility Cost Capacity(') Capacity High school $93,600,000 1400 $66,857 Middle school $25,764,955 804 $32,046 Elementary school $22,600,000 600 $37,667 1) Capacity for each school from Redmond School District. The "cost per unit of student capacity" is then distributed across the student generation rate at each grade level for a typical new house in Deschutes County, as shown in Table 5-15. Based on facility costs in the Redmond School District, the total school facilities cost associated with typical new house is $21,542. Table 5-15: School facility costs per new house, Redmond School District, 2008. 1) Based on 2007 enrollment data Estimated School Facilities Costs for Thornburgh Resort The Redmond School District does not charge a school excise fee (a development impact fee authorized by the State Legislature) for new and expanded school facilities, so development makes no direct contribution to school facility costs outside of ordinary property tax payments. If the district were to adopt the fee, it could collect up to $1 per square foot. A new 3,000 square foot house would pay a fee of up to $3,000. Based on the high and low student generation rate scenarios (Scenarios #1 and #2), it is possible to estimate the range of total students generated by the destination resort and the resulting total facility costs. The Thornburgh Resort will generate costs for new and expanded school facilities ranging from a low estimate of $12.6 million to a high of $27.9 million, as shown in Table 5-16. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 45 Cost per Percent of Student School Unit Total Students Generation by Facility Student at Grade Grade Level for Costs per Grade Level Capacity Level(') New House New House High school 66,857 47% 0.202 13,507 Middle school 32,046 23% 0.098 3,147 Elementary school 37,667 30% 0.130 4,888 Totals: 100% 0.430 21,542 1) Based on 2007 enrollment data Estimated School Facilities Costs for Thornburgh Resort The Redmond School District does not charge a school excise fee (a development impact fee authorized by the State Legislature) for new and expanded school facilities, so development makes no direct contribution to school facility costs outside of ordinary property tax payments. If the district were to adopt the fee, it could collect up to $1 per square foot. A new 3,000 square foot house would pay a fee of up to $3,000. Based on the high and low student generation rate scenarios (Scenarios #1 and #2), it is possible to estimate the range of total students generated by the destination resort and the resulting total facility costs. The Thornburgh Resort will generate costs for new and expanded school facilities ranging from a low estimate of $12.6 million to a high of $27.9 million, as shown in Table 5-16. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 45 Table 5-16: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resort(') 950 238 Number of new households for permanent employees 347 347 Total new households generating school-age students Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 1297 585 558 251 School facility costs per new house $21,542 $21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x $/hse): $27,939,974 $12,591,299 Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. For the final fiscal impact on school facilities, only the student generation from Thornburgh Resort housing was included. Impacts from resort employment were not included in order to be consistent with the rest of the impact study, which did not include secondary or induced impacts. The costs associated with only the resort housing range from $5 million to $20 million, as shown in Table 5-17. Table 5-17: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing. Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. In order to credit the resort for future property tax payments that would potentially contribute to school construction bonds, the estimated 7.1% contribution to the tax base should be deducted from the school facility costs attributed to the resort (see previous discussion on this). Therefore the net costs for school facilities attributed to the resort range from $4.8 million to $19 million, as shown in Table 5-18. To be conservative, the $4.8 million cost associated with the low -student -generation -rate scenario (Scenario #2) was used in the final cost estimates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 46 Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resort(') 950 238 Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 409 102 School facility costs per new house 21,542 21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x $/hse): 20,464,900 5,116,225 Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. In order to credit the resort for future property tax payments that would potentially contribute to school construction bonds, the estimated 7.1% contribution to the tax base should be deducted from the school facility costs attributed to the resort (see previous discussion on this). Therefore the net costs for school facilities attributed to the resort range from $4.8 million to $19 million, as shown in Table 5-18. To be conservative, the $4.8 million cost associated with the low -student -generation -rate scenario (Scenario #2) was used in the final cost estimates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 46 Table 5-18: Net K-12 school facilities costs for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net School Facilities Costs Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Total school facilities costs: $20,464,900 $5,116,225 Future property tax contribution (at 7.1 %) ($1,453,008) ($363,252) Net school facilities costs: $19,011,892 $4,752,973 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 47 Fire & EMS System Costs The Thornburgh resort would receive fire and emergency medical service (EMS) services from the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 (DC RFPD#1). Four of the ten existing land parcels that make up the proposed Thornburgh Resort are located within the boundaries of the Fire District and the remaining 6 parcels have been recently annexed within the District at the request of the resort developer. Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 does not independently provide fire and EMS services, but rather has entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of Redmond to jointly provide Fire Protection and EMS services to both City and District residents through Redmond Fire and Rescue (RF&R). With an annual budget of $6,483,074 and utilizing the services of 40 career and 23 volunteer fire fighters, Redmond Fire and Rescue provides fire and EMS services to the 42,000 residents of its 145 square mile service area (450 square miles for ambulance service) .3' To do this it operates four fire stations: The Headquarters Station located within Redmond proper; the Airport Station at Roberts Field; and the Cline Falls and Terrebonne Fire Stations within DC RFPD#l. Operational Capacity Assessing the capacity of a fire department is a difficult task. First, it is impossible, for both fiscal and operational reasons, to have a fire department of sufficient size to meet all possible operational situations. Second, the random nature of emergency calls makes establishing a reasonable base level of service difficult. In 2007 RF&R experienced 4,253 dispatched 9-1-1 service calls, 2,864 in the city of Redmond and 1,388 rural calls.39 This included 2,894 EMS calls, 830 fire calls and 511 medical transfers. While this averages out to roughly 12 calls per day, or 3 calls per station per day, these call levels are not consistent. They can come in bunches as well as one at a time. Several years ago, a single arsonist, starting fires along Highway 97 managed to overtax the fire departments in three Central Oregon counties.40 The impression from Chief Knorr's report on RF&R operations in the agency's 2007 Annual Report is that of an organization operating within its capabilities. Yet one of the unfunded budget requests in the FY 2008-09 RF&R Budget was for three additional firefighter/paramedics to staff a second ambulance to handle non- emergency medical transfers. Because this went unfunded, the Terrebonne position 2007 Annual Report, Redmond Fire & Rescue, page l I and data provided by RF&R staff. 2007 Annual Report, Redmond Fire & Rescue, page 3. From phone conversation with Redmond Fire and Rescue staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 48 is vacant and they are unable to respond to calls for these transfers 41 It appears that the Redmond Fire & Rescue has sufficient capacity to provide a reasonable level of Fire Protection for the 42,000 residents living and working within its 145 -square mile area of responsibly. Whether the RF&R has sufficient un -utilized operational capacity to provide additional fire protection for the residents of the Thornburgh Resort is not clear. Capital Costs The combined operation provides one fully -equipped fire station for every 10,500 residents.42 In order to apply this current population -based service standard to the resort, an "effective population" was used that reflects the number of structures at the resort requiring fire protection. This population figure is the number of people typically associated with these structures in the County and is not intended to represent the actual population of the resort at any given time.43 As shown in Table 5-19 the Thornburgh Resort would have an effective population for Fire/EMS demand of 3,813. To meet the standard of one station for every 10,500 people, an additional 36.3% of a fire station would need to be provided to meet the demand Thornburgh places on the capacity of Redmond Fire & Rescue. Table 5-19 Thornburgh Effective Population Estimate for Fire/EMS System Demand Number of Persons per Persons per Type of Housing Unit units unity) Type(z) Hotel 50 2 100 Residential Overnight UnitsM 425 2.7 1,148 Houses 950 2.7 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,813 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is the residential occupancy rate for new homes in Deschutes County. 2) Number of Units x Persons per Unit 3) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 5 az It would be preferable to use number of addresses or type or number of structures located within the district as the main metric in an evaluation of this type, but as Redmond Fire & Rescue does not have that data we were limited to what is available, which is population data. In the case of fire protection, all buildings (empty as well as occupied) have the potential of placing demand on the capacity of the system. "Effective population" was used here to reflect the number of structures in the resort, relative to those serving the general population. This population figure is different than the figure used in estimating the demand Thornburgh would place on public safety or public parks. In the case of public safety or the park system, it is people who place demand on the capacity of the system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 49 The Terrebonne Fire Station opened in August of 2007 and is the newest station in the Redmond Fire and Rescue system. It cost $1.3 million dollars to construct. The cost of constructing a similar station in 2008 is about $1,362,920. This station is staffed 24/7 by 6 firefighters and has the equipment listed in Table 5-20. Table 5-20 Fire Apparatus at Terrebonne Fire Station Equipment Typefll Cost Light Rescue Truck(') $70,000 Light Brush Truck (Type 6 Fire Engine)(') $80,000 Heavy Brush Truckf4l $150,000 Fire Engine(') $250,000 Ambulance(') $150,000 Total $700,000 Notes 1) Equipment list provided by staff at the Terrebonne Station. In addition to the apparatus listed that station also has a boat to facilitate access to parts of Smith Rock Park. 2) The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet. 3) The $80,000 is the amount budgeted to purchase the truck. 4) The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet. 5) The cost value used was provided by RF&R staff. The combined cost of constructing a new station and providing it with the same type and number of apparatus is about $2,062,920.45 Based on the estimated need to provide 36.3% of a new fire station to serve the Thornburgh Resort, the total capital cost for providing Fire Protection services to the resort is about $748,840. Oregon Law does not permit the imposition of System Development Charges or impact fees to recover the Fire/EMS system capital costs associated with new development. Therefore, these capital costs for expanding the system will fall on all of the property owners within the DCRPD#1, not just those in the Thornburgh Resort. One of the projects RF&R has been undertaking is researching the feasibility of a fire station in DCRFPD#1's southern area. Due to prudent fiscal planning the DCRFPD#1 has $840,800 in its building reserve fund and $77,250 in its equipment 44 Adjusted using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the nearest city (Seattle). 45 In addition to the fire house structure and the fire apparatus there are a large number of other items that are needed for a fully functioning Fire Station. Items such as beds, stove, washer -dryer, hoses, breathing apparatus, tools, lights, hose nozzles, etcetera, were not included in this cost estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 50 reserve." However, that is much less then the $2,062,920 needed to build and equip an additional fire station in the District's southern operating area, particularly as those funds would also be needed to cover the eventual replacement of existing buildings and equipment. To obtain the final net fire/EMS system costs, estimated future contributions to the District tax base from the resorts are deducted from the cost above. If fully developed, the Thornburgh Resort would represent 22% of the DCRFPD#1 tax base. Deducting the contribution through future tax payments, leaves a net cost for fire/EMS facilities of $580,813, as shown in Table 5-21. Table 5-21: Net fire/EMS facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Fire/EMS Facilities Costs Total fire/EMS facilities cost: $748,840 Future property tax contribution (at 22%) ($168,027) Net fire/EMS facilities cost: $580,813 Operational Costs Redmond Fire & Rescue has an annual budget of $6,487,876 of which $5,830,680 is allocated for department operations 47," That amount includes the replacement of the division commander's vehicle and $27,000 to replace four ambulance gurneys and similar operational expenses. For the service district population, this operations cost amounts to $138.83 per resident per year. For the estimated 3,813 Thornburgh residents, it should take about $529,359 to maintain this level of service. It is important to note that 18 of the firefighter positions in the RF&R are to be filled by volunteers. As such, the value of their labor is not included in that operational cost 49 At this time, finding individuals with the interest, ability and commitment necessary to become volunteer firefighters is not easy. As reported in the Revenues section of this report, Thornburgh Resort property owners will pay an estimated $637,731 in property taxes to the DCRFPD#1. This exceeds the estimated cost of $529,359 needed to provide the current level of service DCRFPD# 1 FY 2008-09 Annual Budget Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 4 4' Ibid 49 Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 2 Impact of Destination resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 51 for those residents. The revenue surplus of $108,372 would not be adequate to meet the capital costs to build and equip the additional fire station infrastructure necessary to serve the resort. There is another non -monetary operational cost that the rest of the District residents will bear, at least in the short term, because of the development of the Resort within their District: A reduction in the level of service caused by increased driving time. The Thornburgh resort is located at the extreme edge of the district's southwest boundary and, as a result, fire and EMS vehicles going to and coming from Thornburgh will have longer response times to call in other parts of the district. The construction of an additional fire station in the southern part of the DCRFPD#1's operating area should mitigate some of this negative impact. Additionally, as the proposed Thornburgh Resort is not intended for permanent full time residents, it is not a likely source of additional volunteer firemen and this burden will fall on the other full-time residents of the District. So while the property taxes should adequately cover the day-to-day costs of providing fire protection for the Thornburgh resort, the need to provide volunteer firefighters and to bear the major portion of the capital cost of constructing and equipping an additional station as well as a reduction in service due to extended travel times until it is built means that in the final analysis the current residents of the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 would incur net costs if the Resort is constructed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 52 Public Safety System Costs Public safety involves many different functions, including patrols, prosecution, incarceration, parole, 911 services, courts, and others. Some resorts provide their own onsite security and patrol services. Sunriver, Black Butte and Pronghorn are examples. Some, such as Eagle Crest provide limited onsite security. These services lack the police powers of the Sheriff's officers and are therefore a limited substitute for County public safety services.50 Thornburgh Resort has not indicated that it will provide any onsite security, so security and patrols are assumed to be provided by the Sheriffs Department. To estimate the impacts of the Thornburgh Resort on public safety facilities and services, data is needed on public safety facility costs and the Sheriffs Department operating budget. This analysis was complicated by the many different public safety functions and the lack of usable facility cost data. There are three Sheriffs substations that serve unincorporated Deschutes County: Terrebonne, Sisters and La Pine substations. There is no facility cost data for any of these since two are being leased (Sisters and Terrebonne) and one is part of the South County Building that contains multiple uses. The service area for the substation also cannot be determined, since they have no particular boundaries and overlap coverage. The Thornburgh Resort could be served by either the Sisters or Terrebonne substation. In addition, the main Sheriff's office in Bend provides services for the unincorporated area near Bend. Public safety functions include: 911 County Service District Adult Parole and Probation Community justice - juvenile District Attorney's Office Justice Court Sheriff s Office Deschutes County Adult Jail Public safety facilities must be adequate to handle peak demands at the height of tourist season. There is very little opportunity to adjust or downsize the system for off-peak periods. For this reason, public safety facilities must have capacity to serve the resort during peak occupancy. private security services are limited in their ability to arrest, detain and use force and do not replace the need for true law enforcement services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 53 The Deschutes County Adult Jail was built in 1994 and has a capacity of 228 beds. According to the Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan (January 26, 2006),51 the capacity of the jail is currently being exceeded. The 2005 average daily population (ADP) was estimated to be 270 inmates. Modeling of future jail demand results in a projected ADP of 578 in the year 2015, increasing to 818 in 2025. A two -phased plan is proposed for meeting current and future jail expansion needs. Allowing for fluctuations in jail bed demand, the first phase of development would address projected corrections needs through year 2015 at 690 beds, with occupancy of expanded facilities assumed to occur, in the year 2010. A second phase of development would then address projected corrections needs through the year 2025 at 975 beds, with facility occupancy assumed to occur in the year 2020. The cost for phase one is $70,989,839. Phase two, to be constructed starting in 2020, will cost approximately $54 million. Table 5-22 Deschutes Jail Expansion Master Plan(') 1) Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. 2) Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. 3) ADP is average daily population from page D.3.3 of Corrections Needs Assessment. Current values for ADP are higher than actual to include early releases. 4) Includes capacity to handle daily fluctuations (peaking factor). Based on the estimated population increase of 3,688 people resulting from the peak occupancy of the Thornburgh Resort (Table 5-23) and the cost for the associated increase in jail capacity, at $1,129 per person (Table 5-24), the associated cost for jail capacity is $4,163,752. Note that jail facility costs are assigned on a population - weighted basis and do not assume that resort residents will be more or less likely to be incarcerated than average residents. In principle, all residents benefit equally from the increased safety that adequate jail facilities provide. 51 Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. See htti):Ywww_co.deschutes.or.us/Qo/obiectid/29B167F2- BDBD-57C 1-9A456F288808D927/index.cfm. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 54 Population Existing Jail Jail Beds Year Estimate(') Beds ADP(a) Needed(') 2005 143,053 228 284 349 2010 166,572 690 427 520 2015 189,443 690 578 690 2020 214,145 975 689 820 2025 240,811 975 818 975 1) Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. 2) Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. 3) ADP is average daily population from page D.3.3 of Corrections Needs Assessment. Current values for ADP are higher than actual to include early releases. 4) Includes capacity to handle daily fluctuations (peaking factor). Based on the estimated population increase of 3,688 people resulting from the peak occupancy of the Thornburgh Resort (Table 5-23) and the cost for the associated increase in jail capacity, at $1,129 per person (Table 5-24), the associated cost for jail capacity is $4,163,752. Note that jail facility costs are assigned on a population - weighted basis and do not assume that resort residents will be more or less likely to be incarcerated than average residents. In principle, all residents benefit equally from the increased safety that adequate jail facilities provide. 51 Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. See htti):Ywww_co.deschutes.or.us/Qo/obiectid/29B167F2- BDBD-57C 1-9A456F288808D927/index.cfm. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 54 Table 5-23 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Public Safety System Demand Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unitf'f Rate cZf Type (3) Hotel 50 2 90% 90 Residential Overnight Units 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure is the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. This occupancy rate is applied to overnight housing as well, even though many resort rentals show capacity for 8 to 12 persons. 2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. 4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. Table 5-24 Jail Expansion Costs Associated with Population Growth Phase One Cosf) 70,989,839 Increase in Beds 462 Cost per New Bed: 153,658 Increase in Needed Beds, 2005-2015 341 Cost for increase in needed beds, 2005-2015 52,397,262 Cost per capita for papulation growth, 2005-2015() 1,129 1) Cost to meet projected needs in 2015 per Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006 2) Population growth for this period was based on the official population forecast for Deschutes County provided in the Appendix. To estimate the costs for other public safety facilities (other than jail facilities), the 2008-09 Deschutes County Capital Asset Query File was used to compile capital costs. It was impossible to determine values for all facilities because some are shared facilities that provide multiple functions and there was no way to separate out the public safety components. These facilities are indicated as zero -values in Table 5-25. Table 5-25 provides the most complete listing possible from the Capital Asset database. Each facility cost was adjusted to 2008 building costs using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the year in which the asset was built or purchased to obtain an estimated current replacement value. The total estimated replacement Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 55 value of public safety facilities is $22.5 million. This total does not include some shared facilities nor any rented facilities. Land values, patrol cars and Sheriff's equipment costs were adjusted for inflation to 2008 values. Table 5-25 Value of Existing Public Safety Facilities (Excluding Jail)(') Source: Deschutes County 2008-09 Capital Asset Query File All buildings and improvements adjusted to 2008 values using ENR Construction Cost Index) Dept Code Buildings and Land Total Facility Location Code) Facility/Dept Name Improvements Improvements Value (2) 21 Civil/Special Units 0 0 0 29 Automotive/Communiciations 0 45,536 45,536 33 Investigations/Evidence 7,653 0 7,653 34 Patrol 18,214 0 18,214 35 Records 0 0 0 38 Court Security 0 0 0 39 Emergency Services 0 0 0 41 Special Services 7,819 0 7,819 43 Training 0 132,266 132,266 75 911 General Operations 200,727 0 200,727 82 Adult Parole/Probation 152,855 70,222 223,077 45 Non -Departmental(') 45(170002) Sheriff's Office Building 3,863,921 0 3,863,921 45(170202) Juvenile Community Justice Bldg 10,929,783 0 10,929,783 45(170302) Regional Correctional Building 3,567,591 0 3,567,591 Facilities Subtotals: 18,748,562 248,024 18,996,586 170*** Patrol Cars (VO4)(4) 1,688,946 170*** Sheriff Equipment (SE)(4) 488,409 170100 Land for Public Safety Bldg (LA) (4) 1,359,059 Total Capital Value: 22,532,999 Notes: 1) Three Sheriffs Substations were not included because they are rented or shared facilities. Other shared facilities also were not included. 2) Total costs do not include the values of any shared facilities or facilities used for public safety purposes that are rented, such as the Terrebonne and Sisters Substations. 3) Only public safety facilities were included from this department code. 4) Cars, equipment and land costs adjusted for inflation to 2008 values using the Consumer Price Index. To arrive at a per -capita cost for public safety facilities (not including jail cost), the total of facilities values of $22.5 million (from Table 5-25) were distributed across the entire County population. The full County 2008 population of 156,733 persons Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 56 was used because most of the facilities serve the entire County.52 The per -capita cost for these public safety facilities is $144. Based on the demand resulting from the assumed peak population of the Thornburgh Resort of 3,688 persons (Table 5-23), the incremental cost for expanding these facilities to serve the resort is $531,072. As shown in Table 5-26, the total public safety facility costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort is $4,694,824. It is important to note that the cost value is understated due to the lack of data mentioned previously. Table 5-26 Total Public Safety Facility Costs for Thornburgh Resort Per New Person For Resort Jail Expansion $1,129 4,163,752 Other Public Safety Facilities $144 531,072 Total Cost: 4,694,824 To obtain net public safety facility costs, estimated future tax contribution by the Thornburgh Resort are deducted from the cost in Table 5-26. At full buildout, the resort would represent 2.2% of the County's tax base and would fund the same percentage of County facility costs. As shown in Table 5-27, the net cost for public safety facilities is $4,591,181. Table 5-27: Net public safety facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Public Safety Facilities Costs Total public safety facilities cost: 4,694,824 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2°x) ($103,643) Net public safety facilities cost: $4,591,181 Exceptions are the patrol cars and patrol facility cost, which serve primarily the unincorporated area. These costs are relatively small, so the error is negligible, but the effect is to slightly lower public safety costs attributed to the resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 57 Cost of Public Safety Services The actual amount spent for the Sheriff's office for the budget year ending June 30, 2008 was $26,844,500.53 This expenditure was allocated to countywide and rural service districts as shown in Table 5-28. The cost for each district was divided by the 2008 population for the district to arrive at per -capita costs. Rural unincorporated residents received service from both districts, so the total per -capita cost is $295 per year. For the estimated 3,688 peak residents of Thornburgh Resort, the cost to provide public safety services is approximately $1,087,960 per year. Table 5-28 Sheriff's Department 2008 Operations Costs"' 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. As shown in Table 5-29, the total estimated annual public safety revenues from the proposed Thornburgh Resort are $1,310,884. This is about $223,000 more than the estimated costs to serve the resort. The surplus is due to the allocation of 73% of all room taxes to law enforcement, as described in the Revenues section. Table 5-29 Estimated Public Safety Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Revenue Source Revenue(l) Countywide Law Enforcement $345,368 Rural Law Enforcement $508,963 911 Service 142,437 Share of resort room taxes to law enforcement $314,116 Total: $1,310,884 1) From Table 4-4 in Revenues section Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 58 Population Per -Capita District Expenditure Served Cost Countywide District $15,908,322 156,733 102 Rural District $10,936,178 56,609 193 Total $26,844,500 295 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. As shown in Table 5-29, the total estimated annual public safety revenues from the proposed Thornburgh Resort are $1,310,884. This is about $223,000 more than the estimated costs to serve the resort. The surplus is due to the allocation of 73% of all room taxes to law enforcement, as described in the Revenues section. Table 5-29 Estimated Public Safety Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Revenue Source Revenue(l) Countywide Law Enforcement $345,368 Rural Law Enforcement $508,963 911 Service 142,437 Share of resort room taxes to law enforcement $314,116 Total: $1,310,884 1) From Table 4-4 in Revenues section Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 58 Parks & Rec. System Costs The Thornburgh Resort is within the Boundaries of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District (RAPRD). The District is supported through a combination of user fees and property taxes. The District operates the Cascade Swim Center, with a 25 meter indoor pool, the RAPRD Activity Center with indoor basketball, volley ball courts and batting cage; and multipurpose activity room; the High Desert Sports Center with 4 softball fields a BMX track and a Remote Control Airplane Landing field; Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve a 26 -acre park and nature preserve located along the Deschutes River, and Historical Tetherow Crossing, an 11 -acre Deschutes River -front park. The recreational opportunities offered by RAPRD at its swim and activity centers directly duplicate those that would be available to Thornburgh residents and guests at Resort -owned and operated facilities. As those facilities are closer and should be available at little to no out-of-pocket expense, it is likely that Thornburgh residents and guests would use the resorts facilities rather then driving long distances to a similar RAPRD facility. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no measurable impact on the operation of the RAPRD Aquatics and Activity Centers. The facilities provided by the High Desert Sports Center are not duplicated at the Thornburgh Resort. But as the resort is intended to provide short term rentals, and vacation or second homes, it is not likely that many of the residents would be participating in local softball leagues or otherwise using these facilities. The one possible exception would be out of area teams renting a house or houses to stay in while participating at a tournament hosted by the High Desert Sports Center or Cascade swim Center. However, if that should occur, it would be more accurate to say that the sports complexes were utilizing the short term housing capacity of the Resort rather than Resort residents utilizing the capacity of the sports complexes. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no significant impact on the operation of the High Desert Sports Center. While the resort does intend to provide open space for the use of residents and guests these facilities do not duplicate those provided by Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park. The Deschutes River is one of the significant tourist attractions in Central Oregon. The Thornburgh Resort does not have any river frontage and both of these parks include extensive Deschutes River frontage. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that residents and guests of the Thornburgh Resort would utilize these two parks. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 59 Cayital Costs The flexible nature of park facilities such as the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park makes it difficult to determine the maximum number of users that could utilize them at a time. Thus making a determination of whether they are at, over, or below capacity difficult to impossible. It is however, relatively easy to determine what the current level of service that is being provided by these two parks to the 32,000 residents of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District, and from that determine the amount of similar river front park acreage that would be needed to maintain that level of service.54 Currently RAPRD provides 1.156 acres of open space per 1,000 residents." Table 5-30 Parks and Open Space Operated by RAPRO Facility Acreage Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve 26 Historical Tetherow Crossing Park 11 Total Acreage 37 Park and recreation facilities receive peak demand in the summer months, the same time that resort occupancy will peak. The limited data available for the proposed Thornburgh Resort does not contain any demographic or population figures, but it is possible to arrive at a peak population estimate for the resort by working from the number of planned housing units, as shown in Table 5-31. If the advertisements for vacation rentals in the greater Redmond area are any indicator of the occupancy rates, the estimate for the occupancy of residential overnight units of 2.7 persons may be low. Many of these ads indicate that rental homes sleep from 8 to 12 persons. Population figure was provided by RAPRD staff. 37 acres/(32000/1000) = 1.156 acres per thousand residents Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 60 Table 5-31 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Park System Demand Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unit('' Rate IZI Type (3) Hotel 50 2 90% 90 Residential Overnight Units c41 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is for the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. 2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are the same as those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Hate. 4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. To meet the current standard of 1.156 acres per 1000 residents, the RAPRD would need to acquire an additional 4.26 Acres of parkland with river frontage for the estimated 3,688 new Thornburgh residents. At an acquisition cost of $250,000 an acre, 56 that 4.26 acres would cost the district $1,065,000. As RAPRD does not impose a Systems Development Charge for Parks the money for this land acquisition would need to come from District Reserve Funds, operating revenues, a Parks Bond or some combination thereof. Given the current political climate and the funds available to the district it is unlikely that this land acquisition would happen. So rather than paying to meet this new demand for service, the existing residents would likely experience a reduction in the level of service. The new level of service would be lowered to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. Crediting the Thornburgh Resort for future property tax contributions (assuming full buildout), results in a net cost for parks and recreation facilities of $463,562, as shown in Table 5-32. 16 Replacement Land cost was provided by RAPRD staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 61 Table 5-32: Net parks and recreation facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Parks and Recreation Facilities Costs Total parks and recreation facilities cost: 1,065,000 Future property tax contribution (at 56%) 601,438) Net parks and recreation facilities cost: 463,562 Operating Costs As it is unlikely (for the reasons provided above) that Thornburgh residents would be utilizing the Cascade Swim Center, the RAPRD Activity Center, or High Desert Sports Center, there should not be any additional operational costs caused by the resort's demand on the capacity. As for the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park, which are more likely to be utilized by Thornburgh residents, they do not currently generate General Fund operating expenses. Historic Tetherow Crossing Park is in the public planning phase of development and the limited operations of the Wildlife Preserve are supported by gifts, donations and inter -fund transfers to a special fund. This year the fund's $400 -dollar beginning balance was supplemented by a transfer of $500 from the District's General Fund. On the expenditure side, a total of $500 dollars57 has been budgeted for Materials and Services out of the fund's $900 -dollar balance. The salary and benefits for the minimal Groundskeeper labor are absorbed into that of the rest of the District's operations. This breaks down to $15.63 per thousand residents. Assuming that the per -capita cost generated by new users is equal to the current per - capita cost, and no new acreage is provided, then the increased operating cost resulting from the 3688 peak Thornburgh residents is $57.63. If the additional 4.26 acres is added to the park so as to maintain current levels of service, then an additional $81.91 would be needed to provide the same level of operations and maintenance expenditures that the Wildlife Preserve currently receives. Conclusion Thornburgh property owners will be paying taxes toward the Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District amounting to an estimated $135,130 per year. This greatly 57 The actual expenditure for FY 2006-07 was $551 (RAPRD 08-09 Annual Budget). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 62 exceeds the $57.63 operating cost associated with meeting their demand on parks capacity. In terms of level of service, District residents would likely see a small drop from 1.156 acres to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. There is a limit to how many development projects similar to the Thornburgh Resort could be constructed within the District's boundaries before the cumulative negative impacts caused by reductions in the level of service are felt by the current population. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 63 General Government Facilities The costs for expanding Deschutes County's general government facilities to accommodate the Thornburgh resort are calculated in this section. None of the infrastructure or facility costs addressed on other sections of this report are included here, so there is no duplication of costs. Deschutes County's Capital Asset Data File was used to identify the costs of all County facilities purchased or built since 1978 (Table 5-33). This database does not include the road system or facilities operated by independent districts, such as schools, fire, and parks. Note that the County rents some facilities, so these costs will not be included here. The costs for each of these facilities were adjusted to reflect 2008 replacement values using the ENR Construction Cost Index and the BLS Consumer Price Index. Facilities for the Sheriff's Office and the County Jail were removed from this list, as they were already included in the Public Safety Impacts section of this report. Table 5-33 Deschutes County General Government Facilities Costs(') All costs adjusted to 2008 values) Buildings and Land Vehicles, Improvements Improvements Equipment Facility (BU, BI) (LI) Land and Other Total Value All County Facilities 120,614,699 34,384,960 18,388,936 115,653,683 289,042,278 Deduct Sheriff & Jail 31,681,617) 325,792) 1,359,059) 2,177,355) 35,543,823) County -(Sheriff & Jail) 88,933,082 34,059,169 17,029,877 113,476,328 253,498,455 1) Includes all facilities and equipment purchased since 1978. Buildings and Land Improvement values adjusted with CCI. Land and Equipment values inflated with CPI. Sheriff and Jail facilities were addressed under Public Safety Impacts. The new population added by the Thornburgh Resort that would require general county services was assumed to be limited to the occupants of primary residences. As previously describe in this report, primary residences were found to comprise 43% of the owner -occupied housing at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort, so this figure was applied to Thornburgh. Other property owners at Thornburgh who have second homes may also used County services and facilities, but this impact was considered to be relatively minor. As shown in Table 5-34, the estimated population in primary residences at Thornburgh is 1,103 persons. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 64 Table 5-34 Thornburgh Population Estimate for General Government Facilities Demand Percent Number Persons Primary Type of Housing Unit of units per unitf'I Residences(') Population(') Owner -Occupied Houses 950 2.7 43% 1,103 Notes: 1) The 2.7 occupancy rate is for a new houses in Deschutes County. 2) Percent primary residences is based on an analysis of tax records for the Eagle Crest Resort 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x % Primary Residences. Based on the per -capita value of existing County facilities of $1,617 shown in Table 5-35, the cost of expanding general government facilities in Deschutes County to accommodate the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $1,783,984. Table 5-35 General Government Facilities Costs Associated with Thornburgh Resort Countywide General Government Facilities Cost (Tbl 5-33) 253,498,455 2008 County Population(1) 156,733 Per -Capita Facilities Cost 1,617 Thomburgh Population Estimate (Tbl 5-34) 1,103 General Gov. Facil. Cost: 1,783,984 1) From Coordinated Population Forecast Since the resort will make future tax payments to the County, those payments should be deducted from the facilities cost in Table 5-35. When fully built out, Thornburgh Resort will represent approximately 2.2% of the County's tax base and will therefore fund 2.2% of these facility costs. The net cost for general government facilities after deducting future tax revenues is $1,744,601, as shown in Table 5-36. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 65 Table 5-36: Net general government facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net General Government Facilities Costs Total general gov. facilities cost: $1,783,984 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) ($39,383) Net general gov. facilities cost: $1,744,601 The costs and revenues associated with general government services were not estimated in this study, as there are many types of services and it would have been very difficult to determine how much demand for each of these services would be created by the Thornburgh Resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 66 6. Fiscal Impact Summary The section compares the costs and the revenues calculated in the previous sections to determine the net fiscal impacts for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Table 6-1 summarizes the total gross annual tax revenues that are estimated for the Thornburgh Resort. Combined property and room tax revenues total $5,521,419 per year. These gross revenues go to pay for all of the services and facilities provided by local government to the resort and therefore do not represent a net windfall. As shown below, these revenues are more than offset by the infrastructure costs created by the resort. Table 6-1: Annual revenue summary for Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Revenue Category Revenue Property Tax Revenue 5,091,123 Total Room Tax Revenue 430,296 Total Annual Revenues 5,521,419 Costs of Facilities As shown in Table 6-2, the total net cost for the five categories of infrastructure required by the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $51,284,705. These are effectively one-time costs to local governments that are "due" upon completion of the resort. As noted previously in the text, some of the transportation system costs will be incurred by the State, so not all of these costs will accrue to Deschutes County and its various districts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 67 Table 6-2: Net cost summary for infrastructure required by Thornburgh Resort. Net Facility Cost Summary Category of Facility Net Cost Estimate(') Transportation System 39,149,282 School Facilities (2) 4,752,973 Fire & EMS Facilities 580,813 Public Safety Facilities 4,591,181 Parks & Rec. Facilities 463,562 Gen Gov. Facilities 1,744,601 Total Net Cost: 51,284,705 1) Net costs are total gross costs, minus any payments or revenues from the resort that fund infrastructure, including future tax payments and SDCs. 2) The school cost figure is for the lower estimate of student generation in Scenario #2. Services Impacts The costs to provide ongoing services were calculated for three of the six impact categories and compared with the tax revenues generated for that same category. It was not practical to calculate comparative values for schools, transportation and general government, as described previously. Table 6-3 summarizes the revenues and costs and gives a net impact for each category of service. The net impacts are positive for each category. The total net impact is a surplus of $466,344 per year. This accrues to the County and its service districts, since each of these services is funded exclusively by either the County or the service district. Table 6-3: Net annual services impact for Thornburgh Resort. Net Annual Services Impacts for Thornburgh Resort Category of Service Revenue Estimate Cost Estimate Net Impact Transportation System(') NA NA NA School Facilities(') NA NA NA Fire & EMS Facilities 637,731 529,359) 108,372 Public Safety Facilities 1,310,884 1,087,960) 222,924 Parks & Rec. Facilities 135,130 82) 135,048 Totals: 2,083,745 1,617,401) 466,344 1) Direct revenue and service costs were not be calculated for these categories because they are funded from a combination of sources (Federal, State and County) and revenues from the resort could not be determined. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions The net $51.28 million in infrastructure costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort greatly overshadow the $466,344 annual surplus for County services. In order to consider the overall net fiscal impacts of the resort, the annual surplus for County services was converted to an equivalent amount of capital that could be financed with this cash flow. The $466,344 surplus could service interest and principal payments on a 20 -year loan at 6% interest for $5.35 million. Assuming this surplus was used for this purpose, the $51.28 million in infrastructure costs could be reduced to $45.94 million, as shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Net Fiscal Impact of Thornburgh Resort Net Infrastructure Cost $51,284,705 Less Capital Equivalent of Revenue Surplus(l) ($5,348,967) Net Fiscal Impact: $45,935,738 1) This is the value of capital facilities that could be financed with a $466,344 annual revenue stream at 6% interest over 20 years. In conclusion, local governments and local taxpayers will be left with a net cost burden of $45.94 million if the Thornburgh Resort is fully completed as proposed. This is a net cost after the resort has been credited for all known payments and tax revenues it will generate. The $45.94 million cost will be externalized and will ultimately be borne by other taxpayers (not the resort) through some combination of higher taxes, reduced public services, and lower facility service standards. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts This section provides a review and analysis of the jobs and housing issues resulting from destination resorts by examining the proposed Thornburgh Resort as a representative case study. The resort developer, Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, maintains that the resort will create many new construction and operations jobs and will have little impact on housing in the area. To support their position, they have submitted the following two reports as part of the required application materials: An Economic and Benefit Study for the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics, January 21, 2005. An Employee Housing Analysis for the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics, August 22, 2005. These reports are referred to here respectively as the Peterson Economic Report and the Peterson Housing Report and collectively as the Peterson Report. The Peterson Economic Report was prepared as part of the required application materials for the Thornburgh Resort. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.113(B)(19) requires the destination resort applicant to provide: An economic impact and feasibility analysis of the proposed development prepared by a qualified professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall be provided which includes: a. An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development; b. Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels ofpublic services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. [Emphasis added.] In spite of the Code requirement, the Peterson report lacks a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project and instead focuses on the property tax revenues that may be generated if the resort is completed. Absent from the report is any analysis of the demands for new or increase levels of public services. The report also neglects to report transient room tax revenues from overnight lodging. The Peterson study, like many economic impact studies provided by developers, portrays an unrealistically optimistic and beneficial picture of the development Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 70 project. Tax revenues, for example, are projected by Peterson to be three times greater than for comparable resorts located nearby. According to a separate study comparing projected tax revenues for commercial developments with actual tax revenues after the developments were completed, projected revenues were found to be overstated by an average of 39°/x.58 The portrayal of resort development as beneficial is also achieved by ignoring the costs and negative impacts of the project. The Peterson Report ignores all external costs associate with the Thornburgh Resort development. While new jobs, employment compensation and property tax revenues are presented in explicit detail, there is little to no effort made to address the many costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, or any of the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. In this case, most of the costs are likely to be borne by the current and future residents of Deschutes County via increased taxes or declining services, or both. Costs that are externalized by the developer and shifted onto the local community improve the developer's profitability at the expense of local residents. job Creation and Employment Impacts The employment and compensation data in the Peterson Economic Report (as Table II -1) was revised downward seven months later in the Peterson Housing Report (as Table 1), so the more -recent Housing Report data is used here. The Housing Report bases projected wages for the Thornburgh Resort on a past projection for an analysis the company did for the Suncadia Resort in Roslyn, WA in 2002 and inflated to 2005 values. By their own figures, almost half of employees (49%) will make less than $21,000 per year and 67% will make less than $26,000 per year. As shown in Table 7-1, Federal guidelines indicate that household incomes below $21,200 represent the poverty level for a family of four. Such households may qualify for Federal aid from the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low -Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Commercial Development: Impact Analysis Before and After Construction, by C. Fred DeKay, Ph.D. and Barbara M. Yates, Ph.D., Economic Development Journal, fall 2005, p 7. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 71 Table 7-1: 2008 US Poverty Guidelines. Persons 48 Contiguous in Family or Household States and D.C. 1 10,400 2 14,000 3 17,600 4 21,200 5 24,800 6 28,400 7 32,000 8 35,600 For each additional person, add: 3,600 Source: Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 15, January 23, 2008, pp. 3971-3972 Resorts are notoriously low-paying businesses. The "leisure and hospitality" sector, that includes destination resorts, pays the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County. This sector paid average annual wages of only $16,096, about half as much as the average annual wage in Deschutes County of $31,492 in 2006, according to the Oregon Employment Department.59 The Peterson Report appears to be considerably overestimating wages for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Peterson claims that only 7% of jobs will pay less than 16,000 per year. This contrasts sharply with the $16,096 average wage in this sector. Many more than 7% of the jobs created at the resort will likely pay minimum wage. Such jobs include maids, waitresses, dishwashers, groundskeepers, landscape maintenance workers, janitors, and laborers. Minimum wage in Oregon was $7.25 per hour, or about $14,500 in 2005 when the Peterson report was written. In 2008 the State's minimum wage was $7.95 per hour, or approximately $15,900 before taxes. According to Oregon's Report on Poverty 200660 for Deschutes County: The 2005 average [monthly] wage of $2,624, however, proved inadequate for single parents. Deschutes County's 2005 average wage could not fund the basic family budget for a single adult and one child or more. The second largest industry in Deschutes County, leisure and hospitality, paid an average wage nearly half of the county average—$1,342 a month.... Families earning poverty level wages could afford no more than 40.2 percent of basic family expenses in Deschutes County. Oregon Employment Department, 2006, as quoted in 2007 Central Oregon Area Profile, by Economic Development for Central Oregon. Oregon Housing and Community Services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 72 Based on the Peterson Housing Report,61 the median wage offered at Thornburgh would be about $21,000. Median household income in Deschutes County was 45,894 in 200462, more than twice as much as the resort will pay. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median County household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Peterson uses "induced jobs" to enhance the total employment-related compensation associated with the resort. However, this induced employment works both ways: increasing jobs when hiring, but decreasing jobs in a similar proportion when firing. Using Peterson's assumption of 0.5 induced jobs per construction job and 0.2 induced jobs per operations job, total employment associated with the resort will peak at 2,015 jobs in the sixth year of development. However, when construction is completed, 1,471 of these jobs will be lost. The loss of 1,471 jobs is roughly equivalent to the closing of Central Oregon's second largest employer, Les Schwab Tire Centers (1500 employees). It will have an even greater impact due to the relatively higher salaries paid to construction workers. The loss of these jobs will have a profound impact on the region as these households struggle to pay bills and seek to relocate to other areas in search of employment. The lost jobs are likely to increase local demand for social services and public assistance and may result in evictions, foreclosures and bankruptcies. The magnitude of these job losses could negatively impact the local economy for years after the resort is completed. 61 Peterson Housing Report, Table 2. ez According to the US Census Bureau. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 73 Figure 7-1: Direct employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report, Table 1). Projected Direct Jobs, Thornburgh Resort 1200 1000 — 800 00 600 co 400 - Lo LOa o Dco co 200 " m 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year Construction Jobs Operations Jobs Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 74 Figure 7-2: Total direct and induced employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report, Table 1). 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Projected Jobs, Thornburgh Resort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year Direct Jobs Induced Jobs ® Total Jobs Figure 7-3: Employment changes resulting from the Thornburgh Resort development (based on Peterson Housing Report). Annual Changes in Projected Employment, Thornburgh Resort 1000 899 800 - - 566 600 - 411 400 185 200 22 0 - - T 200 -69 8_ -51 -52 179 -188 400 -- - - -- - --- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 600 -490 -512 Project Year Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 75 M r O N co Q N CM M M N coO In— InCD co Q M r 00 m n O 0 N N M V V coCM d' M co Qi a0 CO N N N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year Direct Jobs Induced Jobs ® Total Jobs Figure 7-3: Employment changes resulting from the Thornburgh Resort development (based on Peterson Housing Report). Annual Changes in Projected Employment, Thornburgh Resort 1000 899 800 - - 566 600 - 411 400 185 200 22 0 - - T 200 -69 8_ -51 -52 179 -188 400 -- - - -- - --- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 600 -490 -512 Project Year Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 75 Theoretically, the only way to prevent such employment shocks from impacting the local economy (other than not building the resort in the first place) is to continually and indefinitely build more resorts at a steady and even pace in Deschutes County. However, this approach is completely impractical as the County could not sustain such development over the long term, and it would be impossible to transition seamlessly from one development to the next for employment purposes. Who Will Fill New Resort jobs: Locals or Newcomers? The Peterson Report claims that "in excess of 90%" of employees will live in Deschutes County. To support this, they cite anecdotal evidence from conversations with the management of Black Butte and Eagle Crest Resorts that a "vast majority" of employees live within the County. Without additional evidence, Peterson claims that these employees were also local County residents before their employment at these resorts.63 This apparently forms the bases for Peterson's conclusion that only 8% to 10% of jobs created at Thornburgh Resort will be filled by newcomers. However, empirical data and studies indicated that the percentage of newcomers moving into Deschutes County to fill resort jobs will be much higher. Recently it came to light in a Bend Bulletin article that not only are resorts filling some of their jobs from out of the area, they are actively recruiting foreigners.` The Sunriver Resort filled 85 jobs last year with people from as far away as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. People may move to a new county for a variety of reasons. Deschutes County has outstanding recreational opportunities and natural amenities that attract people from all over the country. A limiting factor to County in -migration is employment. While there may be a large number of people who would like to live there, most will need employment to make such a move successful. Thus, the more jobs created in the County, the more people will be able to move there. To a large extent this same phenomenon applies statewide in Oregon. The State is viewed as offering attractive natural amenities and a desirable quality of life that act to stimulate in -migration. But the limiting factor to in -migration is the lack of employment opportunities. As a result of this "pent up" demand, new jobs created in the State are rapidly absorbed by newcomers and unemployment levels tend to remain consistently above the national average. This was the case even during the 1990s, a decade of the most rapid economic expansion and job creation in the State's history. Job seekers who move to a new location seeking work often obtain a local address to use for job applications, so employers may not know if they are hiring new arrivals. Unemployment might be high, but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin, May 11, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 76 As shown in Figure 74, the US Census found that "work-related" reasons accounted for 31.1% of all intercounty moves." More specifically, 24% of all moves were either for new jobs/transfers or to look for work. "New jobs and job transfers" accounted for the most moves of any category in the Census survey. Clearly, employment is a major motivational factor in migration. This factor is amplified when a region offers additional amenities and quality -of -life benefits as found in Central Oregon. Figure 7-4: Reasons for moving to another county (US Census). Intercounty movers Other reasons 10.1 Family -related reasons 26.9 Work-related reasons 31.1 Housing -related reasons 31.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000. When new jobs are created in a community by a development project, its proponents often claim that the jobs will go to local workers. However, studies show that in the near term, 40% to 60% of new jobs go to newcomers and in the longer term, 60% to 90% of these jobs are filled by newcomers.` Applying the midpoint estimates to the Thornburgh Resort, we can assume that construction jobs are shorter -term jobs that are filled by 50% newcomers and operations jobs are longer-term and are filled by 75% newcomers. As shown in Table 7-2, at peak employment, the resort will generate an estimated net in -migration of 1,150 workers to fill the jobs. This is considerably more than the 133 newcomers identified in the Peterson report. 65 Why people Move: Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey, Special Studies, US Census Bureau, March 2001. 6 See: Who Benefits from Local job Growth, Migrants or the Original Residents, by Timothy J. Bartik, Regional Studies, vol. 27, No. 4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 77 Table 7-2: Peak In -Migration to Deschutes County Due to Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort. 1) Based on Peterson Housing Report; (2) From Bartik, 1993 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Increased demand for housing will tend to increase prices, especially when there is a relatively fixed supply of housing and a marked increase in demand. Unless housing is expanded to meet the new demand, prices will increase and housing will become less affordable in the County. The loss of housing affordability becomes a regional cost associated with the resort. The Peterson Housing Report states that, due to the vacancy rate in Deschutes County, all housing needs generated by construction and ongoing operations at the resort will not "pose a problem." This conclusion seems to imply that the resort will have no significant impacts on the local housing demand or supply in Deschutes County. To the contrary, we find that the resort will have substantial impacts on the needs and demands for local housing. Peterson indicates that additional offsite job creation will be induced by the onsite jobs at the resort. However, no consideration is given to the housing demand created by the induced employment. Peterson reports that induced jobs peak in year six of the development at 577 jobs. Total jobs are estimated to peak at 2,015 at that time, including construction, operations and induced employment. The addition of more than 2000 new jobs to Deschutes County, many of which are temporary and low- paying, will have a very significant impact on the local housing market. This effect on the housing market is aggravated by the fact that most of these jobs 985 by Peterson's estimate) will be temporary. Temporary demands for a significant quantity of local housing can create multiple problems. As the demand grows rapidly, housing prices go up, housing availability and affordability decline, and additional home construction may be stimulated. As the temporary demand comes to an end, there is a glut of housing with a sharp increase in vacancies and unsold homes that may leave the housing market in worse shape than before the resort started. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 78 Peak Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source EmploymenV) Newcomers(') Newcomers Construction 964 50% 482 Const. induced 482 50% 241 Operations 474 75% 356 Oper. Induced 95 75% 71 Total: 2,015 1,150 1) Based on Peterson Housing Report; (2) From Bartik, 1993 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Increased demand for housing will tend to increase prices, especially when there is a relatively fixed supply of housing and a marked increase in demand. Unless housing is expanded to meet the new demand, prices will increase and housing will become less affordable in the County. The loss of housing affordability becomes a regional cost associated with the resort. The Peterson Housing Report states that, due to the vacancy rate in Deschutes County, all housing needs generated by construction and ongoing operations at the resort will not "pose a problem." This conclusion seems to imply that the resort will have no significant impacts on the local housing demand or supply in Deschutes County. To the contrary, we find that the resort will have substantial impacts on the needs and demands for local housing. Peterson indicates that additional offsite job creation will be induced by the onsite jobs at the resort. However, no consideration is given to the housing demand created by the induced employment. Peterson reports that induced jobs peak in year six of the development at 577 jobs. Total jobs are estimated to peak at 2,015 at that time, including construction, operations and induced employment. The addition of more than 2000 new jobs to Deschutes County, many of which are temporary and low- paying, will have a very significant impact on the local housing market. This effect on the housing market is aggravated by the fact that most of these jobs 985 by Peterson's estimate) will be temporary. Temporary demands for a significant quantity of local housing can create multiple problems. As the demand grows rapidly, housing prices go up, housing availability and affordability decline, and additional home construction may be stimulated. As the temporary demand comes to an end, there is a glut of housing with a sharp increase in vacancies and unsold homes that may leave the housing market in worse shape than before the resort started. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 78 Most ongoing jobs will be low-paying groundskeepers, maids, and maintenance positions. Such jobs may attract workers who will require low income housing assistance and will increase demand for affordable housing in the County. Furthermore, many of the lower -paying jobs will be seasonal, or have significant seasonal variations in employment. Seasonal jobs will further stress households that are struggling to afford market -rate housing as their employment varies from season to season. Lower -paid workers will have more difficulty finding affordable housing near the resort and they will need to travel farther to meet their housing needs. The additional commuting requirements will further exacerbate their financial stress. Renters in Deschutes County are currently struggling to meet housing costs. According to the US Census, 41% of the County's renters are paying more than 30% of their income for rent.67 New destination resorts will increase local housing demand and push up rental prices forcing more local residents to spend a greater share of their incomes on housing. Peterson estimates that during the 11 -year period of resort construction, between 37 and 133 housing units will be required to supply the new workers (both construction and resort operations) and that all of these units can be met from the current inventory of vacant housing. However, this conclusion is based partly on the unrealistic assumption that more than 90% of jobs will be filled by local residents and that only 8-10% will be filled by people moving into the county. As shown previously, the Thornburgh Resort is likely to attract newcomers to fill 1,150 of the peak jobs generated by the resort. Most of these newcomers will create new households in the County. However, some may live with others or have a spouse that is also employed by the resort. To estimate new households it was assumed that 30% of the newcomers will either live with others who work at the resort or have a spouse also working at the resort. These cohabitating workers would reduce demand for new housing by 15% (half of 30%). The newcomers will therefore generate a peak demand for 978 housing units in Deschutes County (Table 7-3). 67 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 200S American Community Survey, Deschutes County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 79 Table 7-3: Estimated new households created by peak employment at Thornburgh Resort. Jobs & Households Generated Number Peak jobs at Thornburgh 2,015 Peak jobs to newcomers (from Table 7-2) 1,150 Newcomers cohabitating (30% assumed) 345 Households by new cohabitating workers 173 Households by other new workers 805 Total new households by newcomers: 978 The Peterson Housing Report states that there was "an existing vacancy inventory of more than 320 rental units in Deschutes County" in order to show that the County can absorb the modest demand they predict from resort employees without generating any need for additional housing. However, the Peterson data does not appear to be accurate and there is no source cited. The Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2004 showed 411 vacant units for all of Central Oregon. The most recent Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2007 (15` Quarter) showed 270 vacancies for all of Central Oregon with a 6.86% vacancy rate. However, this survey provides only a partial account of vacancies, since the US Census 2005 American Community Survey shows there were 18,552 rental units in Deschutes County in 2005 with a vacancy rate of 6.4%, or about 1,187 vacant units. Vacancies always exist in the rental housing market and don't necessarily represent housing availability. Vacancies are a natural part of the rental housing business. Turnover of rental units typically requires a period of vacancy between tenants so that the unit can be cleaned, marketed and leased. Rental units also require repairs and improvements during unoccupied periods. Less -desirable, substandard, or overpriced units may take longer to rent. Rental vacancy rates in 2005 were 9.8% nationally and 8.3% in Oregon, much higher than the 6.4% rate in Deschutes County. The likely demand for housing resulting from resort employment will be much greater than Peterson has estimated. Peterson estimated a peak demand of 133 housing units, compared with the estimate here of 978 housing units. It is unrealistic for the Thornburgh Resort to rely on local rental vacancy rates to meet the housing needs for the estimated 1,150 peak jobs filled by newcomers. As shown in Table 7-4, the Thornburgh Resort is projected to create direct and induced long-term employment of 544 persons from year 12 of the project onwards. An estimated 75% of these jobs will be filled by newcomers. Of the 408 permanent jobs filled by newcomers, an estimated 347 new households will be created by these Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 80 employees." This will result in a permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Table 7-4: Newcomers to Deschutes County Filling Permanent Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort (year 12 of project and onwards). Permanent Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employmed') Newcomers(') Newcomers Operations 453 75% 340 Oper. Induced 91 75% 68 Total: 544 408 1) Based on Peterson Housing Report 2) From Bartik, 1993. Spending by Destination Resorts The typical economic analysis presented by a developer estimates the total gross spending in connection with the development as a net benefit to the local community. The spending estimate is often magnified by use of multiplier -effects to show even greater benefit to the local community as direct spending ripples through the local economy. Thus, spending figures typically include both direct and induced secondary) spending for wages, construction materials and services. Such spending figures tend to greatly overstate local benefits. For example, assumptions are made that 100% of spending for construction, including materials and supplies, will stay in the local county. However, construction materials such as lumber, cement, appliances, cabinets, flooring, plumbing fixtures, lighting, doors, windows, plaster and paint are obtained through a national and international supply network. It is highly unlikely that a significant portion of these construction materials will be produced within the county. Therefore, most of this spending quickly leaves the county. Many economic studies also assume that other construction -related spending, such as design, engineering, and construction labor, will stay in the local county. However, many of the design firms and construction companies are likely to be based out of the area, or even out of state. Most of the expenditures to firms and employees based out of the area will leave the local county. Estimate assumes that 30% of employees will share housing with another employee, reducing household generation by 15 percent. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 81 Use of "multiplier effects" is a common practice in economic analysis. Multipliers are used to show how money can be recycled in a community or region and can significantly inflate the apparent economic benefits. In contrast, empirical studies show that local growth does not result in real benefits to the community in terms of increased per -capita income.69 Therefore, it must be assumed that much of the direct and indirect economic activity flows out of the community and does not significantly benefit local residents. In this case, "multiplier effects" are likely to be offset by national builders, national building materials suppliers, and non -local workers who will take much of the money out of the community. If multipliers are to be used in impact analysis, they should be applied to cost as well as revenues (see sidebar on this topic). Use of muhipliers An increasingly common method among the building industry and some governments for projecting fiscal impacts involves the use of multipliers derived from economic models. Using data from the models, an analyst might take the estimated direct economic activity in dollars associated with a project and "multiply" it by a given amount to account also for indirect, secondary impacts. The total measure of economic activity is then used to estimate revenues for the purpose of determining fiscal impacts. Such multiplier approaches to fiscal impact analysis suffer from several shortcomings. First, the multipliers are usually obtained from economic models of large regions or states. But they are applied at the level of an individual local jurisdiction that is usually only a fraction of a region's or state's economy. The smaller the jurisdiction relative to the economic region for which the multipliers have been derived, the less reliable the multipliers will be for that jurisdiction. Furthermore, while the multipliers are applied to the revenue side of the budget, few such analyses ever apply a multiplier to the cost side of the local budget. The implicit (but often wrong) assumption is that local governments can generate revenue from secondary, induced, or indirect development without incurring increased costs in providing services to that development. Another shortcoming of the multiplier approach is its tendency to "double -count" revenues. A multiplier -based fiscal analysis of a project might credit it with the additional revenue impacts as derived from 1,000 new jobs elsewhere in the jurisdiction. But, when the separate fiscal impact analysis of the development where these jobs are located is (or was) prepared by its developer, the revenues would also be claimed on behalf of that development. Source: Developments and Dollars: An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis in Land Use Planning, by Michael L. Siegel, May 2000, Natural Resources Defense Council. In the case of the Peterson Economic Report for the proposed Thornburgh Resort, compensation is estimated for both direct and induced jobs. While totaling all the wages paid for direct and induced employees is straightforward, it is far less clear how this spending should be counted in terms of net benefits to Deschutes County. 69 Gottlieb, Paul D., Growth Without Growth: An Alternative Economic Development Goal For Metropolitan Areas, Center for Regional Economic Issues, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, February 2002. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 82 Wages benefit the individual employee, but he or she must exchange their time and labor for the wage. Employment is therefore an economic transaction exchanging labor for money. From the local perspective, existing residents of Deschutes County will benefit from resort employment if: 1. They are currently unemployed and obtain employment at the resort, or 2. They are working part-time and obtain full-time employment at the resort, or 3. They are currently employed, but are able to obtain higher wages at the resort. On the other hand, existing residents of Deschutes County will not benefit from resort employment if newcomers move into the County to fill the jobs. Only the incremental increase in the incomes of existing local residents resulting from resort employment can be counted as a clear economic benefit. This incremental increase in income is a fraction of the total compensation figure estimated for the resort and does not include the 40% to 90% of new jobs likely to go to newcomers. Economic Risks In addition to considering the likely economic impacts of a successful and completed resort, there are emerging risks associated with resort development that could dramatically affect local homebuyers, local government investments, and the local economy. The national economic downturn has revealed structural weaknesses in the real estate markets. Property values became over -inflated and banking institutions lent too much money to unqualified buyers. The supply of homes grew at record levels until supply greatly exceeded demand. It may take several years before the real estate market stabilizes. In the mean time, foreclosures and bankruptcies are at levels not seen since the Great Depression. In the past, California provided many of the second home and investment home buyers in Oregon. Many were able to transfer equity from their California homes to make these purchases. But California's real estate market has suffered greatly. The median price of a home in that state dropped 38% in December from a year earlier.70 Under any circumstances, a destination resort is a risky business venture. If it goes well, it is a potential bonanza to investors. But a great deal of investment is required up front. Typically a hundred million dollars or more must be borrowed and spent to build these resorts. The Thornburgh Resort estimates the total project cost at 160 million." What happens if revenue streams don't match projections? What if 70 December median home prices in California dropped to $249,000 from $402,000 a year earlier the Associated Press reported January 22, 2009. Peterson Economic Report, Table IV -1. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 83 lots don't sell, or prices drop? If one resort fails, how will other resorts in the area be impacted? In Deschutes County the Tetherow Resort's golf course was heralded as the "Best New Course of 2008" by Golf Magazine. However, lot sales have stalled, investors are unable to make loan payments, and the bank is foreclosing on properties." The large, upscale Tamarack Resort in Idaho made the Wall Street journal last year when investor money dried up and the resort went into default on loans.73 Construction of resort facilities stopped and the bank filed for foreclosure. Homebuyers had already committed more than $500 million for fancy homes, condos and building sites. The resort village remains unfinished, home sales have withered and the local economy is suffering. The resort closed on March 4, 2009 and 250 employees were fired. Of 2,100 planned chalets, condos and town homes, only 250 are completed.74 The Vineyards Resort in Yakima, WA declared bankruptcy last year.75 It was to be a destination resort in wine country designed as a Tuscan -themed village with 500 acres, 600 homes, an 18 -hole golf course, clubhouse, hotel, and recreation center. They were unable to obtain financing for the $100 million investment needed. The posh Yellowstone Club resort in Montana is also declaring bankruptcy.76 According to the Wall Street journal article on the Tamarack Resort, A resort's success was often staked to real-estate sales: As a Tamarack lender recounted in recent court filings, the resort had a business model in which "operating expenses would exceed revenues and the primary source ofprofit would be generated by the sale of real estate. " Destination resorts are following the same business model as the rural subdivision: buy large tracts of cheap rural land to make hundreds, or thousands, of buildable residential lots for a large profit. The resort elements are often unprofitable, but make the residential subdivision possible. The Tetherow and Pronghorn Resorts in Deschutes County have been unable to build the required amount of overnight housing, which is intended to support tourism. According articles in the Bend Bulletin, Pronghorn was to have completed a hotel by 2006." It has received four time extension from the County and cut its planned hotel expenditure in half. Z "Tetherow housing lots are entering foreclosure," The Bend Bulletin, January 15, 2009. Wall Street journal, "In Idaho, Ski Resort's Promise Fades," 7/7/2008. 74 "Tamarack Resort closes; employees cut loose," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 4, 2009. 75 Reported by the Associated Press, November 23, 2008 in the Seattle Past-Intelligencer. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apes./news?pid=20601103&sid=ai_WwtVGzHrY&refer=news. Without financing, Tetherow on hold indefinitely: Hotel won't open in spring 2009 as planned," The Bend Bulletin, October 15, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 84 If Thornburgh Resort is successful, its developer could make $300 million on lot sales, almost doubling its investment. The lucrative profit potential for developers creates a formidable incentive for them to pursue resort projects on Oregon's cheap rural lands in beautiful natural settings. They can afford to spend liberally to make their resort projects possible. Economic Impact Conclusions Many of the economic impact studies provided by developers portray an overly optimistic picture of the development project's benefits by ignoring the costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, and the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. The "leisure and hospitality" sector (that includes destination resorts) paid average annual wages of only $16,096, the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County and about half as much as the average annual wage in the County of $31,492 in 2006. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Household incomes below $21,200 represent the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Most jobs created by the resort will be temporary and when construction is completed, 1,471 jobs will be lost, causing ripple effects in the local economy. The addition of more than 2000 peak new jobs to Deschutes County will have a very significant impact on the local housing market, especially when the temporary jobs are lost. Low-wage jobs created by the resort will increase demand for affordable housing. While the Peterson Housing Report estimates a peak of only 133 new households generated by the resort, it is more realistic that a peak of 978 new households will need to find housing in Deschutes County. After the resort is completed, there will be an estimated permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon This section considers the potential statewide and regional impacts that may result from the resorts that are currently under construction and those that are proposed. In order to examine the potential statewide impacts of destination resorts in Oregon, total figures for the number of residential units were calculated for all resorts that are currently planned or under construction. The total number of residential units was then used as an index for gauging statewide impacts. The impact per residential unit is based on the impact analysis for the Thornburgh Resort. As described previously, the Thornburgh Resort is fairly typical of destination resorts in Oregon in terms of its overall profile (land area, mix of homes and overnight units, and recreational facilities). Some factors affecting impact will vary from place to place. For example, sewage treatment, water supply, and stormwater management may involve offsite public expenses for some resorts, but did not in the case of Thornburgh. Such cost factors may be governed by county policies and individual siting issues. The transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort were partially mitigated by the transportation SDC implemented recently by Deschutes County. Total estimated transportation SDC payments for the resort were deducted from the transportation system costs. Most counties in Oregon have no transportation SDC, so the costs will be higher in those counties. It should also be noted that no impacts were calculated for Thornburgh Resort for libraries. As a result of these factors, Thornburgh's fiscal cost impacts may be somewhat less than for the typical new resort. None -the -less, it serves as the best available gauge at this time. The net fiscal impact per residential unit for the Thornburgh Resort is a cost of $33,408.78 Based on the 22,374 residential units in destination resorts that are either under construction or proposed in Oregon, the total fiscal impact is estimated to be a net cost of $747 million. As shown graphically in Figure 8-1, almost two-thirds of this cost will come from the resorts that are proposed. Note that these net infrastructure costs are the externalized costs from the resorts after all payments and contributions are deducted. 78 This net cost incorporates the projected revenue surplus from services in the form of the capital cost that could be financed with the same annual revenue stream, as described in the Fiscal Impact Conclusions section. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 86 Figure 8-1 Future Statewide Resort Costs Total Net Cost = $747,455,211) Resorts Planne 485,415,483 resorts Under Donstruction, 262,039,728 Destination resorts have regional impacts that often receive little or no consideration in the resort planning and siting process. Resorts located near cities tend to create a fundamental fiscal inequity. The counties receive all the tax revenues, and the nearby cities receive much of the impacts, especially from increased traffic. Resort residents and visitors will avail themselves of the urban services and amenities of the city. They may travel to the cities to purchase necessities, for entertainment, or to commute to work in these cities. They may also travel through these cities going to and from the resort and to visit other attractions in the area. Resort employees are likely to find housing in the nearby cities and will create additional traffic. The City of Redmond will be especially impacted by new resort development, as four new destination resorts are planned nearby: Remington Ranch, Hidden Canyon, Brasada Ranch, and Thornburg Resort. The Remington Ranch Resort is just 5 miles from Redmond and it is estimated that 75% of the trips generated by the resort will use the city's road network. An estimate 35% of the trips from the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort will be to, or through, Redmond. According to City of Redmond Public Works Director, Chris Doty, the city's growth is currently constrained by road capacity and by requirements of the State's Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 87 Transportation Planning Rule.' Yet resort development can continue to burden these transportation facilities without having to mitigate their impacts. Housing needs for resort employees put added pressure on nearby cities to provide additional affordable housing, as resort workers are among the lowest -paid in the State. Impacts of resorts on nearby cities are beyond the cities' control and occur outside of the cities' planning processes. Redmond, for example, collects a Transportation System Development Charge on new development within the city, but is unable to collect such charges from resort development. Resorts have the potential to function like suburban subdivisions or bedroom communities, taking advantage of a nearby city's urban amenities, but paying no taxes to the city. Revenue sharing by the county, or mitigation requirements from the resort developers, could offset some of these impacts. Letter from Chris Doty regarding Remington Ranch Resort to Bill Zelenka, Crook County Planning Department, September 7, 2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 88 Appendices Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 89 A-1. Property Tax Explanation The single largest revenue source for local governments, school districts and agencies in Oregon is the property tax. Property subject to taxation includes all privately owned real property (land, buildings, and improvements). This tax is collected by the county tax collector for all agencies within the county. As the boundaries of the various taxing districts do not align the county is divided into Code Areas. Each Code Area represents a unique combination of taxing districts. For the 2008/09 tax year, the proposed Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas: 2-003, with a total tax rate of $12.2499 per thousand dollars of Assessed Value. and, 2-004 with a total tax rate of $14.0041 thousand dollars of Assessed Value. The difference being that property in 2-004 is subject to a tax from Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. Table A-1 Tax Code Area 2-00380 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non -Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District #2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School #2j Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School #2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 12.2499 5.7419 4.9642 1.5438 80 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 90 Table A-2 Tax Code Area 2-00481 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non -Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 202 Rural Fire District #1 1.7542 1.7542 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District #2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School #2j Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School #2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 14.0041 5.7419 6.7184 1.5438 Since 199782 the assessed value (AV) of a property, and not its real market value RMV), is used to calculate the amount of property tax due. This assessed value was initially established in 1997 by rolling back the RMV of a property to 90% of its 1995 level. As long as the resulting AV is less then the current RMV this value is allowed to increase by 3% annually. For new properties, like the proposed Thornburgh Resort, the County Tax Assessor's Office appraises the property and sets a RMV for the land and its improvements. Then, an Exception Value Ratio is applied for the property class" of the parcel to arrive at the properties initial RMV. For example, the AV of a parcel in a property class with a ratio of 0.46 and a RMV of $100,000 would be $46,000. The Exception Value Ratio is calculated annually and is the ratio between AV and RMV for properties of the same property class. The Current Exception Value Ratio for resort properties is 0.491.83 Property tax is levied on July 1 and due on November 15 each year. It can be paid either in a single payment on or before November 15, in which case a 3% discount can be taken, or in three payments due on the 15`' of November, February and May. If taxes are not paid within three years the property is subject to foreclosure. 81 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. 82 A relatively detailed history of the Oregon Property Tax system can be found as Appendix B of Oregon Property Tax Statistics an annual publication of the Oregon Department of Revenue. 83 Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll, page 9. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 91 Property Tax Revenue Methodolog The basic formula for calculating the initial property taxS4 on a new development such as Thornburgh is simple and straight forward. It is: Property Tax = ((RMV x Exception Value Ratio)/1000) x Tax Rate The (RMV x Exception Ratio) establishes the initial AV for a new property. All that is necessary is to supply values for the RMV, Exception Ratio and Tax Rate. The Property Class" for the Thornburgh Resort is "#8 Resort," and the Exception Value for all properties in the Resort for 2008-09 is 0.491 which was the value used. As pointed out earlier, the Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas (2-003 and 2-004) with different tax rates. But, as those parcels not in Code Area 2-004 are to be annexed into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Prevention District #1,85 it was assumed that the $14.0041 tax rate of Code Area 2-004 would apply to all properties in the resort. Establishing a RMV for each type of property was difficult as only the briefest of descriptions was provided in the Thornburgh Resort Application. These descriptions lacked information as to parcel or lot size, building size, construction materials to be used, amenities or expected or proposed costs. Three different methodologies were used to establish a RMV for the various types of properties. For the 1,375 residential propertiesS6 proposed for the Thornburgh Resort a single methodology was used. The land -use application for the resort contained very little information on the characteristics of the residential development, so for calculation purposes, it was assumed that all the residential units and lot sizes would be similar. To arrive at a value for these properties, a sample of 49 residential properties located in the nearby Eagle Crest Resort87 was obtained by selecting a number of parcels from each of the tax maps containing part of Eagle Crest. The current RMV for the land and improvements for each of these parcels was obtained from Deschutes County's D.I.A.L system.S8 Townhouses were excluded from the sample. Average values were calculated for a sample of 38 lots and 35 houses. 84 In subsequent years the formula is the same as all other property, (AV/1000)*Tax Rate. 85 Letter from Fire Chief Tim Moor of DCRFPD#1 to Deschutes County Commissioners dated 25 March 2008. 86 The total includes 425 with deed restrictions that they be available for short term rental and 950 without the deed restrictions. 87 Eagle Crest Resort is an existing Destination Resort similar in concept to and located in close proximity to the proposed Thornburgh Resort for which property tax records were available. 88 This is an online tax record system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 92 The County RMV data from 2008 reflects the peak prices of the real estate bubble should be adjusted downward to reflect current market conditions. The Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20 -city housing price index fell 18% in October of 2008 from a year earlier.89 It appears that this downward trend in real estate values is likely to continue through 2009 and possibly longer. To reflect the decline in values, average values from the Eagle Crest sample were reduced by 20% to obtain the RMV of the residential land and improvements in our calculations. For Commercial and resort -owned properties,90 total building square footage was provided in the application. A $200 per square foot construction cost was used to establish an RMV for the commercial improvements. To determine the RMV of the land it was assumed that the lot associated with a building would be twice the square footage of the building (i.e. 50% lot coverage). To reflect declining real estate values, the value of comparable developed commercial parcels at Eagle Crest were reduce by 20 percent in the same manner as residential property. For the Golf Courses it was assumed that they would be 150 acres each and would cost $3 million dollars each to construct.91 The land value was obtained by averaging the cost per acre of 5 Eagle Crest parcels identified as containing significant parts of a golf course. 89 Year -over -year declines in property values were reported in the Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20 -city housing price index. See Home Prices post 18 percent annual drop in October, by J.W Elphinstone, AP, December 30, 2008. 90 Hotel, Recreation Centers, Golf Club Houses, SPA and Retail Center 91 The web sites for the United States Golf Association and American Society of Golf Course Architects both contain a $1.6 to 4.5 million range for the construction cost of a Golf Course, $3 milllion is roughly the midpoint in that range. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 93 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation Deschutes County imposes a Transient Room Tax on the guest of any Hotel or short term rental housing921ocated in an unincorporated part of the county. This tax is in the amount of 7% of the full rent charged by the rental manager for the occupancy of a room. The room tax is not imposed on items separate and independent from the use of the room93 nor is it imposed on recreational fees. If the room is rented as part of a package deal that includes food and or recreational activities the Hotel operator is permitted to exclude from the rent the cost of providing the food or activities. The hotel operator collects this tax on behalf of Deschutes County at the time the room rate is paid. Monthly, the hotel or rental operator remits the amount of taxes collected minus a 5% "Collection Reimbursement Charge." Revenues from the Transient Room Tax are currently being used to fund services provided by the Sheriffs Office and for tourism through the Central Oregon Visitors Association 95 By state law the minimum proportion spent on tourism promotion and tourism -related facilities can not be less then that allocated on 1 July 2003. The current division is about 730/o/27% with the majority going to the Sheriffs Office.% In the FY 2008-09 Annual Budget $2,435,020 or about 19.6% of the operating funds devoted to Rural Law Enforcement came from Transient Room Taxes.97 Room Tax Methodology In its most basic form estimating the amount of revenue raised by the Deschutes County Room Tax from a hotel is a very straight forward process. The revenue equals the room rate, times the occupancy rate, times .07, times 365 days, minus 5% of the total. Making an estimate of a proposed hotel where the only information is 92 The Deschutes County Code (DCC) defines "Hotel" as "...any structure or space, or any portion of any structure or space which is or intended or designed for Transient Occupancy for 30 days or less, for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes, but is not limited to any Hotel, inn, tourist home, tourist accommodation, condominium, motel, studio Hotel, hostel, bachelor Hotel, lodging house, bed and breakfast, vacation home, vacation rental home, rooming house, apartment house, public or private dormitory, fraternity, sorority, public or private club, mobile home, R.V. or trailer park, campgrounds private home, or similar structure or portions thereof so occupied. [DCC 4.08.045] 93 Items such as Food service, Room Service, Pay for view movies long distance telephone. 94 "Recreation Fee" means a fee charged, assessed, or allocated by a Hotel to a Hotel occupant or occupants for use of Destination Resort recreation facilities, whether the Hotel charging the Recreation Fee is a Destination Resort or has a contract or agreement with a Destination Resort for use by the Hotel's guests of the recreation facilities of the Destination Resort. [DCC4.08.065] 95 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page iii. 96 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 pages 332 and 370 97 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page 370 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 94 the number of rooms, as is the case here, requires a number of assumptions to be made. In order to estimate the average room rate, it was assumed that the Hotel and other rental units would meet the American Automobile Association's Three -Diamond Rating98 criteria. This rating is the middle of a 5 level scale and is typical of the ratings held by other resorts in Oregon'. There are 14 Three -Diamond Hotels operating in Deschutes County of which rate information is available for 12 of them. The rates range from a low of $89 to a high of $439 per night. Based on the number of distribution of room types in the AAA Guide, it was assumed that there are four times as many inexpensive rooms as there are expensive rooms. The weighted average room rate is $121 per night. Just as there is little information on the configuration of the hotel there is little information on the configuration of the 450 houses that will be available for short- term rental. In order to estimate vacation home rental rates, the assumption was made that they would resemble those currently on the short term rental market for the Greater Redmond area. The Vacation Rentals by Owner web site listed 39 vacation homes available for vacation rental in Redmond, Oregon.10° Twenty-eight of these listings were for rentals in Eagle Crest Resort. The rates for these houses run from $100 to $300 a night, with an average rate of $162. The last variable is the occupancy rates for each type of unit. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts paid by all operations subject to Transient Room Taxes are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. To develop an annual occupancy rate estimate, a peak occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then an adjusted occupancy rates for each of the other months was calculated based on the actual monthly Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate for all rental types was derived, as described below. Occupancy Rates for Room Tax Revenues Room tax revenues are difficult to estimate for a planned, but unbuilt resort such as Thornburgh. Occupancy rates and reporting rates (the percent of private rentals for which room taxes are paid) must be estimated. To estimate occupancy rates, County- wide room tax revenues"' were examined and adjusted to reflect the likely seasonal According to AAA, "Three diamond lodgings offer a distinguished style. Properties are multi- faceted with marked upgrades in physical attributes, amenities and guest comforts." (AAA Oregon and Washington Tour Book, AAA Publishing, Heathrow, Florida, 2008, page 21) The 2008 AAA Oregon and Washington Tour book lists 7 Oregon Resorts, one Two -Diamond, five Three -Diamond and one Four -Diamond. goo Data collected on 21 December 2008 from http:www.vrhbo.com/vacation- rentals/regi on/usa/Oregon/cen tral-oregon. 101 Data from Deschutes County Treasurer Marty Wynn. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 95 nature of this resort. The County -wide vacancy rate was estimated based on the assumption that a peak occupancy rate of 90% is achieved during the peak month of August. This may be overly optimistic, as many private rentals will be occupied by owners during this month. However, this peak occupancy rate was used as a reference to estimate occupancy rates for the rest of the year (see Figure A-1). Average annual occupancy for the County was estimated to be 33% based on this method. Hotels and lodging in Bend, and resorts such as Sunriver and Inn of the Seventh Mountain, are close to Mt. Bachelor and can maintain modest winter occupancy rates. However, resorts such as Thornburgh are located too far away to benefit from skiing. Since Thornburgh would lack off-season appeal, it was assumed that rental occupancy would drop to an average of 10% from November through April. For the remainder of the season, County -wide vacancy rates are applied (see Figure A-2). This results in an average annual occupancy rate at Thornburgh of 29%. Figure A -l: Deschutes County occupancy rates based on monthly room tax revenues. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates, Deschutes County, 2007 100% - —— ---- -- 90% --- - _ - - - - 80% — -- - 60% 50% - - 40% _. -- ----- --- - - - - 8) 30% - --- --- --- 0 20% — - - — --- - ---- - 0% ccn c Q o 7) LL Q Q co Z Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 96 Figure A-2: Occupancy rates used for Thornburgh Resort. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates for Thornburgh Resort 100% 90% - - - 80% -- --- — a - 70% - - ---- -- --- - 60% -- — ---- - --- C 50% C 40%--- U 0% - ------- 5 30% --------- — O 20% - ------ ------- 10 0% G -0 N C 5 Ol a V > U l Q `z Q U) O Z O Resort vacation homes that are managed by a property management firm will tend to fully report room taxes, as the room tax revenues provides compensation to these firms to offset administrative and collection costs. However, privately -owned vacation homes that are owner -managed may not fully report room taxes to the County. This situation may occur at Eagle Crest Resort, where a recent property owner survey conducted by Jen -Weld specifically mentioned that survey respondents would not be reported to the County if they were renting their house. For Thornburgh, it was assumed that 80% of privately -owned rental homes are fully reporting room taxes, and that 100% of hotel room rentals are reported. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 97 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study The population figures used throughout this study are from the Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast data for each of the 5 -year increments was interpolated using exponential growth rates to create data for each year in between, making it possible to examine population changes over any period of time. In order to create a 20 -year forecast through 2028, the projection data was expanded beyond 2025 to 2028 using the same growth rate as in the final 5 -year period (2020-2025). Table A-3 Interpolated Population Data for Every Year to 2028 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast Added projections based on previous 5 -year growth rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 98 Bend Redmond Sisters Unincorp. Total Year UGB UGB UGB County County 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 143,053 2006 71,294 20,100 1,864 54,199 147,475 2007 73,661 20,989 1,966 55,391 152,033 2008 76,106 21,916 2,074 56,609 156,733 2009 78,632 22,885 2,187 57,854 161,578 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 59,127 166,572 2011 83,135 24,953 2,379 60,428 170,914 2012 85,072 26,056 2,454 61,757 175,369 2013 87,054 27,208 2,532 63,116 179,940 2014 89,082 28,411 2,611 64,505 184,630 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 65,924 189,443 2016 92,981 30,979 2,782 67,374 194,144 2017 94,841 32,348 2,874 68,857 198,962 2018 96,738 33,778 2,968 70,372 203,900 2019 98,673 35,272 3,065 71,920 208,959 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 73,502 214,145 2021 102,337 38,459 3,275 75,119 219,231 2022 104,056 40,159 3,387 76,772 224,437 2023 105,804 41,935 3,503 78,461 229,768 2024 107,582 43,788 3,623 80,187 235,225 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 240,811 2026 111,227 47,745 3,875 83,754 246,530 2027 113,095 49,856 4,008 85,597 252,385 2028 114,995 52,060 4,146 87,480 258,379 Data from County (population for intermediate years are added). Added projections based on previous 5 -year growth rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 98 A-4. Tax Bases for jurisdictions Used in Study The total assessed values of the tax base for each of the local jurisdictions used in this study are provide in Table A-4. The final column of the table shows the percentage of each tax base that would be represented by the Thornburgh Resort if fully developed. This percentage was treated as the potential future contribution by the resort towards repayment of bonds associated with the infrastructures costs generated. Table A-4 Potential Contribution to Infrastructure Costs Through Future Tax Payments 1) Data from the 2008-09 District Summary Table on page 16 of the 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll published by the Deschutes County Assessors Office. Assessed value of school district from Redmond School District. 2) The percent of the total future tax base represented by the resort based on a fully -developed resort with a total assessed tax value of 374,788,817. 3) Transportation system is not funded by property taxes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 99 Percent of Future Taxes Assessed Value Paid by Category of Infrastructure Jurisdiction of Tax Base(l) Thornburgh(') Transportation System() Deschutes County NA NA School Facilities Redmond School Dist. 4,937,455,942 7.1% Fire & EMS Facilities DCRFPD#1 1,295,518,889 22.4% Public Safety Facilities Deschutes County 16,602,476,500 2.2% Parks and Rec. Facilities RAPRD 288,870,875 56.5% Gen Gov. Facilities Deschutes County 16,602,476,500 2.2% 1) Data from the 2008-09 District Summary Table on page 16 of the 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll published by the Deschutes County Assessors Office. Assessed value of school district from Redmond School District. 2) The percent of the total future tax base represented by the resort based on a fully -developed resort with a total assessed tax value of 374,788,817. 3) Transportation system is not funded by property taxes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 99 A-5. About the Authors Eben Fodor, Principal Author Mr. Fodor is Founder and Principal of Fodor & Associates, a consulting firm based in Eugene, Oregon since 1993. The firm specializes in community planning and land use consulting, including fiscal impact analysis, growth management, land -use planning, economic forecasting, and research and analysis. He is an expert in development impact analysis. He created a development impact model for the City of San Diego that quickly estimates infrastructure and service costs for new developments of any size and mix of uses. He has examined the fiscal impacts of development proposals in Washington, Oregon, Maryland and Wyoming for various clients. He conducted statewide assessments of infrastructure impacts of residential development in Oregon and Washington. Mr. Fodor holds a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning and a M.S. degree in Environmental Studies, both from the University of Oregon. He holds a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. David Hinkley, Research and Analysis Mr. Hinkley has worked since 1996 providing public policy research, analysis and advocacy services to lobbyists, candidates, businesses and individuals. Areas of expertise include land use codes, government budgeting, tax increment financing, development impacts, state land use programs, systems development charges, transportation issues, disability issues, bottle bills, campaign contributions, and liquor laws. He served 8 years on the City of Eugene's Public Works Rates Advisory Committee helping to revise the City's System Development Charge methodologies for transportation, waste water and parks systems. Mr. Hinkley holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in History from the University of San Francisco and a B.S. degree with Honors in Criminal Justice Administration from San Jose State University. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 100 LandWatch Releases Fiscal and Economic Impact Study of Destination Resorts in Oregon 13 March 2009 - 3:47pm — Erik Kander Central Oregon Land Watch is pleased to announce the completion of our in-depth analysis of the costs and benefits of destination resorts in Oregon. This report, entitled, "Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon," which was performed by the consulting firm Fodor & Associates out of Eugene, OR represents the best effort to date to assess the impacts of destination resorts in Oregon. Although the report's primary focus is on fiscal impacts of destination resorts affecting local governments and taxpayers, it also addresses economic impacts related to jobs creation and affordable housing. The most fundamental question that this report seeks to answer is, "How will the approval of a destination resort affect local taxpayers and the general public?" The answer it turns out, is that the standard model for a golf -course subdivision -oriented destination resort presents local governments and taxpayers with a substantial net burden that will result either in higher overall taxes or a decrease in the quality of basic services. The report addresses six basic categories of public infrastructure required by resort development Transportation Systems School Facilities Fire and EMS Facilities Police Facilities Parks and Rec Facilities General Government facilities According to our analysis, after subtracting the costs for these services from the gross property and room tax revenue generated by our case study resort - the proposed Thornburgh Resort near Redmond - only a modest net surplus remains. However, when the cost of capital facilities including roads, schools, fire and police stations, and others is also accounted for, the net cost to local taxpayers is substantial at 51.28 million. This is even after accounting for all known payments the resort would be required to make. To illustrate the overall impacts to taxpayers, if the amount of annual revenue that is projected to be left over ($466,344) could be used to service interest and principal payments on a 20 -year loan at 6% interest of only $5.35 million, which would account for only 10.4% of the net cost, and reduce it to $45.94 million. This report is certainly not expected to be the final word on this matter, but it does represent the most thorough assessment to date. The only readily available sources of information prior to the release of this report have been studies prepared as part of the land use application materials provided by destination resort developers. For the most part, these studies have focused on the tax revenues and broadly ignored a wide range of expenditures that are required to serve the needs of resort developments. The impact studies that have provided by developers have portrayed an unrealistically optimistic and beneficial picture of the development project. Unfortunately, it's this view of resorts that has been allowed to set resort policy in Oregon and throughout the West. That needs to change. Our report also addresses the negative impacts of destination resorts on jobs and affordable housing as well as the substantial financial risks that these resorts present to the entire community. We hope that you enjoy this landmark effort. The report, and a brief executive summary, are attached below. The Oregon Legislature is currently reviewing a number of bills related to statewide destination resort policy, and you can be assured that LandWatch will do what it can to ensure that the state's flawed policies on destination resorts receive the deliberate fixes they deserve. For more information, or to get involved, please write us at 4 jeffbocc 96 6 #AONN 1 6( From: Ba ara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com> r Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:03 PM To: jeffbocc; Planning Commission Desk; Planning Commission Desk; Michael Haas Subject: Fwd: Comments on MPR Attachments: PC030718 (1).docx Here are my comments Forwarded message ---------- From: Barbara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroppkgmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:35 PM Subject: Comments on MPR To: jeffbocc <jeffboccAco jefferson.wa.us>, P1anCommAco jefferson.wa.us, Michael Haas mhaas@co jefferson.wa.us>, PCommissionDeskgco.jefferson.wa.us These are the comments I made last night at the Planning Commission. I handed them in in paper form, but there is an electronic link in the electronic copy to the documents I reference. Please place these comments in the public record for the current comment period on the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Z Destination—Resort—impact—Study (1).pdf LandWatch Releases Fiscal and Economic Impact S... Please let me know if you cannot access the documents. Brinnon Group PO Box 572, Brinnon March 7, 2018 County Commissioners, County Planning Commission, County Prosecuting Attorney: The Brinnon Group supports the Hood Canal Environmental Council's (HCEC) February 25 request to expand the comment period for the Pleasant Harbor draft development agreement and draft development regulations. We agree with all the points they make to back up their request. We also support a mandatory review of the financial results and business plan for each phase of the development by an independent consultant before each phase is approved for construction. In addition, we recommend that the county do an analysis of the amount of bonding the developer should have, given the unique feature of this development, and require that amount of bond in the development agreement. Also the county must do an economic analysis of revenue and costs expected from the project, to see what taxpayers will have to pick up. The state Office of Financial Management estimates that there are about 25,000 adults over the age of 20 living in Jefferson County. This would be a good estimate of the number of people who pay taxes. A study of destination resorts in Oregon states: when the cost of capital facilities including roads, schools, fire and police stations, and others is also accounted for, the net cost to local taxpayers is substantial at $51.28 million. This is even after accounting for all known payments the resort would be required to make." Recently Forks wanted adequate law enforcement. The county decided to take 70,000 from the road fund for this If Forks has the same economic model as the MPR of seasonal recreational income, why doesn't that cover the cost of law enforcement? Wouldn't this shortfall be repeated in south county, exacerbated by the size of the MPR and the fragile location? The extra money defined in the Oregon study will come not from a handy road fund, but from the 25,000 taxpayers, most of whom do not live in Brinnon. R r 4ECEIVEO 4wooi n 3/3/2018 LIAR 12 2018 TO: Jefferson County Commissioners: Suffiva t, Kier ary S N ; (j a,, SUBJECT: Economic Reality Check 0 AA Fw An article in the Atlantic Magazine dated 3/2/2018 titled: "A Small Town kept Wal-Mart Out Now Faces Amazon" speaks to the demise of community retail in the United States due to the rise of Amazon. For the 28 years that I've lived in Jefferson County, I have seen very little effort at the County level to build a diverse, future oriented economy. The Atlantic article could have been written about Jefferson County. Our 2008 Team Jefferson Vision to create a reliable, high speed internet system for East Jefferson never came to fruition. We have lived on "Transfer Dollars", retired County citizens building or buying nice homes who's property taxes underwrite the County Budget. Speaking of retirement.... At the time Governor Inslee, in an attempt keep Boeing manufacturing in the Northwest, talked the younger members of the Boeing Machinist Union into abandoning their pension program and move to the 401K program, only 11% of private industry offered guaranteed, retirement programs. 1 suspect that that number is considerably smaller today. Retirement programs just don't provide enough money today to allow people to live to the standard that they have become accustomed. The day of reckoning is coming to regions who have not done the "Future Economy Vision" work. The Environmental Lobby that has controlled Jefferson County for the past 30 years, has not done due diligence on developing an future economic strategic plan. Our School Students Counts are dropping and our average individual wage lags behind other Western Washington Counties. Communities that thrive focus and build on Assets... Communities that die focus on just Needs..(1). Our Food Banks, that continue to expand, are a critical asset in Jefferson County... They support the NEEDS of our residents... We are in trouble Commissioners.. Please step up and get the Pleasant Harbor Project going... Review the July 2017 article in the Calgary Herald that celebrates the Statesman Group as a " One of A Kind Corporation" that is FUTURE OREINTED! The opportunity to partner with a company like Statesman is rare. on thArffi here. Let's see some courage to invest in our FUTURE... nnon, Washington 1) John McKinght... Northwestern University CC'. bocc-Ici Jefferson County Board of Count PONG RIT'effbocc co.'efferson.wa.us,kog I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer, destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, and drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will. not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klatlam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Additional Comments F rs©w Gav Ck , C S' i T l _ j 1-7 OC2C-( J 6,, `.s i rt '% i n_ / `I (` /) D r 1 0 0- ids Ct. 4 P o— L , MAR 12 2018 Signature `V "' ` c 45 Printed Name --J i'n Y F" U g 3 ddress 1 .S C S 1 c, . Jefferson County Board of County Com a jeffbocc co.jeffersonma.us) WA I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer, destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, and drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Additional Comments c, Stu -6i t3, 2o. GVt G mG Wl rCo o cul-x -"fi VWZ iM k IA'( VX C -LA," qv 1 MAR 1 2 2018 Signature Printed NameL) W, k r WA6L tf1 Address 1 S" C i ii R8339 4Ct c cQ ss 'l c'2 P s OL, Yp-1 1cr,,,.a, C CLS c S -Vi U CA,i 0111 C -c'. bocctl PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & RECREATION COMMt LAITY March 8, 2018 VIA US MAIL & EMAIL MAR 12 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ; w PO Box 1220 3, $ i ' C Port Townsend, WA 98368 N, F R Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Proposed Amendments to Titles 17 & 18 of the Jefferson County Code & Development Agreement Dear Honorable Commissioners: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP ("PHMR") is excited to continue its partnership with Jefferson County ("County") and the local community to fulfill the County's vision for a master planned resort at Black Point. The staff version of the development regulations and development agreement before you represent a decade's worth of scrutiny, negotiation and compromise. The development regulations and development agreement produced by this process achieve the balance the County sought when it initially contemplated a master planned resort for this area in the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") vote to adopt the development regulations proposed by County staff and approve the development agreement. A. The Fifteen -Year Process to Implement the Vision Set Forth in the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan a. Jefferson County Identified Black Point as a Possible Location for a Master Planned Resort in 2002 Citing the Need to Further Diversify Economic Opportunity The Brinnon Sub -Area Plan (`BSAP" adopted in 2002) identifies the Black Point area as "an appropriate location for a possible future Master Planned Resort." BSAP (2002) at 43. In addition, to justifying the potential MPR designation because of the natural beauty of the area, the BSAP recited the public need for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT HARBOR economic growth in the form of tourism to offset the loss ofjobs and tax revenue with the decline of the timber industry: The decline of jobs related to the timber industry coupled with the ever-increasing demand for tourism and recreation resulted in a strong desire by the residents of the Brinnon area to offset the loss of jobs in the timber industry by rebuilding the capacity to accommodate recreation and tourism. An expansion of recreational and tourism opportunities and associated commercial facilities in the Brinnon area, including a potential Master Planned Resort at Black Point, will help fulfill this objective. These needs and objectives expressed in the BSAP have not changed since 2002. b. Since 2005 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP has Invested Millions of Dollars to Prepare and Study an MPR Design That Implements the BSAP Vision, Mitigates Potential Impacts, and Responds to County and Community Input In 2005, PHMR answered the call of the BSAP and submitted an application to amend the County Comprehensive Plant to designate the areas as an Master Planned Resort ("MPR"). Consistent with the BSAP, PHMR initially proposed an 18 -hole golf course along with 890 residential units that included 52 suites for affordable staff housing, and associated recreational and commercial amenities. It kept the scale large enough to serve as a destination resort, but smaller than the Port Ludlow MPR per guidance in the BSAP. The conceptual proposal underwent a two-year environmental review process culminating in a DEIS that received over 400 comments. The FEIS was issued on November 27, 2007. i. The BOCC Unanimously Approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Designating Black Point for a MPR Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611 / 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com A a a r ' ` r r 410XMIT.-My. On January 28, 2008, the Jefferson County BOCC unanimously approved a comprehensive plan amendment formerly designating 256 acres of Black Point as a MPR. To address community concerns raised during the environmental review process the BOCC imposed 29 conditions to guide future development. A minority group of citizens appealed the MPR designation. The County and PHMR worked together for over three years defending the designation from legal challenge. The challenges ended when the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the propriety of the MPR designation in 2011.1 ii. The Development Regulations and Development Agreement Were Further Reviewed in an SETS and are Ready for Approval and Adoption Following the end of litigation, PHMR began the process of addressing the 29 conditions established by the BOCC. In addition, and in response to public concern, PHMR reduced the size of the golf course from 18 holes to 9 holes. Reducing the size of the golf course allowed for retention of more vegetation on site, and maintaining the original site contours. The revised proposal, developed regulations and development agreement were assessed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS"). The County hired independent consultant EA Engineering to author the SEIS. The DSEIS was released on November 19, 2014 for public comment and the County issued the FSEIS on December 9, 2015. On January 6, 2016, the Planning Commission started its deliberations on the proposed development regulations. Six months later, on July 11, 2016, the Planning Commission issued its recommendations. The County delayed vote on the development regulations and development agreement to engage in additional government -to - government meetings with the Port Gamble S'Kllalam Tribe PGST") regarding concerns it articulated with the proposal. The County and PHMR met with PGST to address concerns regarding elk habitat and migration (Development Agreement, Appendix P). It also amended the proposed development agreement to allow for 1 Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 485, 245 P.3d 789 (2011). Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & RECREATION COMMUNITY— the preservation of one kettle. (Development Agreement at Section 5). B. The Board Should Approve the Development Regulations Proposed by County Staff and the Development Agreement a. The Development Regulations Proposed by County Staff are Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance No. 08-0128-08, and Should be Approved The County' Comprehensive Plan designates Black Point for a master planned resort, but its development regulations do not authorize resort development. The proposed development regulations before the Board cure that inconsistency. The development regulations establish permissible uses, density and zones as contemplated by the County Comprehensive Plan. Approving these development regulations does not approve actual development. PHMR, like any other land owner, will still have to apply for all applicable permits and approvals prior to development including, but not limited to, grading permits, land division approvals and building permits. These applications will be reviewed for consistency with the proposed development regulations for the MPR as well as all other applicable components of the County Code. PHMR respectfully request that the Board vote to adopt the proposed development regulations proposed by County Planning staff. b. The Development Agreement Insures that Build -Out of the MPR will Proceed in an Orderly Manner and That Mitigation Measures Identified in the EISs will be Implemented The Development Agreement outlines how the resort will be developed. It is an agreement between PHMR the County. Among other things, the Development Agreement: Incorporates the required mitigation measures in the EISs; Includes the monitoring and maintanence plans; and Outlines the process that shall be followed if there are changes to the resort plan. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com A /1.. NM IM r In short, the Development Agreement provides a tool for the County to enforce the mitigation measures and plans we have agreed to abide by during and following resort development. For PHMR, the Development Agreement provides certainty that if PHMR fulfills its end of the bargain that the County will not arbitrarily change zoning codes to prohibit future development. Many of the infrastructure improvements we have agreed to make to service the resort will be made during the first phase of the project. These improvements are not economical unless we can rely on development envelope presently authorized. The Development Agreement provides the needed assurances that we will be permitted to build out the resort if we make these infrastructure investments. We are aware of comments that suggest a 25 -year period on the Development Agreement is too long. As we have stated in the past, our goal is to achieve full -build well before expiration of the Development Agreement. Experience has taught us that despite our best intentions, the development process takes longer than what we would otherwise prefer. It has taken over ten years just to get to this point. A 25 year period is reasonable given the size of the project and the time it has taken just to get to this point. PHMR respectfully requests that the Board authorize the County to enter into the Development Agreement. C. Response to Common Themes in Opposition PHMR has spent a considerable amount of time responding to concerns regarding the proposed project. In our experience, many of the comments opposing the MPR are premised on an incomplete understanding of the project and applicable mitigation measures or state law requirements. While a detailed response to each concern we have heard over the years is beyond the scope of this letter we wish to address some more common topics of concern that we have heard and how those topics have been studied and addressed: a. Water Quality in Hood Canal There have been repeated assertions that the project will damage water quality in Hood Canal. The project has studied and addressed this potential impact from numerous angles including stormwater, wastewater, golf course operations and shoreline development. The project has been designed and mitigated to address this issue by requiring, among other things, a habitat buffer along the shoreline, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com construction of a wastewater treatment plant, and on-site storage and treatment of stormwater. i. Wastewater Treatment Wastewater generated on-site will be addressed by construction of a treatment plant that treats water to Class A. reclaimed water standards. (FSEIS at 3.16). The treatment plant must be constructed during the first development phase. (Development Agreement at Section 8.10, Exhibit 4). The reclaimed water will be used for irrigation and aquifer recharge thereby reducing the use of groundwater and commensurately adding to aquifer recharge. Wastewater generated by the resort will have less of an impact on water quality than surrounding developments which rely on septic systems to treat wastewater. Similarly, the proposed resort would have less of an impact than if the property were developed with 30, single family residences with septic fields as is permitted under the existing residential zoning. (FSEIS at 3.16.-7). fl. Stormwater Treatment Potential stormwater impacts of have been addressed both during construction and following construction. During construction, we will require coverage under the Construction Stormwater General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit. (FSEIS at 1-23). This NPDES Permit requires implementation of best management practices to control and treat stormwater and quarterly monitoring all of which are designed to insure the construction stormwater does not negatively impact water quality as required by federal and state law. Following construction stormwater will be collected and conveyed to engineered holding ponds on site. This on-site treatment system will improve existing conditions: Stormwater from the proposed development area would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge, thereby potentially improving water quality compared to existing conditions. FSEIS 3.2-8). In response to Ordinance Condition 63(q) Pleasant Harbor developed a soils survey that outlined the soil conditions necessary to allow proper infiltration of stormwater and to prevent off-site discharge. (FSEIS at 1-24 and 1-25). Those measures must Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy I01 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611 / 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com j PLEASANT HARBOR Y be implemented as part of our Development Agreement with the County. (Development Agreement at Section 9.2.3). iii. Habitat Buffer To protect water quality from shoreline development, a 200 -foot, vegetated buffer along the undeveloped portion of the MPR boundary and Hood Canal will be maintained in perpetuity. Development Agreement at Section 8.8.7 Appendix M.) Buffers are a recognized was to protect water quality (and habitat) from adjacent shoreline development. iv. Monitoring In addition to these measures, a Water (duality Monitoring Plan Appendix N to the Development Agreement) requiring monthly testing and analysis has been prepared to ensure that resort operations do not have a negative impact on water quality. b. Salt -Water Intrusion in the Aquifer Comments have also suggested that that groundwater withdrawals to service the resort will cause salt water intrusion to the aquifer. First, it should be noted that the resort also relies on the aquifer for potable water and thus, PHMR has the same interest in protecting the water quality of the aquifer as its neighbors. The SETS paid particular attention to this issue: For purposes of SEPA (WAC 197-11-440) the following are the applicant's primary objectives for the proposal: Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. FSEIS at 2-15 and 2-16). The groundwater impact addendum Appendix F of the FESIS) concluded that the proposed project would increase groundwater recharge to the aquifer as compared to existing conditions. (FSEIS, Table 3-2.1). Thus, after careful study by qualified professionals retained by the County, the FSEIS concluded that: "As long as neighboring domestic wells are not over -pumped, the potential for introducing salt water intrusion is low." (FSEIS at 4-5). Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611 / 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com Additionally, the Water Right Permit (G2-30436) received from the State of Washington incorporates the "Groundwater Monitoring Plan" PHMR prepared as a condition of the permit. That plan requires the installation of water level and salinity dataloggers in eight existing and proposed wells across the site. Water levels and water quality (including chloride levels) will be monitored on a periodic basis (20 minutes to hourly) over time. These data will be used to assess the effects of pumping the water supply wells and to provide a forewarning in the unlikely event that adverse water levels or adverse water quality (including saltwater intrusion) develop. FSIES at 4-2). c. Traffic Traffic studies prepared during the FSEIS concluded "peak hour traffic impacts remained within approvable LOS limits at study intersections in 2017 without the project and under all development alternatives." (FSEIS at 3.9-3 and 3.9-4). Further project modifications were made to further improve safety. For instance, project revisions were made so that traffic to new development use the US 101 Black Point intersection only. That intersection will be improved as part of the development to include a south -bound left -turn lane into Black Point and a right- hand lane taper lane to allow vehicles to turn onto north bound US 101. (FSEIS at 3.9-12). Those mitigation measures, like the others, are included in our Development Agreement with the County. D. Conclusion In sum, PHMR was attracted to the Black PointBrinnon area for a resort development because of its natural beauty. PHMR appreciates that the success of the resort is dependent upon preserving the natural qualities that make the Black Point area a place people want to visit and on being a good member of the larger community. We look forward to developing a successful addition to the local community. Sincerely, M. Garth Mann Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611 / 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com k t PINla, From: Don Coleman <don@pleasantharbormarina.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:25 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Patty Charnas; JT Cooke Subject: Statesman comment letter Attachments: 2018, 3. 7. County Letter..pdf Honorable Commissioners, Attached is a comment letter from Garth Mann, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP, regarding Pleasant Harbor MPR proposed amendments to Titles 17 & 18 of the Jefferson County Code & Development Agreement. A printed copy will be sent by Mail. Thank You, Don Coleman Cell (206-714-1482) Pleasant Harbor Marina 1 PLEASANT HARBOR March 8, 2018 VIA US MAIL & EMAIL Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Proposed Amendments to Titles 17 & 18 of the Jefferson County Code & Development Agreement Dear Honorable Commissioners: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP ("PHMR") is excited to continue its partnership with Jefferson County ("County") and the local community to fulfill the County's vision for a master planned resort at Black Point. The staff version of the development regulations and development agreement before you represent a decade's worth of scrutiny, negotiation and compromise. The development regulations and development agreement produced by this process achieve the balance the County sought when it initially contemplated a master planned resort for this area in the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners (`Board") vote to adopt the development regulations proposed by County staff and approve the development agreement. A. The Fifteen -Year Process to Implement the Vision Set Forth in the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan a. Jefferson County Identified Black Point as a Possible Location for a Master Planned Resort in 2002 Citing the Need to Further Diversify Economic Opportunity The Brinnon Sub -Area Plan ("BSAP" adopted in 2002) identifies the Black Point area as "an appropriate location for a possible future Master Planned Resort." BSAP (2002) at 43. In addition, to justifying the potential MPR designation because of the natural beauty of the area, the BSAP recited the public need for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com ORarlPLEASANT economic growth in the form of tourism to offset the loss of jobs and tax revenue with the decline of the timber industry: The decline of jobs related to the timber industry coupled with the ever-increasing demand for tourism and recreation resulted in a strong desire by the residents of the Brinnon area to offset the loss of jobs in the timber industry by rebuilding the capacity to accommodate recreation and tourism. An expansion of recreational and tourism opportunities and associated commercial facilities in the Brinnon area, including a potential Master Planned Resort at Black Point, will help fulfill this objective. These needs and objectives expressed in the BSAP have not changed since 2002. b. Since 2005 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP has Invested Millions of Dollars to Prepare and Study an MPR Design That Implements the BSAP Vision, Mitigates Potential Impacts, and Responds to County and Community Input In 2005, PHMR answered the call of the BSAP and submitted an application to amend the County Comprehensive Plant to designate the areas as an Master Planned Resort ("MPR"). Consistent with the BSAP, PHMR initially proposed an 18 -hole golf course along with 890 residential units that included 52 suites for affordable staff housing, and associated recreational and commercial amenities. It kept the scale large enough to serve as a destination resort, but smaller than the Port Ludlow MPR per guidance in the BSAP. The conceptual proposal underwent a two-year environmental review process culminating in a DEIS that received over 400 comments. The FEIS was issued on November 27, 2007. i. The BOCC Unanimously Approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Designating Black Point for a MPR Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT HARBOR On January 28, 2008, the Jefferson County BOCC unanimously approved a comprehensive plan amendment formerly designating 256 acres of Black Point as a MPR. To address community concerns raised during the environmental review process the BOCC imposed 29 conditions to guide future development. A minority group of citizens appealed the MPR designation. The County and PHMR worked together for over three years defending the designation from legal challenge. The challenges ended when the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the propriety of the MPR designation in 2011.1 u. The Development Regulations and Development Agreement Were Further Reviewed in an SEIS and are Ready for Approval and Adoption Following the end of litigation, PHMR began the process of addressing the 29 conditions established by the BOCC. In addition, and in response to public concern, PHMR reduced the size of the golf course from 18 holes to 9 holes. Reducing the size of the golf course allowed for retention of more vegetation on site, and maintaining the original site contours. The revised proposal, developed regulations and development agreement were assessed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS"). The County hired independent consultant EA Engineering to author the SEIS. The DSEIS was released on November 19, 2014 for public comment and the County issued the FSEIS on December 9, 2015. On January 6, 2016, the Planning Commission started its deliberations on the proposed development regulations. Six months later, on July 11, 2016, the Planning Commission issued its recommendations. The County delayed vote on the development regulations and development agreement to engage in additional government -to - government meetings with the Port Gamble S'Kllalam Tribe PGST") regarding concerns it articulated with the proposal. The County and PHMR met with PGST to address concerns regarding elk habitat and migration (Development Agreement, Appendix P). It also amended the proposed development agreement to allow for I Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 485, 245 P.3d 789 (2011). Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT1 • 1 rrr.a 1 i the preservation of one kettle. (Development Agreement at Section 5). B. The Board Should Approve the Development Regulations Proposed by County Staff and the Development Agreement a. The Development Regulations Proposed by County Staff are Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance No. 08-0128-08, and Should be Approved The County' Comprehensive Plan designates Black Point for a master planned resort, but its development regulations do not authorize resort development. The proposed development regulations before the Board cure that inconsistency. The development regulations establish permissible uses, density and zones as contemplated by the County Comprehensive Plan. Approving these development regulations does not approve actual development. PHMR, like any other land owner, will still have to apply for all applicable permits and approvals prior to development including, but not limited to, grading permits, land division approvals and building permits. These applications will be reviewed for consistency with the proposed development regulations for the MPR as well as all other applicable components of the County Code. PHMR respectfully request that the Board vote to adopt the proposed development regulations proposed by County Planning staff. b. The Development Agreement Insures that Build -Out of the MPR will Proceed in an Orderly Manner and That Mitigation Measures Identified in the EISs will be Implemented The Development Agreement outlines how the resort will be developed. It is an agreement between PHMR the County. Among other things, the Development Agreement: Incorporates the required mitigation measures in the EISs; Includes the monitoring and maintanence plans; and Outlines the process that shall be followed if there are changes to the resort plan. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT HARBOR In short, the Development Agreement provides a tool for the County to enforce the mitigation measures and plans we have agreed to abide by during and following resort development. For PHMR, the Development Agreement provides certainty that if PHMR fulfills its end of the bargain that the County will not arbitrarily change zoning codes to prohibit future development. Many of the infrastructure improvements we have agreed to make to service the resort will be made during the first phase of the project. These improvements are not economical unless we can rely on development envelope presently authorized. The Development Agreement provides the needed assurances that we will be permitted to build out the resort if we make these infrastructure investments. We are aware of comments that suggest a 25 -year period on the Development Agreement is too long. As we have stated in the past, our goal is to achieve full -build well before expiration of the Development Agreement. Experience has taught us that despite our best intentions, the development process takes longer than what we would otherwise prefer. It has taken over ten years just to get to this point. A 25 year period is reasonable given the size of the project and the time it has taken just to get to this point. PHMR respectfully requests that the Board authorize the County to enter into the Development Agreement. C. Response to Common Themes in Opposition PHMR has spent a considerable amount of time responding to concerns regarding the proposed project. In our experience, many of the comments opposing the MPR are premised on an incomplete understanding of the project and applicable mitigation measures or state law requirements. While a detailed response to each concern we have heard over the years is beyond the scope of this letter we wish to address some more common topics of concern that we have heard and how those topics have been studied and addressed: a. Water Quality in Hood Canal There have been repeated assertions that the project will damage water quality in Hood Canal. The project has studied and addressed this potential impact from numerous angles including stormwater, wastewater, golf course operations and shoreline development. The project has been designed and mitigated to address this issue by requiring, among other things, a habitat buffer along the shoreline, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT HARBOR construction of a wastewater treatment plant, and on-site storage and treatment of stormwater. L Wastewater Treatment Wastewater generated on-site will be addressed by construction of a treatment plant that treats water to Class A reclaimed water standards. (FSEIS at 3.16). The treatment plant must be constructed during the first development phase. (Development Agreement at Section 8. 10, Exhibit 4). The reclaimed water will be used for irrigation and aquifer recharge thereby reducing the use of groundwater and commensurately adding to aquifer recharge. Wastewater generated by the resort will have less of an impact on water quality than surrounding developments which rely on septic systems to treat wastewater. Similarly, the proposed resort would have less of an impact than if the property were developed with 30, single family residences with septic fields as is permitted under the existing residential zoning. (FSEIS at 3.16.-7). u. Stormwater Treatment Potential stormwater impacts of have been addressed both during construction and following construction. During construction, we will require coverage under the Construction Stormwater General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit. (FSEIS at 1-23). This NPDES Permit requires implementation of best management practices to control and treat stormwater and quarterly monitoring all of which are designed to insure the construction stormwater does not negatively impact water quality as required by federal and state law. Following construction stormwater will be collected and conveyed to engineered holding ponds on site. This on-site treatment system will improve existing conditions: Stormwater from the proposed development area would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge, thereby potentially improving water quality compared to existing conditions. FSEIS 3.2-8). In response to Ordinance Condition 63(q) Pleasant Harbor developed a soils survey that outlined the soil conditions necessary to allow proper infiltration of stormwater and to prevent off-site discharge. (FSEIS at 1-24 and 1-25). Those measures must Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com PLEASANT HARBOR be implemented as part of our Development Agreement with the County. (Development Agreement at Section 9.2.3). iii. Habitat Buffer To protect water quality from shoreline development, a 200 -foot, vegetated buffer along the undeveloped portion of the MPR boundary and Hood Canal will be maintained in perpetuity. Development Agreement at Section 8.8.7 Appendix M.) Buffers are a recognized was to protect water quality (and habitat) from adjacent shoreline development. iv. Monitoring In addition to these measures, a Water Quality Monitoring Plan Appendix N to the Development Agreement) requiring monthly testing and analysis has been prepared to ensure that resort operations do not have a negative impact on water quality. b. Salt -Water Intrusion in the Aquifer Comments have also suggested that that groundwater withdrawals to service the resort will cause salt water intrusion to the aquifer. First, it should be noted that the resort also relies on the aquifer for potable water and thus, PHMR has the same interest in protecting the water quality of the aquifer as its neighbors. The SEIS paid particular attention to this issue: For purposes of SEPA (WAC 197-11-440) the following are the applicant's primary objectives for the proposal: Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. FSEIS at 2-15 and 2-16). The groundwater impact addendum Appendix F of the FESIS) concluded that the proposed project would increase groundwater recharge to the aquifer as compared to existing conditions. (FSEIS, Table 3-2.1). Thus, after careful study by qualified professionals retained by the County, the FSEIS concluded that: "As long as neighboring domestic wells are not over -pumped, the potential for introducing salt water intrusion is low." (FSEIS at 4-5). Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com h PLEASANT HARBOR Additionally, the Water Right Permit (G2-30436) received from the State of Washington incorporates the "Groundwater Monitoring Plan" PHMR prepared as a condition of the permit. That plan requires the installation of water level and salinity dataloggers in eight existing and proposed wells across the site. Water levels and water quality (including chloride levels) will be monitored on a periodic basis (20 minutes to hourly) over time. These data will be used to assess the effects of pumping the water supply wells and to provide a forewarning in the unlikely event that adverse water levels or adverse water quality (including saltwater intrusion) develop. FSIES at 4-2). c. Traffic Traffic studies prepared during the FSEIS concluded "peak hour traffic impacts remained within approvable LOS limits at study intersections in 2017 without the project and under all development alternatives." (FSEIS at 3.9-3 and 3.9-4). Further project modifications were made to further improve safety. For instance, project revisions were made so that traffic to new development use the US 101/Black Point intersection only. That intersection will be improved as part of the development to include a south -bound left -turn lane into Black Point and a right- hand lane taper lane to allow vehicles to turn onto north bound US 101. (FSEIS at 3.9-12). Those mitigation measures, like the others, are included in our Development Agreement with the County. D. Conclusion In sum, PHMR was attracted to the Black Point/Brinnon area for a resort development because of its natural beauty. PHMR appreciates that the success of the resort is dependent upon preserving the natural qualities that make the Black Point area a place people want to visit and on being a good member of the larger community. We look forward to developing a successful addition to the local community. f Sincerely, f r i' M. Garth Mann Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com Lc, `Boccic oI IIg jeffbocc From: John Holbert <johnholbert@startmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:08 AM P ITo: effbocc REA z ., r_ Subject: comment on Brinnon development Attachments: BoCC comment for Development vote on 4.docx BoCC comment for Development vote on 4-9-18 Comment in favor of the development John Holbert P.E. 235 Salmon St. Brinnon My wife Jill and I have been full time residents of Brinnon for 19 years. We have two long term slip leases at Pleasant Harbor Marina but no financial interest in the marina or the proposed development. We moved here because we liked the marina and the rural setting however one key point in our decision was the planned grocery store. We relocated and built our home here so we hear all of the local complaints about the proposed development from the same people who complain about lack of groceries, high speed wireless, money for the school and the fire department. I point out that a few more developed parcels with full time residents and the grocery store would increase the tax base and lower the cost to individual property owners. The concept, for some reason, always seems to be totally new to the "against everything" crowd. I personally hate seeing so many dollars leaving the community and the county as most of the folks head to Silverdale to purchase groceries. The development would also create some primary jobs based on the increase of tourist dollars and helping to retain some of the young people that have grown up here only to have to leave to find work. I could hardly be accused of wanting uncontrolled development in Brinnon but it is hard for me to see a down side from having the mess left by the closure of the camp ground cleaned up and put to some good tax paying use. The benefit of the waste water treatment along the canal shouldn't need to be explained to anyone nor should the community health clinic. BoCC comment for Development vote on 4-9-18 Comment in favor of the development John Holbert P.E. 235 Salmon St. Brinnon My wife Jill and I have been full time residents of Brinnon for 19 years. We have two long term slip leases at Pleasant Harbor Marina but no financial interest in the marina or the proposed development. We moved here because we liked the marina and the rural setting however one key point in our decision was the planned grocery store. We relocated and built our home here so we hear all of the local complaints about the proposed development from the same people who complain about lack of groceries, high speed wireless, money for the school and the fire department. I point out that a few more developed parcels with full time residents and the grocery store would increase the tax base and lower the cost to individual property owners. The concept, for some reason, always seems to be totally new to the "against everything" crowd. I personally hate seeing so many dollars leaving the community and the county as most of the folks head to Silverdale to purchase groceries. The development would also create some primary jobs based on the increase of tourist dollars and helping to retain some of the young people that have grown up here only to have to leave to find work. I could hardly be accused of wanting uncontrolled development in Brinnon but it is hard for me to see a down side from having the mess left by the closure of the camp ground cleaned up and put to some good tax paying use. The benefit of the waste water treatment along the canal shouldn't need to be explained to anyone nor should the community health clinic. John Holbert Jill Holbert CC`. 6OCgC0 3 HEA PW G jeffbocc PEcopo From: Richard & Sheila Moore <pigeonridge@embargmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort Commissioners: We have lived in the Brinnon area for nearly 20 years so have watched with anticipation the proposed resort at Black Pt. To us this is an extremely important project for the people of Jefferson Co. most importantly the Brinnon and south county area that is so in need of good paying JOBS and stable tax base. We have watched the development proceed through COUNTLESS revisions by the developer to placate the nay sayers who mostly don't even live and work in this area. The developer has bent WAY over to try to satisfy these outsiders. It is time to get on with this project and bring the south county so much needed economic growth and stability. We strongly and enthusiastically support it and hope that this round of meetings etc. will be the last and we can get on with it. Thank you, Richard and Sheila Moore, 313094 Hiway 101, Brinnon ec'. gOCcicft 3IWIIg HEFRIMr pFr From: Lawrence Roberts <larryandlaurel@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR Hello, We own the licenses fortwo boat slips at Pleasant Harbor Marina and are therefore taxpayers in Jefferson County. We live in Portland, OR and keep our boat at Pleasant Harbor. We have been at Pleasant Harbor since 2004 and have seen the economy in the area become and remain stagnant. We believe the Pleasant Harbor Resort Development could help the entire area because it would draw in new tourism and provide jobs for local workers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Larry & Laurel Roberts effbocc From: 'Barbara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com>4 Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 10:45 AM To: jeffbocc; Michael Haas; Patty Charnas Subject: Documents from Attorney Carol Morris Submitted as Comments on Proposed MPR at Pleasant Harbor Attached are documents submitted for the comment period on the Pleasant Harbor MPR. You have received all of these documents before, but not during this official hearing period. Please let us know if you cannot open any of the documents. Carol Morris 6/17/16 Letter to County Commissioners with Issues with Development Regulations: https://drive.p,00gle.com/file/d/OB3gmNZSMJzS4MFdaMVB5OS 1 xeDVRU2p6TzBDdndMdEZRak1 V/view?us p=sharing Carol Morris 7/12/16 Response To Garth Mann https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB3 gmNZSMJzS4cHZwYTZMZIQtR29 W WEJwWIQzTktDXOI1 aFFR/view?u sy=sharing Carol Morris 1/16/18 Comments on Draft Development Agreement https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB3gmNZSMJzS4aTFKRmxfMIJ3bUU4eVQOb 1 EwenpiNU9heENr/view?usp= sharing Carol Morris 2/9/18 Comments on Draft Development Regulations https://drive.google.com/file/d/OB3gmNZSMJzS4MC 1 STUdBdOdESC 1 zaERIeDhgRE4l dDVfUks4/view?usp= sharing Morris Law P.C. June 27, 2016 Jefferson County Commissioners Phil Johnson David Sullivan Kathleen Kler 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Development Regulations and Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Board of County Commissioners: I am an attorney representing a number of property owners aggrieved by the planned Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We have reviewed the proposed Development Regulations and have the following comments for your consideration: Process: First, the letter dated May 3, 2016 that the Commissioners sent to the Planning Commission states: "Statesman Group, like any other applicant for the development of land, is entitled to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, and ultimately a decision by the County Commissioners with respect to the proposed regulations in a timely manner." If the County is considering the amendment to its development regulations and a development agreement, there is no applicant or application for the development of land. In this letter, the Commissioners admit that the development regulations are general uniform regulations that should apply to any subsequent development that may occur within the MPR, regardless of the development's specifics." Therefore, these development regulations are amendments to the County's code, adopted through a legislative process. There is no deadline on the County's decision on legislative actions. See, RCW 36.70B.080, which requires that the County's code include a deadline for a final decision on a "project permit application," excluding amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulations (RCW 36.70B.020(4)). There is also a state law which allows property owners to sue municipalities for damages based on the agency's failure "to act within time limits established by law in response to a property owner's application for a permit," but this does not apply to the County's adoption of an ordinance amending its development regulations. RCW 64.40.020, .010(6). See also, RCW 4.24.470, which provides that a "member of the governing body of a public agency is immune from civil liability for damages for any discretionary decision or failure to make a discretionary decision within his or her official capacity ..." 3304 Rosedale Street NW, Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335-1805 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol@carolmorrislaw.com Web: www.carolmorrislaw.com Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 2 If the developer has suggested that his due process rights would be violated unless the County issues a decision based on the developer's suggested time flame, please ask your attorney to review Bogan v. Scott Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S.Ct. 966 (1998). This case demonstrates that the County and the Commissioners individually, are absolutely immune from a damage claims alleging a due process violation based on their legislative activities. Concurrency. The Growth Management Act requires that the County: must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subjection (6), `concurrent with the development' means that the improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). While the County's development code includes several definitions relating to concurrency, we couldn't find a concurrency ordinance which specifically required the County to prohibit development approval under the circumstances identified above. There is also a reference to concurrency in the section of the code relating to master planned developments, but it did not include a formal process for review and denial of project permit applications based on lack of transportation concurrency. Here is a more detailed explanation of what must be included in the County's concurrency ordinance: Each planning jurisdiction should produce a regulation or series of regulations which govern the operation of that jurisdiction's concurrency management system. This regulatory scheme will set forth the procedures and processes to be used to determine whether relevant public facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a proposed development. In addition, the scheme should identify the responses to be taken when it is determined that capacity is not adequate to accommodate a proposal. Relevant public facilities for these purposes are those to which concurrency applies under the comprehensive plan. Adequate capacity refers to the maintenance of concurrency. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 3 WAC 365-196-840(5). If the County doesn't have a concurrency ordinance that complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Act for transportation facilities (at the very least), this should be the County's highest priority because it has been a requirement under GMA since the early 1990's. If the County executes a development agreement with the developer before it adopts a concurrency ordinance (as required by GMA), and the agreement addresses vesting of the applicable development regulations, the developer will likely argue that it is not required to comply with the County's newly adopted concurrency ordinance. This means that the development with the most significant traffic impacts in the area will be exempt from one of GMA's mandatory requirements. A draft of the development agreement that has been circulating shows that the developer desires that the County agree to vest the proposed project under the applicable development regulations for twenty years. A twenty year waiver under a transportation concurrency ordinance that should have been in effect in the 1990's would certainly be a benefit to the developer and detrimental to the public. Attached to this letter is a draft of a concurrency ordinance which covers transportation, sewer and water. Please feel free to modify it for your purposes. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). It appears that the County's SEPA regulations were last adopted in 2006. In JCC Section 18.40.700, the County adopted the SEPA Rules (chapter 197-11 WAC) by reference in Section 18.40.700(2), in 2006. However, the SEPA Rules were substantially amended in 2014. The County should not be implementing SEPA through outdated Rules. It is also unclear whether the County actually implements SEPA through the SEPA Rules in the WAC's. The County's development regulations include summaries or abbreviated versions of the SEPA Rules — and there doesn't appear to be a formal adoption of the SEPA Rules as they appear in the Washington Administrative Code. My suggestion is thattthe County adopt a SEPA ordinance that is separate from the development code and eliminate the modified SEPA language from the various chapters of Titles 17 and 18. Attached to this letter is a draft of a SEPA ordinance, which has been updated to show the latest amendments to the SEPA Rules. Please feel free to modify it for your purposes. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 4 Title 18 — Chapter 18.15 Land Use Districts. 18.15.025 Master Planned Resort. In subsection (2), the following appears: "The Pleasant Harbor MPR is ... subject to the provisions of JCC Title IT" In Section 18.15.115, it states that "Master Planned Resort is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive Plan" and that provisions for the Pleasant Harbor MPR "are codified in JCC Title 17." While this Section 18.15.115 explains how to designate "new master planned resorts (compliance with "this Article" and a formal site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required by JCC 18.45.080," significant questions remain as to the integration of this chapter with chapter 17.60. In addition, there is no guidance in this chapter for the resolution of conflicts between regulations in the two separate titles which purport to address the same subj ect. For example, Section 17.65.020 lists the permitted uses in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, and Section 18.15.123 lists the uses that may be "allowed" in the master planned resort classification. In Section 18.15.123, it states: "The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in compliance with RCW 36.70A.360." In Section 17.65.020(6), waste water treatment facilities are permitted uses in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort District, but this is not an "allowed use" within a master planned resort classification, according to Section 18.15.123. In Section 18.15.123(9), the County may allow "any other similar uses deemed by the administrator to be consistent with the purpose and intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding master planned resorts, and RCW 36.70A.360." This is very confusing. While 18.15.123(7) allows: (7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the master planned resort, the term "waste water treatment facilities" is not limited to the maintenance and operation of the MPR. "Waste water treatment facilities" are not even defined in chapter 18. 10, and this use is either prohibited or allowed only as a conditional use in the Resource Lands and Rural Residential Zoning designations. Does this mean that a regional waste water treatment plant can be permitted outright in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort through the administrative process? 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts. The County is required by RCW 36.70B.080 to list all of the elements of a complete application for a project permit application. It is unclear whether a MPR approval is a "project permit application" or a request for a comprehensive plan amendment. This needs to be clarified, given that there are different requirements for processing of a project permit application (which must Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016. Page 5 follow the procedures in chapter 36.70B RCW). In addition, there are deadlines for processing project permit applications (RCW 36.70B.080), and the appearance of fairness doctrine applies in any quasi-judicial hearing on a project permit application (RCW 42.36.010.) We assume that this section needs to be read together with Section 17.60.040, even though this is not stated here. Under 17.60.040, it appears that the developer must not only get approval for a Master Planned Resort under Section 18.15.126, but the developer must also obtain binding site plan approval and a development agreement. In Section 17.80.030, the developer must submit a "Resort Plan application, which consists of an approved binding site plan, including monitoring and operational plans, and an approved developer agreement." If the terms Master Plan and Resort Plan have the same meaning, only one term should be used. If a binding site plan is required in the Pleasant Harbor Resort — apparently because the property needs to be divided — there should be some explanation of the timing of the submission of all these applications. Based on Section 18.15.129, the Master Plan is a legislative approval, so it would have to be granted prior to a binding site plan (which is a quasi-judicial application). Depending on what the development agreement does and when it is executed, it could be legislative or quasi-judicial. 18.15.126(1) Here, is the County complying with RCW 36.70B.080 by listing the elements of a complete application for a Master Plan application? If so, there still is nothing in this section which requires that the application demonstrate compliance with the chapters relating to the specific MPR designations (zoning or comprehensive plan). In Section 18.15.126(1)(h), there is a requirement that the "concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met." The County is actually required to adopt a concurrency ordinance pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) and WAC 365-196-840(5), which prohibits development approval if the development causes the level of service on a affected transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the comprehensive plan, unless certain conditions are met. If the County hasn't adopted a concurrency ordinance, the developer obtains a significant benefit. There is no requirement that a SEPA Checklist be submitted as part of a complete application, but in Section 17.80.040, "a project level supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) analyzing development under the Resort Plan is required prior to issuance of building permits ..." This conflicts with WAC 197-11-055(1), which requires that the SEPA process "shall be integrated with agency activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems." Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 6 Let's assume that the County approves a MPR in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Residential Recreation and Commercial Zone, for a development that includes a regional waste water treatment plant. Because there is no requirement that the developer submit a SEPA checklist in order obtain this approval, the environmental impacts will only be analyzed by the County after approval, at the time the County reviews the buildingpermit for the waste water treatment plant However, the County is prohibited by SEPA from "piece-mealing" review of the environmental impacts in order to avoid discussion of cumulative impacts. WAC 197-11-060(5)(d). 18.15.126(2). Here, the County has required that a development agreement accompany a Master Planned Resort, in order to "set for the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned resort." The description of these "development standards" is nothing more than a list of the types of issues that may be covered in a development agreement between a municipality and a property owner. Development agreements are authorized by RCW 36.70B.170 through RCW 36.70B.210. A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." RCW 36.70B.170(1). This means that the County must actually adopt the development regulations first, and once they are adopted, the "development agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development ... for the duration specified in the agreement." The County should consider amending its development regulations relating to development agreements. Development agreements are contracts, and like all contracts, consideration is required. There is nothing that requires the County to allow a developer to vest development standards for twenty years, without any consideration. Mere compliance with the County's development standards is not consideration — all development must comply with the County's development regulations. Title 17 - Master Planned Resorts. 17.60.010 Authority. Although Title 18 JCC is mentioned here, there is nothing to explain how Title 18 is integrated into this chapter 17.60. For example, it appears that chapter 18.15 describes the process for a developer to obtain approval as a Master Planned Resort. Beginning with Section 17.80.030, there is a description of a process to be followed in order for the developer to obtain approval of a Pleasant Harbor MPR. Nothing in this Chapter 17.60 or chapter 17.80 explains that the procedures in both chapter 18.15 and chapter 17.80 must be followed by the developer for such approval. The public is similarly in the dark about the effect of the MPR, how it will be processed is a binding site plan required in all instances?) and how it may be appealed. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 7 17.60.030 Purpose and Intent. This section states that the purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR code is to "set forth development regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development..." It is true that RCW 36.70A.I30(1)(d) requires that "any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to [chapter 36.70A RCW] ... and shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan." However, this is required for all amendments to the County's development regulations. What is needed here is a description of the purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort chapter. This section needs to be much more specific, given that under Section 17.65.020(12) (and other similar subsections of this code), the County Community Development Department will consider this purpose and intent language to determine whether a use is "consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR" and therefore allowed in the zone.' Here is the effect of the County's bland purpose section. When the Community Development Director is given an application for a development in this zone, and the proposed use is not listed as "permitted outright" in the zone (in the list of uses set forth in Section 17.65.020), then the Director must determine whether it is "similar" to these other uses. In addition, the Director must consider whether the use is "consistent with the purpose of the zone and the MPR." If the County doesn't include any language which actually describes the purpose of the zone and the MPR, then the analysis is limited to whether the use is similar to the uses in Section 17.65.020. A review of the uses listed in Section 17.65.020 discloses that the uses are wildly divergent, and absolutely any use at all could be viewed as "similar" to the others in Section 17.65.020. This provides the developer with a significant advantage because all uses are allowed, contrary to sound planning principles. The adverse impacts of incompatible uses will have to be absorbed by the public and surrounding property owners.2 17.60.130 Enforcement. Section 17.60.130 should be clarified to state that the County may enforce the code using any available legal remedy. The County is not limited to the procedures in chapter 18.50 to obtain compliance with the code. For example, if there is a breach of the development agreement, the County can judicially enforce the agreement in a breach of contract action. The County should also revisit their penalty provisions in Insertion of language to describe the purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR should not be difficult, if the County has adopted it as a subarea of the comprehensive plan, and the regulations proposed in this chapter are actually consistent with the comprehensive plan. However, the County's purposeful omission of such express language indicates an intent to allow all types of uses of property, as shown in Section 17.65.020, regardless of the compatibility of the use with surrounding uses or the environment. 2 Also, keep in mind that there apparently will be no SEPA review until the building permit application stage, which means that few members of the public (if any) will be given notice of the submission or issuance of the building permit. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 8 Section 18.50.110(1)(c), which imposes a penalty of $100 per day, per violation — this is extremely low penalty compared to other municipalities and is not sufficient to encourage compliance. 17.65.020 Permitted Uses. As stated in Section 17.60.030, these development regulations must "comply with and [be] consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Master Planned Resort." However, I could not find anything in the comprehensive plan to indicate that the uses set forth in Section 17.65.020 were consistent with the Subarea Plan or actually contemplated within this specific area. For example, in the Brinnon Subarea Plan, page 46, the following appears: "We envision the Black Point MPR to be significantly different and smaller in scale than the Port Ludlow MPR in that it would be less structured towards development of permanent residential development and more so towards providing recreational opportunities and support services for the traveling public in a manner that will benefit local residents." (Emphasis added.) Section 17.6.030 is inconsistent with the Subarea Plan because practically every possible use of land is "permitted outright" in Section 17.65.020, with the exception of industrial use. In Section 17.65.020, there are no uses listed as requiring a conditional use permit which would allow the decision -maker to impose specific conditions to mitigate negative impacts of the use on the surrounding property). Instead, the uses permitted outright in this zone range from the most sensitive (single family residential) to extremely intense (waste water treatment plants). Few of these permitted uses are defined in chapter 18.10. This is extremely problematic because a determination that an application is consistent with the code is based on a comparison of the proposed use with a list of "permitted" uses in individual zoning classifications. If there are no definitions of the permitted uses to guide the Director's use of discretion, the result can be arbitrary enforcement of the code. For example, medical services" are a permitted use in this zone — would that include a hospital? This list does not appear to have been compiled using traditional zoning considerations, which would place compatible uses in the same zoning classification. Single family homes can be constructed right next to a waste water treatment plant — there appears to be no concern regarding the secondary land use impacts of the latter use, such as odor. A public school (included in the only defined term "public facilities" in Section 18.10.160) can be constructed right next to a tavern or pub. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 9 Because Section 17.65.020 allows such a wide variety of possible uses of property to take place within this zoning classification, the County will be required to allow any use of property even if it is not listed. Review Section 17.65.020(12), which allows "other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development." Again, the "purpose" section (17.60.030), it includes nothing at all — other than the County's intent to make chapter 17.60 consistent with some unidentified sections of the comprehensive plan. Every possible use of land is allowed in Section 17.65.020, so it would be extremely difficult for the County to assert that a proposed use is not "similar" to this wide variety of undefined and vague uses. Allowing all uses to be permitted outright in a particular zone is also inconsistent with the County's actions with regard to other zones. Under Section 18.15.040, the County has established various categories of land use. These are "uses allowed," "discretionary uses," "conditional uses" and "prohibited uses." Consider that a "waste water treatment plant," must be approved with a conditional use permit if it is to be located in a rural residential zone, yet it is allowed right next to single family residential uses in the MPR zone. "Emergency services (police, fire, EMS)" are also subject to a conditional use permit everywhere but the MPR zone. Section 18.15.040 (table). There is a procedure in Section 18.15.045 that may or may not withstand a challenge: This code recognizes that not every conceivable use can be identified and that new uses may evolve over time. Furthermore, it establishes the administrator's authority to review proposed `unnamed' uses for similarity with other uses in this code and to ensure consistency of the proposed use with the applicable district. When a use is not specifically listed in Table 3-1 (or, if proposed within the Irondale and Port Hadock UGA, in chapter 18.18 JCC), it shall be reviewed as discretionary `D' use by the administrator, using a type II process specified in Chapter 18.40 JCC. The administrator shall use the criteria in JCC 18.15.040(2) to determine and establish whether the proposed unnamed use shall be classified as an allowed use, a conditional use or prohibited within the applicable district. First, as we have explained, the County's code doesn't define most of the uses listed in the MPR zone (and we have not checked the "use table" to determine if this is true throughout the code). If the uses are not defined, then we question how the administrator makes a decision whether a particular use is subsumed within a particular undefined term. Without definitions, the administrator's decision is Furthermore, state law requires that the County's code establish the procedure for processing a project permit (RCW Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 10 36.70B.060). The County is specifically prohibited from "making up" the procedure for processing a project permit application after it is submitted, except for issues of code interpretation. RCW 36.70B.030(3). 17.70.010 Purpose of the MPR OSR (Critical Areas Protection) zone. In Section 17.70.010 and throughout the proposed regulations, it appears that the County is attempting to establish critical areas regulations on an ad hoc basis for the developer(s) of property in this zone. Instead of referencing the County's existing critical areas regulations (which we assume were adopted following proper procedure and using best available science), the critical areas regulations appear to have been crafted specifically for this developer, with regard to buffers, wetlands, Kettle Ponds, sole source aquifers, etc. The regulations in this section are wholly inadequate to provide any environmental protection because they are optional. "No golf course greens should be constructed over the sole -source aquifer, and site grading and excavation should be minimized, as demonstrated by a County reviewed and approved grading plan ..." Section 17.70.010 imposes conditions that may or may not be consistent with the County's critical areas ordinance — and may or may not follow the procedures in that ordinance for public notice and appeal. For example, in Section 17.70.010(c)(4), there is a description of the manner in which wetlands may be "filled." The County should instead be requiring that the developer submit an application for a Master Resort Plan showing compliance with the critical areas ordinance. The County should then review the application and, following the procedures in the County's critical areas ordinance, and determine whether it meets the code requirements. The County has been required by GMA to adopt critical areas regulations to address sole source aquifers, wetlands, etc. (RCW 36.70A.172 which requires the use of best available science). There is no reason for the County's adoption of different critical areas regulations in the individual chapters of the County's code for each type of development application. This Section 17.70.010 does not actually include development regulations, it only lists a number of conditions that the County plans to impose on the MPR. Aside from the problems identified above with this list, these "conditions" are duplicative, possibly inconsistent and some are unknown (because they are only referred to by an old ordinance that no one thought important enough to incorporate into the code). For example, in Subsection 8, the MPR applicant must: "identify wildlife use areas within the site and provide for set-aside and protection of core wildlife habitat areas and connecting corridors." In Subsection 10, the following appears: "All development within the PHMPR must comply with the requirements for buffer retention, wildlife Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page I 1 protection, greenbelt retention and maintenance and establishment of permanent protective easements for these resources as well as the other specific requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-018-08, which was part of the Board of County Commissioners' approval for establishment of the Pleasant Harbor Planned Resort." The County should consider whether an enforceable condition can be crafted, given all of the above vague references to "set -asides," "protection of core wildlife areas," "wildlife protection," and establishment of permanent protective easements for these resources." What wildlife will be protected? What document will evaluate the need for set -asides and determine how large the wildlife protection areas will be? If this is a process that will be accomplished administratively, after the building permit application has been submitted, public review will be effectively avoided. 17.75.020 Permitted Uses (MPR -MV zone). Same comments as under Section 17.65.020. In addition, the uses allowed as "permitted" should be defined in the Code. The public should not be required to guess at the range of possible uses of property that the County may allow in this zone. Section 17.75.020(12) is objectionable for the same reasons set forth above — the permitted uses aren't defined at all, so what uses of land would the Director find "similar" to these undefined, vague terms? Section 17.75.020(3)(a) allows "over -water buildings " but they "must be constructed so as not to impede migrating fish and to minimize shading." Do any of the County's regulations allow a property owner to construct a new "over -water building?" In Section 17.75.040, the County has required that all new structures located within the shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the setback requirements of the County's Shoreline Master Program — wouldn't an over water building violate such setbacks? 17.80.010 Resort Development. This chapter 17.80 is extremely confusing. Section 17.80.010 states that this chapter "sets out an environmental review process for any future resort development and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan." Nothing refers to chapter 18.15, which describes the procedure for obtaining a Master Resort Plan. There is no description of the manner in which this chapter 17.80 supplements chapter 18.15 (if that is even the case). Second, what is the Resort Plan, why is a separate environmental process needed to review this type of application and why is the procedure for reviewing major and minor revisions to the Plan here (instead of chapter 18.15)? Is it a comprehensive plan amendment? Why is there a separate environmental review process — why doesn't the application follow the same SEPA Rules as all other development? Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 12 Under Section 17.60.040, the County has required every development of property in the Pleasant Harbor MPR to obtain a Binding Site Plan, which apparently must follow the procedures in chapter 18.35. If there is a Binding Site Plan for the property, what is the effect of an application for a major or minor revision to the MRP and Binding Site Plan? 17.80.020 Development cap. Here, the County has established a "development cap" of residential units and a cap of 56,608 square feet of resort commercial, retail, restaurant and conference space, not including internal open space. Does this mean that there is no "cap" on the amount of space devoted to waste water treatment plants, hospitals, police stations, etc.? What is "internal open space?" What is the "cap" based on? 17.80.030 Resort Plan and Development Agreement. Here, it states that the "Resort Plan" is the same thing as the "Master Plan," which apparently is a combination of the Binding Site Plan and the Development Agreement. This is really confusing, especially because there is no reference at all to chapter 18.15. In addition, the procedures for minor and major revisions do not reference the Binding Site Plan or the fact that a Development Agreement might need to be amended as well. 17.80.040 Permit Process for Resort Development. Isn't the process to obtain a Master Planned Resort approval in chapter 18.15? There is no reference to 18.15, and this section includes some abbreviated version of application materials and permit processing procedures. Again, this creates confusion because the County already has a procedure for Master Planned Resorts and Binding Site Plans, with a section describing the elements of a complete Binding Site Plan application and MPR application (Section 18.15.126). If the SEIS is an additional requirement for the MPR application in Section 18.15.126, the language should be clear on this point. If the County isn't requiring any SEPA review until the building permit application stage, this is inconsistent with SEPA, for the reasons cited above. 17.80.040(4) This subsection skips the process for processing the permit application, the criteria to be used to approve the application, etc., (Section 18.15.129, 18.15.132, 18.15.135) and simply announces the Department's ability to "impose mitigating conditions or issue a denial of some or all of the Resort Plan, based on the environmental review ..." Doesn't the procedures established by the County for review of a MPR in chapter 18.15 apply? The County can't simply review the SEPA checklist or the SEIS, and then issue a decision. The County is required to first determine whether the application is complete, it must review the application for consistency with the code requirements, determine whether the criteria for approval have been satisfied, and then issue a decision. The decision may be an approval, approval with conditions or a denial. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 13 17.80.0400. This section is inconsistent with law and must be eliminated. It states that following completion of the SEIS building permits may be issued, following appropriate plan review, for projects analyzed in the SEIS." If the underlying permit here is a Binding Site Plan, then the Binding Site Plan must issue before building permits may issue. If the underlying permit is the MPR, then the MPR must issue before building permits may issue. 17.80.040(6). Again, the process is completely jumbled with the statement that there must be "completion of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process." The "SEIS process" is not a stand-alone permit process. The underlying permit is either the MPR or the binding site plan. Also, phasing should be addressed in the development agreement and/or the MPR (Section 18.15.120(1)(i)). 17.80.050 Environmental Review for Resort Plan Development. In subsection (1), there is reference to "all project level applications." What are these? Applications for Binding Site Plans? Building permits? Section 17.80.050(1) provides: "All project level applications will be presumed to meet the threshold for a SEPA threshold Determination of Significance except where the SEPA Responsible Official determines that the application results in only minor impacts." This is inconsistent with the SEPA Rules that must be adopted by the County. First, a SEPA checklist must be submitted for all applications unless they are categorically exempt under WAC 197-11-800. Next, the County's SEPA Responsible Official is required to perform the threshold determination process as described in WAC 197-11-330. The County can't ignore this SEPA Rule and adopt a provision with standards for "presumptions" applicable to threshold determinations. (This is the danger in failing to adopt a SEPA ordinance and instead attempting to integrate the County's summary interpretations of SEPA into its code.) With regard to the use of existing documents, the County is required to follow WAC 197- 11-600, not someone's interpretation of this SEPA Rule in Section 17.80.050(1). Section 17.80.050(3) requires that subsequent phases of SEPA review include certain information — SEPA is not the underlying approval or permit. At what point in time is the developer required to perform subsequent phases of SEPA? Building permit application submittal is too late in the process and "piece -meals" environmental review. Also, the timing of such review makes no sense, in light of the requirement that conditions fashioned after reviewing such information must be in the development agreement. Doesn't the developer plan to execute the development agreement after the adoption of these development regulations? Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 14 Section 17.80.050(4) mentions a "preliminary scope for future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR" that must be "consistent with the approved Resort Plan." At what point in time would a preliminary scope for future development be performed, especially if the County intends to first sign a development agreement that vests the developer to the development regulations for the next 20 years? 17.80.060 Revisions to Resort Plan. This section provides that a comprehensive plan amendment and related zoning action is required if there is a "proposed revision of size or scope to the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundaaor zone changes within the MPR" In Section 17.80.080, a "major revision" to the Resort Plan is one that "will result in a substantial change to the resort including: change in use, increase in the intensity of use, or in the size, scale or density of development or changes which may have additional impacts on the environment beyond those reviewed in previous environmental documents." The description of the process and decision -makers is inconsistent. If a comprehensive plan amendment (to the text and map) is required for a major revision to the MPR, this is a legislative action performed by the County Council. Section 17.80.080(2) states that the Hearing Examiner makes the decision on major revisions, except where there is also a proposed change to the proposed boundaries of the MPR. My point is that, according to this section, a comprehensive plan amendment could be both a boundary and a zoning change. The County must establish a clear distinction between what is a Type III procedure quasi-judicial) to be heard by the Hearing Examiner, or a Type V (legislative) decision to be made by the County Commissioners. This is not a small problem, as the Commissioners will be immune from liability for their legislative decision-making and subject to liability for quasi-judicial decisions. It is also important that this procedure be clear for the public, developers and planning staff, because the appeal procedure will be different, depending on the type of action taken by the County. Hearing Examiners also should not be involved in legislative decision-making -- that is the role of the legislative body. It should also be noted that the County is not required to approve a comprehensive plan amendment solely based on the criteria in Section 17.80.080(3). However, the County is require to consider whether the application is consistent with the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) before approving a comprehensive plan amendment. Consistency with GMA has been omitted from Section 17.80.030(3). Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 15 17.80.070 Minor revisions. Here, the County allows the Director to address minor revisions to the MPR when "such revisions do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the Resort Plan in effect." However, this section lists four other criteria that must be met before the revision will be deemed "minor." One criterion allows a minor revision when the developer wants to propose a new use that "modifies the recreational nature and intent of the resort." Section 17.80.070(1)(d). Given the variety of uses that are allowed, it appears that the developer would be able to propose just about anything through a minor revision — which is a Type II process that the Director could approve without a public hearing. The County is required to list all of the elements of a complete application for a permit in its development regulations (RCW 36.70B.080). This section 17.80.070 does not address this statutory requirement, yet one criterion for a minor revision is that it must not "have additional impacts on the environment or facilities that are addressed in the development plan." (What is the "development plan?" Is that the MPR?) If the County doesn't require that a complete application for a minor revision include a SEPA checklist, how will the County know whether or not the proposed "minor" revision has "additional impacts on the environment?" Development Agreement. Section 18.40.830(5) is inconsistent with law (RCW 36.708.170(1)) because it allows the County to execute a development agreement with a property owner that is inconsistent with its existing development regulations. Please review the ordinance provided for development agreements and the article on this subject. CONCLUSION Here is a summary of our comments and objections to the adoption of the new development regulations: 1. The County has not complied.with the Growth Management Act by adopting a transportation concurrency ordinance as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). The County's reference to maintenance of the levels of service in the comprehensive plan is insufficient. 2. The County's development regulations, which provide an incomplete summarization of the County's understanding of SEPA, instead of implementing the SEPA Rules as they are written (in Chapter 197-11 WAC), are contrary to law. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 16 3. The County's development regulations are unintelligible with regard to the type(s) of approval required for the Pleasant Harbor resort, the elements of a complete application, the decision -makers on the application, the criteria for approval, the appeal procedures, the procedures for amendment (major or minor), etc. The County has adopted what appears to be two separate procedures for master planned resort plans in titles 17 and 18, and there are few, if any cross references to the other sections. Many provisions are inconsistent and incomplete. 4. The County has adopted zoning designations for the Pleasant Harbor zones that benefit only the developer, and provide a significant detriment to the public. The County apparently plans to allow a wide variety of incompatible (and undefined) uses in the same zone, without any additional review of the negative impacts on the surrounding property or the public. This is not only contrary to sound planning, it also is inconsistent with the County's code with regard to the same uses in other zones. We could find nothing in the comprehensive plan or subarea plan that allowed many of these uses. 5. The County was required to adopt and enforce a critical areas ordinance using best available science. Similar to the County's treatment of SEPA, there are partial summaries of the CAO in the new development regulations. This creates confusion because there is no way to tell whether the developer is required to comply with the CAO or just the development regulations relating to the MPR. 6. There are significant differences in legislative vs. quasi-judicial processing of applications and approvals. The County's proposed development regulations mix up the two types of processing, and allow legislative actions (such as a comprehensive plan) to be amended through a quasi-judicial action (hearing examiner, Type III process). A developer is apparently required to obtain multiple approvals, yet the process for revisions do not address modification of the other approvals (such as a binding site plan). This is not only contrary to law, it also confuses everyone, could impose liability on the County in situations where it has none, and forces the public to hire attorneys just to figure out how to participate/appeal the County's actions. The above is only a partial summary of our objections. If you would like further detail on my comments, please let me know. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your development regulations. Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners June 27, 2016 Page 17 Very trul ours, arol A. Mo is Enclosures Model SEPA Ordinance Model Concurrency Ordinance Model Development Agreement Ordinance Development Agreement Article cc: Clients: Carla Kelly, Rebecca Mars, Carol Morris Morris Law PC. July 12, 2016 Jefferson County Commissioners Phil Johnson David Sullivan Kathleen Kler 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Development Regulations for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Board of County Commissioners: This letter responds to the July 1, 2016 e-mail from Garth Mann of the Statesman Group. Mr. Mann's comments are provided in bold below, with my response. 1. "Many of the objectors to our application neither pay taxes in this county and many do not live in Jefferson County. Supporting their position is pure nonsense The Commissioners are required to serve the welfare of the entire affected community, and cannot confine its review of the effects of the proposed development regulations or project to the boundaries of Jefferson County. Save a Valuable Environment (SAVE) v. City ofBothell, 89 Wash.2d 862, 869, 576 P.2d 401 (1978). In SAVE, a nonprofit environmental group filed an appeal of a rezone ordinance adopted by the City of Bothell for a parcel of farmland, to allow construction of a shopping center. The ordinance was appealed to superior court (this was prior to the adoption of the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW)) as illegal spot zoning. One of the questions presented in the appeal was whether SAVE had standing to maintain an action to review the zoning ordinance. Id., 89 Wn.2d at 865. SAVE, a nonprofit corporation, was formed for the declared purpose of working to maintain the quality of the living environment in a defined area within King and Snohomish County, which included the City of Bothell. SAVE's members included residents of Bothell as well as members of King and Snohomish County. Id., 89 Wn.2d at 865. 3304 Rosedale Street NW, Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335-1805 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol@carolmorrislaw.com Web: www.carolmorrislaw.com Jefferson County Commissioners July 12, 2016 Page 2 The SAVE court described the test for determining whether or not such a group of individuals had standing to file an appeal of Bothell's ordinance: A basic two-part test for determining whether a corporation has standing was set out in Data Processing Services v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152-53, 90 S.Ct. 827, 830, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). The first part of that test, that the interest sought to be protected be `arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question,' is easily met in environmental suits because of the abundance of laws affecting use of our natural resources. More troublesome for environmental groups has been the second part of the test, the requirement that the corporation allege the challenged action has caused `injury in fact,' economic or otherwise. In practical terms, an organization must show that it or one of its members will be specifically and perceptibly harmed by the action.... It is interesting to note that federal cases do not distinguish between non-profit corporations and unincorporated associations in determining the standing question. ... We agree that a non-profit corporation or association which shows that one or more of its members are specifically injured by a government action may represent those members in proceedings for judicial review. ... We adopt the federal approach to the requirements of standing to gain review of this zoning action. Id, 89 Wash.2d at 867-68. Not only did the SAVE court find that the environmental group had standing, the court also found that the ordinance was "arbitrary and capricious in that it failed to serve the welfare of the community as a whole." Id., at 870. This was because Bothell's environmental impact statement failed to address serious problems created by the shopping center construction, which "would have serious detrimental effects on areas outside Bothell's jurisdiction." Id., at 868. Specifically, the court found that: Agricultural and low density residential use of land around the center could not be maintained. Pressures for secondary business growth would be severe. Not only would desirable agricultural land be lost, but intensified commercial uses would require substantial investments in highways, sewers, and other services and utilities. The economic and aesthetic values of the essentially rural character of the Valley would be lost. Second, highway construction requiring millions of dollars of local, state and federal funds would be necessary. Serious increased traffic congestion would create a potentially serious air pollution problem in the Jefferson County Commissioners July 12, 2016 Page 3 Valley. It would also, of course, add substantially to the aesthetic loss. Third, alignment of the North Creek to accommodate the shopping center, together with anticipated increases in runoff, might create a danger of flooding. Finally, the unstable peat soil on which the center is to be built may settle unevenly, with consequences which have not yet been investigated. Under these circumstances, Bothell may not act in disregard of the effects outside its boundaries. Where the potential exists that a zoning action will cause a serious environmental effect outside jurisdictional borders, the zoning body must serve the welfare of the entire affected community. If it does not do so, it acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The precise boundaries of the affected community cannot be determined until the potential environmental effects are understood. It includes all areas where a serious impact on the environment would be caused by the proposed action. SAYE, 89 Wash.2d at 868-69 (emphasis added). Again, we urge the Jefferson County Commissioners to not accept the advice of the developer, and to follow the law. The Commissioners' thoughtful consideration of environmental impacts that would flow from this proposed project outside the County's borders is required. Also, GMA allows an appeal of the County's ordinance -- as it relates to GMA, the Shoreline Master Program or SEPA -- to the Growth Management Hearings Board. RCW 36.70A.280. This appeal can be filed by "a person who has participated orally or in writing before the county ... regarding the matter on which a review is being requested." RCW 36.70A.280(2). Clearly, it is not "nonsense" for the Commissioners to consider the input from the entire affected community — not just the comments of the developer and its supporters. 2. "Her main concerns it appears relates to transportation. This is why we reduced the intensification of our application by 33.5%. I will ask our Traffic Engineer to amend his report to reflect the reduced density and also the intended use as a Community rather than just a Resort for short and long term use." This misses the mark. The County has been required, since the early 1990'x, to adopt and enforce a transportation concurrency ordinance. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). Adoption Jefferson County Commissioners July 12, 2016 Page 4 of a concurrency ordinance is not optional, nor is the statutory requirement satisfied if Public Works is very careful about creating 6 year transportation improvement plans and is quite aware of how to measure LOS." (This was the response I received from David Alvarez, the County's former Chief Civil Deputy, in an e-mail dated June 28, 2016). Other cities and counties have complied with this law, and there is a substantial body of case law that has developed on transportation concurrency ordinances. See, Boehm v. Vancouver, 111 Wn.App. 711, 47 P.3d 137 (2002); Montlake Community Club v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 110 Wn.App. 731, 43 P.3d 57 2002); City ofBellevue v. East Bellevue Community Council, 119 Wn.App. 403, 81 P.3d 148 (2003). The point I was trying to make in my June 27, 2016 letter was that the County needs to immediately adopt a concurrency ordinance. It needs to be in place prior to the time that the County adopts any new development regulations or considers any additional development proposals. The statutory requirement for the County to adopt and enforce a transportation concurrency ordinance is not satisfied by the developer's reduction of density in an application. 3. "The potential for run-off of surface water on the site has been mitigated in our Civil Engineering report ..." Again, the County is required by law to adopt a stormwater ordinance and enforce it. Please contact the Washington State Department of Ecology to confirm. Once the County adopts a stormwater ordinance, the County should implement WAC 197-11-158 (which the County should adopt by reference in its new SEPA ordinance). This SEPA Rule allows the County to rely upon existing plans, laws and regulations in certain limited circumstances. 4. "The Brinnon Comprehensive Plan from the 1990's recognized this area as ideal for building a community for short and long term occupancy. This is exactly what we are proposing..." The mere fact that there is mention in the comprehensive plan of an area's suitability for a particular use does not automatically require approval of any implementing ordinances or the proposed project. As the County should be aware, adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations must follow RCW 36.70A.360. Under RCW 36.70A.360(4), a master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if: Jefferson County Commissioners July 12, 2016 Page 5 a) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts; b) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.I 10; c) The county includes a finding as part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170; d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated. Id. Mr. Mann has not identified the policies in the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan that guide the development of master planned resorts. I am unaware of any comprehensive plan or development regulations that satisfy RCW 36.70A.370(4)(b) above. With regard to critical areas, it appears that instead of requiring that the developer comply with the County's critical areas ordinance (if the County has one), the proposed development regulations establish certain critical areas regulations specifically for this`particular development. (This is covered in my letter dated June 27, 2016 on page 10.) The County is required to adopt critical areas regulations based on "best available science." RCW 36.70A.172. If the County adopts development regulations that include critical areas regulations specific to individual projects on an ad hoc basis, there is no assurance that best available science was even considered. Furthermore, critical areas regulations should apply to all developers, and individual developers should not be allowed to pick and choose between the regulations they believe are favorable to their development. 5. "Jefferson County can no longer ignore the economic and social -recreational and health requirements of the South -Section of the County." Mr. Mann apparently believes, without any support in law or fact, that the County is required to consider the benefits of the proposed development, even if the County fails to follow the law in the approval process. My letter of June 27, 2016 and this letter have been written to inform the County of the legal requirements affecting this proposal. Nothing in either letter has requested denial of any development proposal. Jefferson County Commissioners July 12, 2016 Page 6 I have worked as an attorney for cities of every size — from Seattle to towns of 500 people and fully understand the budget constraints Jefferson County may be experiencing. For this reason, I forwarded model ordinances for the County to consider adopting. If you have any question about whether these ordinances are appropriate, please contact the Department of Ecology. DOE should be able to explain that the County needs to do what is required by law — adopt the SEPA Rules in the County's code, adopt a storm water ordinance, adopt a critical areas ordinance, etc. The County can also visit the Municipal Research Center website (mrsc.org) to review other city and county codes. Feel free to ask the attorneys at MRSC about me and my model ordinances. Whatever you do, my recommendation is that the County obtain advice from an experienced land use attorney on the issues raised in my letter before adopting any new development regulations or signing the development agreement. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance. Thank you. Ve ly yours, Carol Morris cc: Ms. Carla Kelly, Ms. Rebecca Mars Morris Law PC. January 16, 2018 Mr. Phillip Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Draft Development Agreement between Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP Dear Mr. Hunsucker: Thank you for making the draft Development Agreement available to the public for review. Here are our comments on this document: Fourth "Whereas": Here, it is stated that the Legislature adopted the development agreement process in RCW 36.70B.170-.210 "to strengthen the land use planning process and reduce the costs of development ..." This development agreement appears to have been drafted for the purpose of providing a substantial benefit to the developer in the form of vested rights to any number of development regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and codes relating to management and operation of various facilities. There is nothing in the agreement which describes the consideration provided to the public in exchange. The authorizing statute (RCW 36.70B.170(l )) provides that: "A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." The administrative regulations adopted in order to implement the development agreement process (WAC 365-196- 845(17)(a)(ii)) provides that: "Development agreements do not provide a means of waiving or amending development regulations that would otherwise apply to the property." We can't determine whether this agreement is a proper exercise of police power, given that the development regulations that will govern this development haven't even been adopted. Seventh "Whereas": Here, it is stated that: "This Agreement constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020." If this is meant to indicate that an appeal of this Agreement could only be filed under chapter 36.70C RCW, this is false. Under RCW 36.70B.200, "if the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the 3304 Rosedale Street NW, Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335-1805 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol@carolmorrislaw.com Web: www.carolmorrislaw.com Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 2 decision on the development agreement." There is no project permit application at this point in time, so it can't be appealed under chapter 36.70C RCW. It is our understanding that the County is attempting to establish the development regulations that will apply to the developer's submission of project permit applications in this agreement. Therefore, this agreement is an exercise of legislative authority -- and the County should be asserting that this is true, because the County is immune from liability for its legislative actions. RCW 4.24.470; Bogan v. Scott Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 149 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998). Therefore, the County doesn't need to bend over backwards in an attempt to provide the developer any concession desired by the developer for this project. An appeal of this development agreement could be filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board (if it were alleged that the agreement was inconsistent with GMA) or with the court under a constitutional writ of certiorari. See, Leavitt v. Jefferson County, 74 Wash. App. 668, 686, 875 P.2d 681 (1994); RCW 7.16.360; RCW 36.70C.020(2). Chapter 36.70C RCW is "the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions The definition of "land use decision" in RCW 36.70C.020(2) is: "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals on: (a) an application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, modified, ..." This particular development agreement is not a "project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be modified. The County plans to adopt it in conjunction with the new development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in the same manner as the adoption or an amendment to the comprehensive plan/development regulations (see, Section 17.60.040).1 Therefore, it will be adopted under the County Commissioners' legislative authority, which means it is not appealable under chapter 36.70C RCW. See, Coffey v. City of Walla Walla, 145 Wash. App. 435, 440-441, 187 P.3d 272 (2008). Section 2.2, Term; Section 2.3, Build -Out Period. The Agreement will end 5 years after the build -out period. The build -out period is 25 years or 5 years after the completion of This draft Development Agreement refers to an Appendix that should have included the new Zoning Code title 17 on Master Planned Resorts. Instead, the referenced Appendix is blank. You have provided me with a link to the drafts of this new Title 17 on Master Planned Resorts, but it is extremely confusing because there is the version recommended by the Planning Commission and the version recommended by the County staff. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 5 The Washington Supreme Court has held that the "Legislature did not intend vesting to preclude enforcement of federal and state environmental laws," and that "state actions pertaining to stormwaterwere intended to be exempt from the vesting statutes." Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346, 365-66, 386 PA 1064 (2016). Given that the Washington Supreme Court has held that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to stormwater regulations, the question is why the County would allow the developer to vest to stormwater regulations through a development agreement. It is important that the Department of Ecology be contacted for its position on the language of this Agreement. In Sections 4.1.1. and 6.2, the developer agrees to "operate" the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with a Water Quality Monitoring Plan which we assume has been drafted to be consistent with the existing development regulations. Apparently, the developer plans to claim not only that its development is vested to certain regulations, but also its operations" are vested. The authority for this position is unknown, and again, the Department of Ecology needs to be contacted for its opinion on this issue. Section 8. 1, Permitted Uses. Again, there is a reference to Appendix A, which is supposed to include development regulations that haven't been adopted. There isn't even a single version of a draft of these development regulations for the public to provide comment. Section 8.2, Planning Goals and Objectives. Here, the developer claims that this agreement vests the development to "the planning goals adopted by the County in the Comprehensive Plan as of the date of recording this Agreement." This is inconsistent with law: Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement or for all or that part of the build -out specified in the agreement, and many not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 6 RCW 36.7013.180.2 The comprehensive plan is not a zoning ordinance, nor is it a development standard/regulation or an amendment to either. Review the definition of development regulation" in RCW 36.70A.030(7). Also, look at RCW 36.70B.170(3) for a list of the types of things that may be included in a development agreement. Nothing allows the inclusion of planning goals and policy guidance to be vest through a development agreement because they are legislative activities. The County is precluded by the Washington Constitution from delegating its legislative authority to freeze policies and goals in its Comprehensive Plan on specific properties through a contract especially one with indefinite duration). Section 8.32, Stormwater Management in Public Roads. Here, the County is required to manage stormwater runoff on all public roads, rights-of-way and easements within the Pleasant Harbor MPR, apparently under all applicable regulations. However, the developer's responsibility for the management of stormwater within the Pleasant Harbor MPR during the next 100 years (or the duration of this Agreement) is vested to some ordinance that was adopted prior to 2018. First, it is highly unusual that the County would sign a contract agreeing to manage stormwater to a particular standard on private property in a contract.3 Second, this language includes the County's express agreement to allow the developer to manage stormwater within the MPR, to the regulations in place at the time this Agreement was approved. So, if there is a flooding event within the MPR, and the County and developer are sued for damages to private property, the developer will simply claim that it has no liability, given that it isn't required to manage the stormwater to applicable standards -- this is the responsibility of the County. Again, this issue needs to be brought to the attention of the Department. of Ecology. It also looks like an equal protection issue, as it is unlikely that the County allows other property owners the same advantage. Next, let's imagine that the developer constructs a phase of the MPR twenty years from now, but constructs the roads under the stormwater regulations in place at the time. this Agreement is approved. Would the County accept a road that doesn't comply with the applicable development regulations? I don't know any municipality that would take this step. If the road didn't comply with the applicable development regulations, wouldn't the County have to use public funds to improve the road to the existing development regulations? This is an unconstitutional gift of public funds. Z Also note that nothing in any of the development agreement statutes allow a developer to vest to any operations." 3 These are not included in the "indemnified claims" in section 11.1, and section 11.4.1 specifically limits the indemnification to only those claims in 11.1. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 7 Nothing in the development agreement statutes allows the County to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of granting a developer an exemption from the development regulations relating to "management" of stormwater in a development. Section 8.4, Critical Area Standards. Here, the County has agreed to allow the developer to vest to some version of the County's critical areas ordinance. See my comments above. Section 8.5, Land Division Standards. Here, the County has agreed to allow the developer to vest to its permit procedures as they exist in some ordinance. The Washington courts have determined that procedures are not subject to the vested rights doctrine, and there is no need to include procedures here. Graham Neighborhood v. F. G. Associates, 162 Wash. App. 98, 116, 252 P.3d 898 (2011). However, as the years pass, the fact that the procedures adopted in this Agreement are outdated will certainly be a benefit to the developer. The attachments are not recorded against the property, so the public will have no idea what procedures govern the processing of the permits and approvals. This will make it especially hard for the public to find the appropriate version of the old code in order to file any appeals. Section 8.9, Water Service. Here, the developer has agreed to comply with "the most current approved specifications and requirements as determined by the Washington State Department of Health" for the water main extensions and potable water system improvements. Doesn't the County have any public works standards for such facilities? Why is the developer allowed to follow the CWSP as it exists, if this Agreement is of indefinite duration? Is there no possibility that the CWSP will change in years to come? Has this been reviewed by the Department of Health to determine whether it is subject to vesting in an agreement? Section 9. 1, County Processing and Review. See comments on Section 8.5 above. Procedures are not subject to the vested rights doctrine, so there is no reason to include them here, other than to intentionally disadvantage the public. Has the County also agreed to give the developer the benefit of the permit application fees in effect at the time this Agreement is executed for the next 100 years? Section 9.3, Vesting. Here, the County and developer attempt to create the fiction that developer is only vested in this Agreement to development regulations -- which isn't true. The developer confirms that the County can't adopt any new or different development regulations during the indefinite and unlimited build -out period. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 8 Just to be sure that the developer gets the full benefit and supreme advantages not afforded to anyone in the County (or anywhere else), the developer has added Section 9.3.3, which provides that if the developer forgot to add some facet of the development that isn't vested to any subject, element or condition in this Agreement, then it is vested anyway. So, no one actually knows what the development is vested to -- given that the developer and the County have interpreted RCW 36.70B.170 through .210 to include not only development standards, but also the operation and management of every bit of this MPR. This is an illusory condition and is unenforceable. Note that the developer has included the prohibition on the County's adoption of any new development regulations except to address a serious threat to the public health and safety at least four times. It is clear that the developer intends to enforce it if the County attempts to do so. In Section 9.3.4, the language is contrary to other parts of the Agreement. Here, the developer is required to comply with state or federal laws or regulations of any kind, including stormwater. The other contrary portions of the Agreement which allow the developer to vest to stormwater and other police power regulations needs to be eliminated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Development Agreement. Once I am able to review the various versions of the draft MPR development regulations, I may have additional comments. Very ly yours, c Carol A. Morris cc: Client Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 3 all phases described in Section 10, whichever is later. Because there is no deadline for the completion of any phase, the County would effectively be approving a perpetual agreement. The County has no authority to enter into contracts with developers for the purpose of indefinitely freezing development regulations. "The established rule is that municipal corporations have no power to make contracts which will control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties." 10 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. Sec. 29.07 (3`d ed). One legislative power that cannot be contracted away is the exercise of zoning powers. Id., 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, (3d ed), Sec. 9.21 (1986), 4 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, Sec. 24-31 (4d' ed 1979). Agreements to protect land from all future rezoning are void as "illegal contract zoning" because such agreements bargain away, the local government's police powers. Rathkopf, 2, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Sec. 29A.03 at 29A-33, 34. Although there are no cases in Washington in which a court has addressed the validity of a development agreement of indefinite duration, the Washington courts have held that an interpretation of the vested rights doctrine that would "freeze land use regulations forever" would be an "absurd result." Alliance Inv. Group of Ellensburg, LLC v. City of Ellensburg, 189 Wash. App. 763, 771, 358 P.3d 1227 (2015). Courts in other jurisdictions have also found such agreements invalid: Land use regulations, including the power to zone, involve the exercise of the sovereign's police power. A government `may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in the future.' Moreover, contracts purporting to do so are invalid and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz, 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 823-4, 225 Cal.Rptr 43 (1986). See also, Mayor and Council of Rockville v Rlyns Enterprises, Inc., 372 Md. 514, 814 A.2d 469 (2002) (municipality could not bargain away its zoning powers by signing a contract indefinitely binding the municipality); Bollech v. Charles County Maryland, 166 F.Supp.2d 443, 453 (Md. App. 2001); City of Farmers Branch v. Hawnco, Inc., 435 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. App. 1968); Geralnes B. V. v. City of Greenwood, Colorado, 583 F.Supp. 830, 841 (Colo. App. 1984). We understand that Section 7.2 provides that "this Agreement reserves the County's authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety." However, this is not the equivalent to an actual expiration date in a development agreement. In order for the County to trigger this Section 7.2, it would have to make a finding that there was a serious threat to public health and safety. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2017 Page 4 Also, we would assume that the developer would appeal the County's attempt to impose any new development regulations on its proposed development that were not strictly adopted for the purpose of addressing this health and safety problem. The developer obtains a substantial benefit from a development agreement which vests the development regulations for Pleasant Harbor for an unlimited period of years. The consideration received by the County for this agreement is not apparent from the language of the agreement (if it exists at all). However, it is clear that this agreement, which vests the developer to the development regulations in place today (whatever they may be, we still don't know) will certainly not benefit the public. As stated by the Washington courts: Development interests and due process rights protected by the vested rights doctrine come at a cost to the public interest. The practical effect of recognizing a vested right is to sanction the creation of a new nonconforming use. A proposed development which does not conform to newly adopted laws is, by definition, inimical to the public interest embodied in those laws. If a vested right is too easily granted, the public interest is subverted. Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wash.2d 864, 874, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). Section 2 5 Exhibits and Appendices,• Section 3.2 Master Plan Components. The development regulations that are supposed to govern the development of the property, and which vest when this development agreement is approved, are referenced as an Appendix. This Appendix is blank. My request for a copy of these development regulations was met by a link which provides two versions of a draft of the development regulations (the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Staff recommendation). It is difficult to provide any informed comments on these documents. Apparently, the County has chosen to adopt procedures that will keep the public in the dark about what development regulations will govern the development of Pleasant Harbor until the day of adoption/approval. Section 4.1.1, Protection of Fishing Rights,• Section 6 2 Impacts of Pleasant Harbor on Nearby Natural Resources; Section 8.3, Stormwater Standards. Here, it appears that the parties will agree that the developer will develop the property during the indefinite term according to the County's Stormwater Management requirements as they currently exist because they apparently will be attached as Appendix B). This means that the County will allow the developer to vest to the existing stormwater development regulations. Morris Law P.C. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 9, 20181 TO: Phillip Hunsucker, Civil Prosecutor, Jefferson County FROM: Carol Morris, Morris Law, P.C. RE: Draft development regulations -- Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Version updated 12/10/17 The County's website provides notice of an upcoming public hearing on the draft development agreement for Pleasant Harbor. However, nothing in this notice provides any information about the purpose of this public hearing. Does the County plan to approve the development agreement? What is the proposed action? The County needs to carefully consider the timing of the adoption of the development regulations and approval of the development agreement. Development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.70B.170 - 210. RCW 36.70B.170(1) provides that "a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under [the Growth Management Act]." Jefferson County plans under GMA. It is impossible to determine whether or not the development agreement is consistent with the applicable development regulations, if they haven't been adopted. The County doesn't explain whether it plans to adopt the development agreement first or concurrent with the proposed development regulations. To make matters worse, the County doesn't even have one version of the development regulations for the public to review. There are two different versions (one proposed by staff and another proposed by the Planning Commission). The County's distribution of two different versions of development regulations to the public, as well as a development agreement which purports to include the development regulations in a blank exhibit violates due process and fundamental fairness. Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 I prepared another memo dated February 7, 2018. This memo supersedes that earlier memo. Sorry for the inconvenience. 3304 Rosedale Street N. W., Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol@carolmorrislaw.comcarolmorrislaw.com MEMO 2-8-18 Wn.2d 707, 712, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). Providing a 60 day comment period doesn't solve this problem. Here are my comments on the 12/10/17 draft of the development regulations prepared by the County staff: 17.60.020: "The regulations in this title shall be known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code, ..." The "title" is Title 17, which includes more than the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code, it also includes the Port Ludlow MPR It appears that the County has divided up the Title into Articles, so if Port Ludlow MPR is Article I, then it should be stated here that the Pleasant Harbor regulations in chapters 17.60, 17.65, 17.70, 17.75, 17.80 and 17.85 are in Article II of this Title. 17.60.030: The former language stated that the purpose of this chapter was to set forth development regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The language has been changed in a way that makes no sense: "The purpose ... is to regulate land development uses that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development ..." So, does this mean that these regulations only apply to those uses" that are consistent with the Comp Plan? It doesn't apply and can't be enforced where the use" is inconsistent? 17.60.040: Here, it states that the Master Plan for Pleasant Harbor consists of: (1) regulations the ones in this chapter?); (2) the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (3) Final Environmental Impact Statements (how many are there? There is no identifying information here, like the dates of the EIS's or what they cover); (4) Final Supplemental Impact Statement (again, there is no identifying information, no dates); (5) maps (which maps?); (6) mitigation measures (in what? The unidentified EIS's and FSIS?); and the Development Agreement. This vague language does not provide sufficient information for the public to understand what applies to this development -- and it is too vague for the County to enforce against the developer. In Section 17.60.060, there is another list of the codes, regulations, etc. that apply to the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This list is more detailed and includes additional regulations. Why are these two sections (17.60.040 and .060) different? 17.60.050: The provisions of this title apply to all "land use actions and siting of infrastructure There are no definitions in the County's code for "land use actions" and "siting of infrastructure." A definition is needed so that there is no confusion in the future about applicability. The public shouldn't have to guess about the situations that will trigger enforcement of certain codes based on ambiguous language. MEMO 2-8-18 17.60.060: Here, the County states that "any land disturbing activity" must comply with other titles of the Code, and various other documents. If there is some reason to distinguish between the undefined "land use actions" in 17.60.050 and the "land disturbing activity" in 17.60.060, why isn't the reference to Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code included in 17.60.050? My point is that the developer must comply with chapter 18.35 JCC, Land Divisions, to divide the property prior to any sale, lease or transfer of any parcel or lot. Division of land is not a "land disturbing activity." (See, 18.10.120.) Although Title 18 is mentioned here, the procedure in chapter 18.15 JCC doesn't contemplate any subdivisions, short plats, or binding site plans in a MPR. (The Planning Commission's draft mentioned a binding site plan, but this appears to have been removed in the staff,version of the development regulations.) It is stated that: "where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and other applicable code provisions or other regulations, the more restrictive shall apply." Are the documents listed in 1 through 4 covered by this? They are not all codes or regulations. 17.60.060: Why were the exemptions deleted? If they were deleted because "it is confusing and potentially difficult to interpret," (staff comment on matrix), I have the same concern with 050 and 060 above, unless the activities that this "title" triggers are defined. 17.60.070: Where did the 890 residential unit cap come from? More terms are used here, and they need to be defined so that this can be enforced. What is a "short term visitor accommodation unit? Is that the same as a "short-term rental?" There are no definitions of these terms and they will be difficult to enforce. 17.60.080 and 17.60.090: Here, the County is establishing new regulations for legally nonconforming uses and structures. Given that the County has already adopted regulations for nonconforming uses and structures in Section 18.20.260, and incorporated Title 18 into this chapter or Article, the County is creating confusion about which apply and how conflicting language must be interpreted. Has the County inserted these regulations because only "land disturbing activities" (in 17.60.060) have to comply with Section 18.20.260? 17.60.100: Why are "structures" exempt? 17.65.010: The "purpose" section in a particular zoning district is supposed to explain the purpose of the district. For example, in a residential district, it might be: "This R-1 zoning district is intended to accommodate a pattern of land use that is predominately single-family." The purpose section is needed for each zoning district because the development regulations cannot list every single type of use that may be proposed in the future. When a property owner proposes a particular use that is not listed in the development regulations as either a "permitted," conditional" or "prohibited" use in that district, the Planning Director is required to issue an administrative interpretation of the code and make a decision whether the proposed use is MEMO 2-8-18 compatible with the purpose of the district and the other uses allowed in the district. If the County doesn't describe the purpose of the district, then only the permitted uses provide the basis for the administrative interpretation. This problem is exacerbated here, because the types of uses "permitted" (there are no conditional" or "prohibited" uses,) are widely different in nature. As a result, it is possible that the Planning Staff could allow any type of use not listed as permitted. For example, the land use impacts of a tavern are totally different from a more sensitive use like a single family home, yet they are permitted outright in the same zone. 17.60.020(5): Here, "public facilities" are permitted outright (there are no conditional uses listed, which would allow the decision -maker to address needed mitigation in a zone that also allows sensitive residential uses). The County has procedures for conditional use permits in Title 18, so the question is why all uses, even the most intense, are permitted outright in the same zone as single family uses. The definition of "public facilities" in JCC 18.10.160 demonstrates that no one has spent any time thinking about whether or not these uses are compatible with each other or the other allowed uses in this zone. (The definition includes: "facilities serving the general public, streets, roads, ferries, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, community water systems, community sewage treatment systems, storm water systems, park and recreational facilities, libraries, fire and police stations, emergency medical services, municipal and county buildings, power houses, cemeteries and public schools." In other words, the developer could build single family homes immediately adjacent to a community sewage treatment system. Or, a county jail (county building) could be built right next to a public school. In Niemi, et al. v. Northwest Cascade, et al., Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 16-2- 11216-7 (currently pending), a class action suit was brought by owners of single family homes surrounding a F1oHawks facility which collects and treats sewage from honey buckets. Even though the City of Pacific imposed numerous conditions on the F1oHawks facility through a conditional use permit, it is alleged to have released odors, gases and fumes which substantially interfere with the property owners' enjoyment of their properties. The neighbors are suing, alleging nuisance, negligence and trespass as a result of the activities of this facility, which is located in close proximity to single family uses. This lawsuit was filed even after installation of upgrades to the odor suppressing equipment. In (6), the County has allowed, as uses permitted outright, "other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development." Again, 17.65.010, which is supposed to describe the "purpose" of this zone, does not include any purpose statement. It only describes the uses that are allowed in the zone, and these uses are extensive and varied. The County doesn't even require that the most intense uses obtain a MEMO 2-8-18 conditional use permit, so that the impacts of the use can be mitigated on a site-specific, ad hoc basis. If the County allows every possible use of property other than heavy industrial in this zone, what does the Community Development Department need to do when the developer proposes an intense use not listed in 17.67.020? Nothing, other than to rubber stamp an approval. We question why there are no conditional uses in the MPR zoning districts, when the County actually implements a conditional use permit process in other areas of the County. 17.65.030: Here, the County is allowing the developer to build a building of any height, as long as the developer buys a ladder truck or other equipment for the Fire District. A variance isn't even required, so the adjacent property owner will have no notice of the developer's receipt of a building permit to construct a structure that will dwarf others in the neighborhood. The fact that the Fire District may need additional equipment to put out a fire in a building over a certain height is not the only negative land use impact resulting from excessive height, especially adjacent to single family uses, 17.65.040: So that there is no question that no consideration whatsoever was given to the persons who would eventually visit, live and work in this zone, all yard and setbacks have been eliminated. We assume that this has been added in order to eliminate any restrictions on the developer's ability to maximize its investment. 17.70.010: Here, there actually is a purpose section. It also states: "The dimensions. of the MPR-OSR zone do not preclude applicable buffers and setbacks as required under this title or under Title 18 Jefferson County Code." However, in Section 17.75.040, it states that "there are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR -MV zone," but "new structures located within the shoreline shall comply with the setback requirements of the" SMP. Does this mean that there are setbacks for new construction in this zone or not? 17.75.010: The purpose of the MPR -VM zone is again, not stated. Instead, there is a summary of the types of uses allowed, totally eliminating any mention of the fact that there are few differences in the uses permitted in this zone and the MPR -GR zone. 17.75.020: Again, my concern is that all listed uses are permitted outright in the MPR -MV zone. There are two prohibited uses, but the County has not classified any use as a "conditional use." A conditional use is not a permitted use. It is listed in the zone as a use that may be made within a zone, but only upon the grant of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner or other decision -maker (after a hearing). The reason certain uses are permitted only upon the grant of a conditional use permit, is because there are certain uses that may be desirable, but are not completely consistent with the permitted uses. Therefore, the zoning code requires that the decision -maker evaluate the proposed development under certain criteria for approval, which allows the decision -maker to consider the facts relating to the property and the proposed use. 5 MEMO 2-8-18 For example, schools are not normally allowed in a single family residential zone as a permitted use. They may be allowed with a conditional use permit, which would consider whether the piece of property for the school is large enough to absorb all of the land use impacts relating to a school, such as noise, parking and traffic circulation. It is difficult to understand why the County would allow a marina as a permitted use, not a conditional use, in this zone. While it does appear that the developer would have to obtain a shoreline permit for the marina, it is difficult to say whether the shoreline permit would address the impacts of a marina that would normally be addressed under zoning regulations. The words "overwater structures" have been eliminated here (17.75.020(1)). However, in 17.75.020(4), there is a reference to how "overwater buildings" shall be constructed. Does this mean that "overwater structures" or "overwater buildings" can or can't be constructed in this zone? Again, 17.75.020(10) allows uses of every type and description, many of which are not compatible with each other or the residential uses allowed outright in 17.75.020(2). Same comment with regard to 17.75.020(12). There is no purpose section, only a summary of the uses allowed in this zone. Therefore, any type of use can be allowed, as long as the Department of Community Development approves. There are no criteria for DCD to use in such approvals. What is the procedure for the County to make the decision whether or not a use is allowed in a particular zoning district? I could not find any procedure for an administrative code interpretation. State law requires that the City adopt this procedure: "As part of its project review process, a local government shall provide a procedure for obtaining a code interpretation as provided in RCW 36.70B.110." RCW 36.70B.030(3). If the County doesn't have this procedure (as required by state law), then the public will have no notice or opportunity to apply a decision of the Director to allow an unlisted use within one of these MPR zones: The developer could propose an outdoor shooting range that will cause tremendous noise and pollute the ground water with lead, and the County may permit it, claiming that it is consistent with Section 17.65.020(4), as an "outdoor resort -related recreational facility." 17.75.030: In 17.65.030, no buildings could be constructed in the MPR -GR zone over 35 feet in height unless the Fire District approved. Here, "one structure may exceed 35 feet, but may not exceed 45 feet." No approval is required from the Fire District to exceed 35 feet in height. So, it appears that the limit in the previous zone was not based on any safety issue (like the fact that the Fire District didn't have a ladder such that firefighters could fight a fire in a building over 35 feet high) and was totally arbitrary. Also, what does it mean that "one structure" can exceed 35 feet in height? One structure in the entire zone? 0 MEMO 2-8-18 17.80.010: Here, the County has established the process for "reviewing major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan." Wouldn't the developer also need to obtain approval of a major or minor revision to any subdivision or binding site plan approval for any of these activities? 17.80.020: It appears that this section has been added so that everyone can just see a sampling of the mitigation measures that apply to the proposed development. (The mitigation measures are listed but it also states that they are not limited to these measures, yet these measures are listed for reference.") Given that the County has determined that it will impose mitigation or conditions on the development from at least four different documents, is there some reason that the County can't simply list all of them here, so that everyone knows what they are? It would also be helpful to look at them in one place, so that we could determine whether any measures conflict with each other or this proposed code. Also, this list of documents is not the same as the list of documents in 17.60.040 and 17.60.060. What is the reason for the difference? 17.80.020(1): Here, the developer is required to put the southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal into a permanent conservation easement. Who will be the owner of the underlying property? Who will be responsible for maintaining this easement? 17.80.020(2)(a): The County should charge the developer for the County's costs relating to the hiring of an independent consultant who will perform water quality monitoring and to submit a summary water quality report to the County.,, 17.80.020(2)(d): Here, it states that the permits "shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor MPR." First, has anyone done any testing of the current situation? If not, won't the developer argue later, if the water quality deteriorates, that it was not responsible, and the County can't prove otherwise? Second, why would the County only state that the permits require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures? The permits will issue and then the developer will be required to do some water quality testing. There isn't much to this testing program, other than it has to be done monthly. If the development agreement is signed and the permits issue, how will the County require additional mitigation? The development agreement has been crafted such that the developer is not only vested to every development regulation administered by the County, but also includes a paragraph that covers any development regulation that the developer forgot to include. It is difficult to understand why the County wouldn't adopt a water quality standard, and then use its enforcement procedures if the development doesn't meet the standard. The public receives little, if any benefit from this development, given all of the many concessions provided to the developer. Therefore, public funds shouldn't be spent on the enforcement of the development agreement. The County should require that the developer pay 7 MEMO 2-8-18 the County's costs associated with hiring an independent consultant to do this water quality monitoring. There is no other way for the public to know that the water testing is accurate. 17.80.020(3): As I pointed out in my comments on the development agreement, property owners can't vest to storm water drainage regulations, regardless of the language of that agreement. Here, it states that the developer will only be required to capture and treat the storm water to the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington" before discharge. Does this mean that the County acknowledges that the developer is not vested to stormwater regulations? 17.80.020(3)(b) and (d): So the County states that there shall be no discharge of sewage or bilge waters at the marina, and that fish cleaning can't take place in the controlled access areas of the marina. There doesn't appear to be any program that the developer is required to adopt to enforce this. These are issues that will be difficult for the County to enforce with limited time and resources. In 3(n): What does it mean that "the marina operations shall collect water quality data from State sources so long as available ..." The County should be charging the developer for the County's costs relating to hiring an independent consultant to perform this water quality testing. These conditions are drafted so that the developer can claim that it isn't required to comply -- and instead, it is the "marina operator" who hasn't complied with the conditions. It is important to identify the entity/individual that the County will bring its enforcement action against if these conditions are not met. 17.80.020(4)(b): Again, "the golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by the County, as a result of the water quality monitoring program ..." More details are needed, such as the entity/individual that must perform this condition should be identified. The development agreement has added language that prohibits the public from enforcing the terms and conditions of development approval, so the public's hands are tied if the County does nothing. 17.80.020(4)(d): The location(s) for water quality testing to take place should be identified so that it can be determined whether or not the developer is complying with the prohibition on any storm water discharge into Hood Canal. 17.80.020(5): We question why the developer would comply with this condition, requiring calculation of greenhouse gases, if all it was required to do is "identify techniques to mitigate such emissions." Clearly, there is no need to identify any techniques if there is no requirement to actually implement them. 17.80.020(6): This section is not enforceable. The County can't enforce a requirement that the developer "strive" to do anything. 8 MEMO 2-8-18 17.80.020(6)(h) The conservation easement is granted to Jefferson County, and the County is required to "prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement and to require restoration of the Easement Area damaged by activity or use that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement." In other words, the County is required to spend public funds to monitor this easement and address any damage to it. Apparently, this is the only consideration obtained by the County in exchange for the MPR and its concessions to the developer in the development agreement. 17.80.030: Did the environmental documents address the impacts associated with 890 residential units? Is there something in these documents which requires not less than 65 percent of the total units be "short term visitor accommodation units?" What is the County's enforcement plan for determining whether or not the developer has short term visitor accommodation that constitutes less than 65 percent of the total units? It will likely be difficult for the County to monitor all sales and rentals to determine whether or not this condition is satisfied. 17.80.060: What is the duration of the MPR? We already know that the County doesn't plan to impose any deadlines on the construction of any phase, and so the development agreement could be in place for 100 years or more (whatever is 5 years longer than the completion of all phases). Under 17.80.070(1)(i), the Planning Staff can even grant extensions to the non -deadlines for timing of approved development." 17.80.070: The procedure for the adoption of development regulations and a development agreement associated with the adoption of development regulations is legislative, not quasi- judicial. Take a look at 18.15.129. Here, the County plans to adopt a quasi-judicial procedure to amend legislative develo,.pment regulations, This is like establishing a procedure for the adoption of development regulations that is legislative (and follows all procedures for the adoption of development regulations in a GMA County), but allowing the planning staff or hearing examiner to modify the same development regulations through an administrative, quasi-judicial process. 17.80.080: Again, the County provides a quasi-judicial procedure that will purportedly amend legislatively adopted development regulations. Apparently, the County recognizes this problem in (2), and states that if the proposed major revision involves a change to the boundaries of the MPR zone, a comprehensive plan amendment is also required, and it is processed as a legislative action. This doesn't cure the fact that other revisions (major and minor) are still described as a quasi-judicial procedure. It is difficult to understand how these procedures mesh with the development agreement, which requires that "the Board of County Commissioners must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public hearing." 9 MEMO 2-8-18 17.85.010: Here, it states that a MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the applicant fails to meet the conditions in the approved phasing plan. Apparently, the developer can take 50 years to construct a phase, but the MPR is only null and void if the developer fails to meet some other condition of the approved phasing plan. This needs to be eliminated so that it is not interpreted as some exclusive basis for enforcement. The County can revoke the MPR for other reasons. 18.15.129: Here is the procedure for approval of a MPR. If the County wants to establish criteria for amendment (major or minor), this criteria should be in chapter 18.15. Otherwise, it appears that the County is establishing different criteria for major and minor amendments only for the Pleasant Harbor MPR in chapter 17.85. Why are the criteria for a major amendment of the Pleasant Harbor MPR in 17.80.080(1)(a) through 0) different from the criteria for the original MPR approval in 18.15.135? The danger in establishing different criteria for a major amendment is that the developer may propose a smaller, less intense development initially, and then once approved, use the less stringent criteria for a major amendment to obtain massive changes to the original MPR. The procedure for approval for a major revision should not be different from the original approval of a MPR. In 17.80.080, the Planning Commission has been eliminated from the legislative process. In 18.15.132, the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes recommendations. If the activity is legislative, there is no deadline for a final decision (as would otherwise be required by RCW 36.70B.080), so it appears that the reason the Planning Commission has been removed from the process is to reduce public awareness of changes proposed within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Staff version of the development regulations. cc: Client 10 From: —/Barbara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:36 AM To: jeffbocc; Michael Haas; Patty Charnas Subject: Documents Submitted as Comments on Proposed MPR at Pleasant Harbor Attached are documents submitted for the comment period on the Pleasant Harbor MPR. You have received all of these documents before, but not during this official hearing period. Please let us know if you cannot open any of the documents. Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Destination Resorts https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/OB3gmNZSMJzS4UHVMNXBpblhQeS I QaWR4Qk9Mdjkl U19sZEdZ/view?us p=sharing Dr. Richard Horner Letter on Traffic Issues and Increased Pollution in Hood Canal https://drive.google. com/file/d/OB3 gmNZSMJzS4cWs4OUpFNXROam 1 XYzMwSTVVZFZndjlHbXFB/view?u sp=sharing Doremus Waterworks Consultant Technical Review of Water Supply and Groundwater Impact on Black Point htt_ps://drive.google. com/file/d/OB3gmNZSMJzS4bjRVcHZocW9QNnV5YO 1 LY 1 JhV 1 c4SOh4TEow/view Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon t P'COC?set, Under' Construction ".4 t'" r r 4s st^ Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon March 2009 For: Central Oregon LandWatch By: Eben Fodor FODOR & ASSOCIATES LLC Community 111111111111111111, 111111111111111 Planning Consulting Eugene, Oregon www.FodorandAssociates.com With research and analysis by David Hinkley Cover photo credit: Sandy Lonsdale Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 1 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 1. Destination Resorts in Oregon.................................................................................... 4 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study.........................................................................12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis......................................................................... 13 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort.................................................................... 17 PropertyTaxes............................................................................................................. 17 RoomTaxes................................................................................................................. 22 5. Thornburgh Resort Costs........................................................................................... 24 Transportation System Costs..................................................................................... 27 SchoolFacilities Costs................................................................................................ 40 Fire& EMS System Costs.......................................................................................... 48 Public Safety System Costs......................................................................................... 53 Parks& Rec. System Costs......................................................................................... 59 General Government Facilities.................................................................................. 64 6. Fiscal Impact Summary .............................................................................................. 67 RevenueSummary ...................................................................................................... 67 Costsof Facilities........................................................................................................ 67 ServicesImpacts.......................................................................................................... 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions......................................................................................... 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts.................................................................. 70 Job Creation and Employment Impacts.................................................................... 71 Who Will Fill New Resort Jobs: Locals or Newcomers? ........................................ 76 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort .................................................................. 78 Spending by Destination Resorts.............................................................................. 81 EconomicRisks........................................................................................................... 83 Economic Impact Conclusions.................................................................................. 85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon ................................... 86 Appendices............................................................................ A-1. Property Tax Explanation ....................................... A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation .......................... A-3. Population Projection Used in Study ..................... A-4. Tax Bases for Jurisdictions Used in Study ............ A-5. About the Authors ................................................... Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon March 2009 page 2 89 90 94 98 99 100 Fodor & Associates Introduction The recent proliferation of destination resorts, and the number of new resorts currently being proposed in Oregon, raises concerns about the potential impacts of these resort on local communities, cities and counties. Based on a literature review performed as part of the research for this study, there are no independent, third - party studies evaluating destination resort impacts. The only readily -available sources of information are the resort developers' own studies prepared as part of the land -use application materials. This report represents the best effort to date to assess the impact of destination resorts in Oregon. It is a complex task and there are an almost unlimited number of potential impact areas that could be studied. To establish a manageable scope of work within the project budget, the focus of this study is on the fiscal impacts of resorts. Fiscal impacts are those that affect local governments and local taxpayers. They include both the tax revenues that will be generated and the costs to provide the services and infrastructure required to support the development. In addition to fiscal impacts, the economic impact of destination resorts was evaluated in terms of job creation and housing impacts. This study does not address any of the environmental or social impacts associated with residential and recreational development of resorts in the State. Instead this study focuses on the monetary (fiscal and economic) impacts these destination resorts have on the local communities where they are being built. In order to study resort impacts in detail, the proposed Thornburgh Resort in Deschutes County was used as a case study. The Thornburgh Resort is to be located near Redmond and just west of the existing Eagle Crest Resort. The Thornburgh Resort would be a medium-sized resort and was considered to be fairly typical of past and future resorts in the State. This report is intended to be transparent. All sources of information are documented and all the calculations and methodologies are explicit. Where data were not available, reasonable assumptions were made. These assumptions are also clearly stated. In some cases, where good data were not available, alternative scenarios were used to examine a range of possible conditions. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 3 Destination Resorts in Oregon Destination resorts typically involve 500 to 3000 single-family homes and various recreational amenities, such as golf courses and clubhouses, in an attractive natural setting located away from existing cities and growth centers. The term "destination resort" has a unique legal meaning in Oregon. Special status was given to "Destination Resorts" allowing them outside urban growth boundaries under Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) of the Land Use Planning Program.' This action appears to be based on the assumption that the tourism benefits would outweigh the costs associated with this form of rural development. In 1987, provisions for destination resorts were enacted into state law and codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.435 through 197.467. According to ORS 197.440: The Legislative Assembly finds that. 1) It is the policy of this state to promote Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable segment of our state's economy; 2) There is a growing need to provide year-round destination resort accommodations to attract visitors and encourage them to stay longer. The establishment of destination resorts will provide jobs for Oregonians and contribute to the state's economic development; 3) It is a difficult and costly process to site and establish destination resorts in rural areas of this state; and 4) The siting of destination resort facilities is an issue of statewide concern. The State Legislature attempted to enforce the tourism aspects of these developments by requiring a certain minimum amount of overnight accommodations and certain visitor -oriented facilities! The intent was apparently that without such requirements, destination resorts would likely be little more than the classic, sprawling rural subdivisions that the Land Use Program was intended to prevent. However it is unclear that resorts are actually meeting their overnight accommodations requirements due to a lack of reporting and enforcement mechanisms. In spite of State requirements, residential lots and private homes outnumber overnight accommodations by more than two to one. Residential lot sales represent the primary feature of existing and proposed destination resorts. Questions remain as to whether the destination resorts are essentially rural subdivisions that are increasingly having adverse impacts on cities, counties and the state that are not Goal 8: Recreational Needs (OAR 660-015-0000(8)). State Law requires that destination resorts permanently allocate one overnight housing unit for every two residential units in Western Oregon and two overnight units for every five residential units in Eastern Oregon (see ORS 197.445(4)). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 4 adequately offset by tourism benefits. Our literature review found no studies examining these impacts in detail, other than those prepared by the individual resort developers themselves. So we are left with an inadequate understanding of the full impacts these development are having across the State. The Growth of Destination Resorts Destination resorts have proliferated rapidly in the State and will have increasingly significant impacts, both positive and negative. At this point, Oregon has eight existing resorts, most of which are historic or pre -Goal 8 resorts. Another seven are approved and under construction, and thirteen more have been proposed. Figure 1-1 shows these existing, approved and proposed resorts on a map of the State. Central Oregon shows the highest concentration of resorts in all stages of development. Southern Oregon and the Coast are also seeing resort development. Deschutes County has seen far more resort development than any other county, but Crook, Jefferson and Jackson counties are also seeing a high level of resort development. Figure 1-1: Destination Resorts in Oregon by Status imy eayam Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 5 Table 1-1 provides a more -detailed summary of destination resorts that are completed, under construction, and proposed in the State. The land use and housing unit data from this table is illustrated graphically in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. It is evident that destination resorts are expanding rapidly. If the recently -approved and proposed resorts are built, Oregon's destination resort capacity will approximately triple. The rapid growth in destination resorts raises a number of questions. Is there going to be a market demand for so much resort capacity? Will new resorts compete with established resorts and undermine their viability? And will the economies of Central Oregon and other popular resort locations become vulnerable in the event of a possible downturn or collapse of the resort market? Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 6 Table 1-1 Destination Resorts in Oregon, January 20090) Existing Resorts Goal 8? County Acres Homesites Overnight Units(') Total Units Bandon Dunes Goal 2 exception Coos 2,000 600 150 750 Eagle Crest Yes Deschutes 1,772 891 585 1,476 Sunriver/Crosswater No Deschutes 3,310 3,220 936 4,156 Black Butte Pre -Goal Deschutes 1,300 1,251 425 1,676 Inn of the Seventh Mt. Pre -Goal Deschutes 310 20 210 230 Running Y Ranch Yes Klamath 6,000 896 305 1,201 Otter Crest Pre -Goal Lincoln 35 144 130 274 Salishan Pre -Goal Lincoln 750 369 0 369 Crossing Trails Subtotal: Crook 15,477 7,391 2,741 10,132 Under Construction Brasada Ranch Yes Crook 1,800 600 300 900 Hidden Canyon Yes Crook 3,250 2,450 1,225 3,675 Remington Ranch Yes Crook 2,079 800 400 1,200 Caldera Springs Yes Deschutes 390 320 160 480 Pronghorn Yes Deschutes 640 430 215 645 Tetherow Yes Deschutes 698 379 298 677 Paradise Ranch Yes Josephine 320 200 67 267 Subtotal: 9,177 5,179 2,665 7,844 Proposed Resorts Crossing Trails Yes Crook 580 490 240 730 Pacific Rogue Ranch No Curry 592 500 150 650 Aspen Lakes Yes Deschutes 550 300 100 400 Skyline Forest No Deschutes 1,500 950 0 950 Thornburg Yes Deschutes 1,970 950 425 1,375 Heaven's Gate Yes Douglas 500 200 200 400 Hidden Valley Ranch (2) Yes Jackson 883 TBD TBD TBD Table Rock Yes Jackson 2,100 1,200 600 1,800 Ponderosa Land & Cattle Yes Jefferson 3,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 The Metolian(z) Yes Jefferson 640 450 180 630 Crescent Creek Ranch Yes Klamath 5,000 1,965 785 2,750 Naples Golf & Beach Yes Lincoln 576 1,155 0 1,155 Elkhorn Estates Yes Marion 464 150 40 190 Subtotal: 18,855 10,810 3,720 14,530 Totals: 43,509 23,380 9,126 32,506 1) Data Compiled by Toby Bayard and COLW on 2/25/09 2) Data on number of units not final at this time (TBD is to be determined). 3) Dwelling units only. Hotel rooms were not included in the overnight units when information was available to separate them from dwelling units. Where data for the number of overnight units was not available, required State minimums were applied to Goal 8 resorts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 7 Figure 1-2 Destination Resort Acres Total = 43,509 acres Under Construction, 9,177 Existing Resorts, 15,477 Proposed, 18,855 Figure 1-3 Destination Resort Housing Units Homes & Overnight Units) Under Construction, Existing Resorts, 7,844 10,132 Proposed, 14,530 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 8 The Destination Resort Controversy The booming growth in destination resorts has led to increasing concern about their impacts and more questions than answers. Do we need more destination resorts, or do we have too many already? Are these resorts beneficial to the local economy, or are they just generating profits for a few and low-wage jobs for the rest? Are local governments reaping giant tax windfalls, or are they incurring more costs than they can recover? Are resorts allowing more Oregonians to vacation in beautiful rural areas, or are they destroying the beauty of the landscape and rural character Oregonians currently enjoy? Are resorts well-planned developments that are carefully integrated with the natural environment, or are they just low-density rural sprawl and ecological disasters that threaten ground water and destroy habitat? Regardless of the answers to these questions, opposition to new resorts has grown. For example, last year residents of conservative, rural Crook County voted 2 to 1 to halt the spread of resorts in that county. According to an editorial in The Oregonian newspaper,' Crook County opponents have some justification in warning that these projects are essentially large subdivisions under the guise of destination resorts. They will, as critics complain, have a significant impact on the county's vehicle traffic, water supply and wildlife habitat. Prineville boosters of the new resorts correctly point out that they contribute heavily through property taxes and create hundreds ofjobs. But opponents are equally correct in noting that the influx of homes will inflate land values, putting unwelcome pressure on farmland and making housing unaffordable for workers who will fill all those low-paying new jobs. Tobs for Whom? In spite of high unemployment in Central Oregon, alarming information was reported in the Bend Bulletin last year that many of the local resorts were hiring from outside the U.S. to fill their jobs.' According to the article, instead hiring locally, the Sunriver Resort actively recruited foreign workers at overseas job fairs, hiring 85 workers from countries such as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. Inn of the Seventh Mountain hired 11 workers from Jamaica and Indonesia. Other resorts may be doing the same. Even if some resorts are not hiring foreigners, studies show that many of the new jobs they create will go to newcomers rather than locals.' Putting the Brakes on Destination Resorts," editorial, The Oregonian, May 27, 2008. Unemployment might be high, but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin, May 11, 2008. See: Who Benefits from Locallob Growth, Migrants or the Original Residents, by Timothy J. Bartik, Regional Studies, vol. 27, No. 4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 9 Resort or Rural Subdivision? It is increasingly clear that the primary incentive for building destination resorts is the traditional profit resulting from the real estate sales of residential lots. Developers rarely build more tourism accommodations than they are required to provide by law. The resort -oriented features appear to be little more than the vehicle by which the subdivision is allowed. Certainly the golf courses and resort amenities enhance the value of the residential lots, but developers recognize that the resort components are marginal, risky and often unprofitable investments. Meeting the tourism -oriented overnight accommodation requirements of Goal 8 has been challenging for resort developers. Newer resorts are focused more on residential lot sales and less on tourism accommodations. There has been an increased use of smaller, lower-cost units, such as hotels and timeshares, to meet overnight lodging requirements.' Resorts that are close to urban areas may end up functioning more like suburbs. The Eagle Crest Resort, for example, is less than six miles from downtown Redmond, making urban amenities and jobs just a 10 -minute drive away. Some resorts may evolve into rural communities or towns of their own. The Hidden Canyon Resort for example, which will be located in Powell Butte (Crook County), will have a population roughly equal to that of the City of Madras, if it is fully developed. The proposed Ponderosa Resort could have a population three times that of the City of Sisters. Effects of the National Recession The dramatic expansion of the destination resort industry in Oregon has been fueled in part by a booming real estate market that seemed to have no end. Ten years of unprecedented growth peaked in 2007 and has declined rapidly since. The economic models for destinations resorts were based on assumptions of continued high land values, high real estate demand, and rapidly expanding tourism. However, the ongoing collapse of the inflated national real estate bubble and the ensuing economic downturn requires that these assumptions be revised. In the past, the residential lots in a destination resort have been largely purchased by individuals as second homes and investment properties. The current economic recession will contract the market for second homes and will reduce the appeal of real estate investing. Unless the national economy has an unexpected, dramatic recovery, more and more potential homebuyers will be economically constrained. Potential tourists are likely to reduce travel and shun expensive vacations to save e See: Destination Resort Siting, a presentation by Bob Cortright, DLCD in Prineville, October 15, 2008, htti)://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/101508/item4 att D.ndf. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 10 money.' A Central Oregon economic forecast shows tourism to be "extremely weak" and contracting through at least the end of 2010.8 Owners of second homes may find the cost of owning two homes to be too expensive. Under this scenario, it is likely that more of the lots created in destination resorts will be purchased for primary residences. We may see a similar shift in existing resorts, with more second homes and rental properties changing to primary residences. Resort developers may respond to the weak economy by downscaling homes to make them more affordable as primary residences. Infrastructure Needs The residential component of the destination resort functions much like any subdivision in a rural area. It is removed from the retail services and amenities people require. It is lacking adequate infrastructure and services required by an urban population. Greater travel distances are required for commuting and meeting daily needs. This generates demand for more roads with more capacity. When traffic growth is projected in Central Oregon, including destination resorts, the funding gap to bring the state highways to standards for traffic congestion is approximately $750 million over the next 20 years.' Resorts located close to cities and towns run the risk of becoming more residential, as residents have access to the nearby urban amenities homeowners desire. The proposed Thornburgh Resort is to be located approximately seven miles from Redmond. Such resorts may have the effect of attracting higher -end housing away from the cities, which undermines the cities' property tax base while increasing their effective populations and adding to demands for more roads and schools. County and municipal governments will be severely squeezed for financial resources over the next few years as a result of: Decreasing property values that reduce property tax revenues; A weak economic outlook that may reduce other sources of income; Government costs increasing at rates exceeding Measure 47 and 50 limits on property tax increases of 3%; and, Decreasing Federal payments to counties in lieu of timber revenues. Will the new destination resorts be a golden goose, or the straw that breaks the camel's back? Fiscal impact analysis can provide the answer. Early reports indicate that major tourism destinations such as Las Vegas are seeing significantly lower tourism resulting from the recession. Gaming revenues there are down 25.8%, room rates have declined 14.3 %, and many construction projects have been canceled or scaled back, according to the Los Angeles Times (published in The Register -Guard Newspaper, 12/26/08). Presentation: United States and Central Oregon Economic Review and Forecast, by Dr. Bill Watkins, Executive Director, UCSB Economic Forecast Project, January 2009, htt1)://www.ucsb- efp.com/PPT/2009/OR Watkins.ppt. Source: Gary Farnsworth (ODOT), Meeting Minutes for Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation, COACT, September 13, 2007, page 3. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page I I 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study In order to examine the impacts of destination resorts in detail, a typical resort was selected for in-depth analysis. The proposed Thornburgh Resort has a similar profile to most of the resorts in Oregon. It is typical in terms of its size and mix of development. It is to be located in Deschutes County, home to more destination resorts than any other county in the State. Due to its pending application, extensive current materials are available on the planned resort. As shown in Table 2-1, the proposed Thornburgh Resort is to have 950 residential ownership units and 425 overnight units, for a total of 1,375 residential units. The application proposes a 50 -room hotel with restaurant, three golf courses, recreational facilities, and retail space. Table 2-1: Thornburgh Resort Profile for Impact Analysis Retail space Peterson Land Use Real Estate Sales office 15,000 ft2 Economic Report Application Used in Impact Metric 1/2005) 2/2005) Study Total acres 1,980 1,970 1,970 Acres open space (incl. Golf) No info 1,293 1,2810) Residential ownership units 1,400 950 950 Residential overnight units Unclear 425 425 Hotel rooms 100 50 50 Golf courses (regulation 18 -hole) 3 3 3 Golf courses — par 3 1 0 0 Other facilities: Retail space 20,000 ft2 20,000 ft2 Real Estate Sales office 15,000 ft2 15,000 ft2 Hotel and restaurant 75,000 ft2 75,000 ft2 Recreational 60,000 ft2 60,000 ft2 Convention facility, Unspecified size Assumed part business center of hotel/rest. Water system 6 new wells, 2 6 new wells, 2 reservoirs reservoirs Sewer system 2 drain fields 2 drain fields 1) From Final Master Plan. Since the Thornburgh Resort is unbuilt, certain types of data were not available. For example, the ultimate occupancy rates and vehicle trip generation rates were unavailable. To reflect the most likely scenario for the Thornburgh Resort at full buildout, data was used from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. Eagle Crest appears to have a similar profile in terms of the mix of uses and relative price ranges for lots and homes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal impact analysis generally refers to the evaluation of the financial and budgetary effects of alternative land uses or public policies on local governmental jurisdictions or other local service providers. These may include cities, counties, school districts, special-purpose districts, water and wastewater service districts, and regional authorities. Sometimes state governments are also impacted. While the focus of fiscal impact analysis is on government revenues and costs, the broader public policy question is: How will this action or decision affect local taxpayers and the general public? Answers to this broader question allow elected officials to determine how the proposed action will affect local tax rates or the quality of local services. This question tends to be one of most interesting to local voters and the public in general. As shown in Figure 3-1, the fiscal impact analysis compares the changes in revenues with the changes in costs of a local government entity that result from an action or decision. Revenues include taxes, fees and other income. Costs include operation services) and maintenance (O&M) and new or expanded capital facilities and equipment. Figure 3-1: Diagram of fiscal impacts of land development on local government Fodor & Associates). Revenues Property Taxes Other Taxes Other Revenue fees, permits, etc.) Local Government City, County or School District) Costs Operation (service: Maintenance Capital Facilities & Equipment Usually local governments must balance their budgets so that costs don't exceed revenues. While this is true for government services, it is not the case for major capital expenditures. Local governments may issue general obligation bonds for new capital facilities that enable them to carry debt. General obligation debt is a reasonable way to finance facilities that have a broad public benefit. However, when the new facilities are constructed primarily to serve new development, an inherent Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 13 inequity results, and all taxpayers pay to fund facilities that benefit a small segment of the population. One solution to this problem is the LID, or local improvement district, that limits funding of improvements to the beneficiaries. Another is the impact fee, or system development charge (SDC) in Oregon, that directly recovers some or all of the costs associate with providing certain facilities to new development. Deschutes County also uses "Community Service Districts" to assess the costs of some public safety, fire protection and library services directly to the geographic districts they serve. Public Infrastructure Required by Thornburgh Resort Development Table 3-1 below summarizes the categories of infrastructure required by new development. The costs associated with all onsite facilities and services (such as local roads and utility lines) are assumed to be borne by the developer. Only the offsite impacts are examined here. Of these, transportation and schools typically represent the greatest costs, so much of the analysis work focused on these two categories. Table 3-1: Basic Public Infrastructure Required by New Development All Categories Evaluated Transportation System Yes School Facilities Yes Fire & EMS Facilities Yes Police Facilities Yes Parks & Rec. Facilities Yes Sanitary Sewer System NA Storm Drainage System NA Water Service Facilities NA Library Facilities No General Gov. Facilities Yes Solid Waste Facilities No Public Open Space No The Deschutes County Code10 requires that the resort developer pay for onsite water and sewer systems, so it was assumed that the costs associated with these facilities and services are borne by the resort and its future residents and visitors. The long- term viability of these onsite water and sewer systems is unclear. For example, the current plans indicate that the resort's sewer system will rely on drain field disposal for an indefinite period of time. This method of disposal can contaminate groundwater and has a limited lifespan. The high water demand from the resort may 10 Deschutes County Code, Chapter 18.113. Destination Resorts Zone — DR. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 14 deplete local groundwater supplies and the resort may be obliged to indemnify nearby landowners. The County has no requirements for offsite stormwater management facilities or services, so it was assumed that onsite stormwater management will not have offsite fiscal impacts. These resort developments are contingent on provision of open space within the development." Therefore, additional open space needs may not be generated by the development.12 However, any new residential development is likely to increase demands for certain County parks and recreational facilities, so these impacts were included in the study. Electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste disposal services to the resort are operated by private businesses. These services also require offsite infrastructure investments. Such costs tend to be added to the utility rates that are paid by all customers, not just resort residents. The costs associated with increased rates for these services were not included in the study because they are not public - sector costs and because it is difficult to obtain the necessary revenue and cost data from private companies. Impact Analysis Methodology In order to evaluate the potential impacts of the Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are compared: unbuilt and full buildout. The unbuilt scenario assumes no change in current land use. The full buildout scenario assumes the resort is entirely built out all proposed facilities are built and all lots are developed with homes). In all likelihood the resort will take many years to build out and may have undeveloped lots remaining long after most construction is completed. To simplify the impact analysis, both the unbuilt and full buildout scenarios were compared for the year 2008. This simplification enables a direct comparison of before and after costs and revenues and eliminates the time -values of various cash flows in different years. By comparing built and unbuilt scenarios, the vagaries of uncertain approval dates and construction schedules are eliminated. It is intuitively more useful to consider the alternatives of a resort that is either built or unbuilt under current economic and fiscal conditions than to consider one option today and the other 12 years in the future. A destination resort creates both direct and induced impacts. As described in the Economic Impacts section of this report, a resort induces additional growth and According to Deschutes County Code, DDC 18.113.060(D)(1), "The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas." Golf courses are considered open space. 1z Increased use of public lands surrounding resorts by resort residents is common. For example, the Pronghorn Resort recommended that their property owners use adjoining BLM land for exercising dogs in a recent newsletter. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 15 development beyond its physical boundaries. This is primarily the result of new jobs created at the resort. Many of these jobs will be filled by newcomers who will require additional housing and have fiscal impacts of their own. In this study the induced impacts were evaluated only for schools. All other impact areas reflect only the direct fiscal impacts of onsite development within the resort. The induced impact on schools was addressed because student generation will be significantly increased by influx of new workers at the resort and this information may be useful to school districts for facilities planning purposes. All revenue and cost figures are given in 2008 dollars and values. Costs from other years were adjusted to 2008 values based on the appropriate inflation index or construction cost index. Tax rates were based on the 2008-09 rates. The most recent available data was used throughout the analysis. It is important to note that from an accounting perspective, there are two basic types of costs and revenues: annual streams that occur every year, and one-time costs or payments. Tax revenues and service costs represent the former. Infrastructure costs and any associated System Development Charges are treated as the later. As soon as a new resort development is completed, the residents and visitors will need adequate road capacity, classroom space for their children, fire protection, and public safety services, so these facilities must be in place. There are a number of standard methods for estimating the demand for new facilities and infrastructure a new development will generate. Each method has advantages and drawbacks. The methods used here were selected to yield the best estimates of demand given the limitations of available data. In most cases the capacity of services and infrastructure must be adequate to serve peak demands. For example, police and fire protection capacity must be adequate to meet peak demand periods, not just average demand. In such cases, the demand for public facilities was based on peak season resort occupancy, rather than average occupancy. The terms "gross" and "net" are used to describe costs and revenues in this report. In the case of costs, a gross cost would be the total cost to provide a particular facility or service, while the net cost would be the gross cost, minus any payment or revenue from the resort towards that facility or service. In other words, it is the balance of costs after any revenues are deducted. Tax revenues are treated as gross revenues because they are used to pay for government costs. The net revenue for a particular service, if any, is the surplus left over after the costs of providing the service are deducted. The fiscal impact reporting begins by evaluating the revenues the resort is likely to generate from property taxes and room taxes. Then the costs are addressed. And finally, the costs are compared with the revenues to determine net impacts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 16 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort A significant selling point for new destination resorts has been the tax revenues they will generate for county governments. As described later, increased tax revenues are offset by increased costs for public facilities and services required by the resort. In this analysis, both property tax revenues and transient room tax revenues are estimated for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Property Takes The Thornburgh Resort Company LLC submitted a report by Peterson Economics, of El Cerrito, California, which provided their estimate of property tax revenues, but made no estimate of room taxes. The property tax revenue estimate provided by the developer was approximately three times greater than the revenue calculated here. This was partly due to use of overinflated real estate values that may have seemed realistic during the 2004-2005 boom period, but are out of line with current real estate prices and the assessed values at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort.13 The annual property tax figures by Peterson were also inflated at an annual 3% rate over the 12 - year construction phase so that the final annual tax revenues at completion were given for the year 2016 and are much higher than they would be today. The taxes calculated here are based on the revenues that would be generated if the resort were fully completed in 2008 under the 2008-09 tax rates. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the estimated property tax revenues from the residential and commercial properties planned for the Thornburgh Resort. The combined total property tax revenues are $5.1 million per year based on a total assessed value of approximately $375 million, as shown in Table 4-3." The $5.1 million tax revenue estimate is about one-third of the amount estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report.15 However the figure calculated here is in line with data reported by other sources for actual tax revenues from other resorts. 16 In order to determine where tax revenues will go in Deschutes County, the individual tax rates for each taxing district applicable to the resort were used and the 13 Eagle Crest Resort is considered to be comparable to the proposed Thornburgh Resort in terms of its real estate values. 4 Assessed values are for tax purposes and not the same as real market values. 15 For comparison purposes, the tax revenues estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report were adjusted from the 2016 buildout year back to 2008, resulting in an estimate by Peterson of 17,500,000 per year. 16 Tax revenues were reported for 2005-06 tax year by Linda Swearingen (a lobbyist and consultant for destination resorts) for various resorts in a presentation to the League of Women Voters, November 2005. She reported annual tax revenues for Eagle Crest at $4,096,058 and for Black Butte at $6,315,414. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 17 results provided in Table 4-4. Technical details on the methodology used for property tax calculations are provided in the Appendix to this report. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 18 Table 4-1 Estimated Property Tax Revenues from Residential Properties at Thornburgh Resort nx l Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and property values) Estimated Real Market Value per Unit m Property Type Number Lot 1'I Improvements Total Assumed AV Property Tax Property Taxes Property Taxes of Units t51 per Unit (11('1 Rale 111 Single Unit 111 for Type 11 ) ResidentialOvernightl"I 425 $190,000 $320,000 $510,000 $250,410 14.0041 $3,507 $1,445,665 Resid.Owner-Occup.02) 950 $190,000 $320,000 $510,000 $250,410 14.0041 $3,507 $3,231,485 Total $4,677,150 Notes: 1) Housing Data is from the table on page 22 of the Revised application dated April 21, 2008. RMV values derived from data on Deschutes County's D.I.A.L system. 2) This table includes all single family residential property regardless of ownership or deed restriction. 3) Real Market Value (RMV) is the full appraised value of the land and/or improvements. while tracked it is not used to calculate taxes. 4) Assumed Lot value derived by taking 80% of the average value of the RMV for Land as taken from Deschutes County's O.I.A.L system for a 384ot sample of lots located at Eagle Crest. Reduction in value is intended to reflect declining prices in real estate markets. See Property Tax Methodology in Appendix for details. 5) Assumed Improvement value derived by taking 80% of the average value of the RMV for Improvements as taken from Deschutes County's D.I.A.L system for a 35 -house sample of houses located at Eagle Crest. Reduction in value is intended to reflect declining prices in real estate markets. See Property Tax Methodology in Appendix for details. 6) A voter passed initiative in 1996 rolled the assessments of real property back to their 1995 level minus 10% and limited annual increases to 3%, Assessed Value (AV) is the result. it is the value used to calculate the property taxes due on a parcel. 7) Oregon State Law (ORS 308.153) requires that the real market value of new property be adjusted by the application of a Exception Value Ratio to establish the amount that is to be added to the Mammum Assessed Value of a property. The Exception Value Ratio for Resort Properties is 49.1. 8) In dollars per thousands dollars of Assessed Value. The property tax rate is that of Tax Code Area 2-004. While some of the proposed development is an parcels that currently are in Tax Code Area 2-003 it has been assumed that when Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District Al takes over fire and rescue responsibilities for those properties that they will changed to Area 2-004. 9) Assumed Assessed Value (AV) times Property Tax Rate. 10) Calculated from 'Property Taxes Single Unit' times 'Number of Units' times 0.97 (to reflect 3% reduction for on-time payment). 11) Units subject to a deed restriction requiring that it be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. As the Residential Overnight housing units are needed to meet the Visitor-Ofiented Units to Individually -owned Residential Unit Ratio in Deschutes County Code 18.113.060 D 2, it has been assumed that they will at be built. 12) The amount of Residential Single Family Housing not subject to a deed restriction requiring it be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. This table was also run assuming a 90% build out of these units, which showed an annual property tax payment of $4,453,593.68. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 19 Table 4-2 Estimated Property Tax Revenues from Commonly held and Commercial Property at Thornburgh Resort ('I Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and property values) Estimated Real Market Value per Unit IzI Property Number Assessed Property Tax Property Taxes Taxes for Property Type of Units Lot (°I Improvements "I Totalyaluenil'j Rale In Single Unit Type(15) Hotel and Conference Center (°I 1 $2,169,000 $15,000,000 $17,169,000 $8,429,979 $14.0041 $118,054 114,513 Goff Club House IBI 2 $578,400 $4,000,000 $4,578,400 $2,247,994 $14.0041 $31,481 61,073 Goff Course ('B) 3 $1,949,850 $3,000,000 $4,949,850 $2,430,376 $14.0041 $34,035 99,043 Spa Facility 01) 1 $433,800 $5,000,000 $5,433,800 $2,667,996 $14.0041 $37,363 36,242 Recreation Center (121 2 $723,000 $3,000,000 $3,723,000 $1,827,993 $14.0041 $25,599 49,663 Commerical Development('°i 1 $578,400 $4,000,000 $4,578,400 $2,247,994 $14.0041 $31,481 30,537 Real Estate Office (" ) 1 $433,800 $3,000,000 $3,433,800 $1,685,996 $14.0041 $23,611 22,903 Total: 413,973 Nates 1) Data for this table was obtained from the Thornburgh Application dated 4-21-08, the Deschutes County D.I.A.L system and cited sources. 2) Real Market Value (RMV) is the full appraised value of the land and/or improvements. While tracked, t is not used to calculate taxes. 3) Lot Area assumed to be twice building area. Land value of $629,744 per acre for all land other than the Golf Course. This value is 80% of the 2008 RMV for the developed commercial parcel at Eagle Crest. The reduction in value is to reflect declining real estate values. See Property Tax Methodology in Appendix for details. 4) Building value assumes a $200 sq It construction cost for buildings and $3 million per golf course. The $3 million dollar figure is the midpoint of the $1.6 to 4.5 miMan construction cost range quoted on the USGA and American Society of Goff Course Architects web sges. 5) A voter passed initiative in 1996 rolled the assessments of real property back to their 1995 level minus 10% and limited annual increases to 3%, Assessed Value (AV) is the result. It is the value used to calculate the property taxes due on a parcel. 6) Oregon State Law (ORS 308.153) requires that the real market value of new property be adjusted by the application of an Exception Value Ratio to establish the amount that is to be added to the Maximum Assessed Value of a property. The Exception Value Ratio for Resort Properties is 49.1. 7) In dollars per thousands dears of Assessed Value. The property tax rate is that of Tax Code Area 2-004. While some of the proposed development is on parcels that currently are in Tax Code Area 2-003 it has been assumed that when Deschutes County Rural Fine Protection District k1 takes over fire and rescue responsibilities for those properties that they will changed to Area 2-004. 8) 75,000 sq It building on a 150,000 sq It lot. Includes Hotel, Restaurant, Bar and Convention Facilities. 9) 20,000 sq It building on 40, 000 sq It lot Includes Locker Rooms, Pro Shop and Food Service Area. 10) Assumes 150 acres per course. The land value used of $12,999 an acre was obtained by taking the average RMV of five large parcels at Eagle Crest identified as containing golf holes. 11) 25,000 sq R of buildings on a 50,000 sq It lot. Includes Fitness Center, Sauna and Steam rooms, Massage area. 12) 15,000 sq It of buildings on a 30,000 foot lot. 13) 20,000 sq ft of buildings on a 40,000 sq It lot. Includes Bank, Florist Shop, Drug Store, Grocery, Dry Cleaner and Art Gallery. 14) 15,000 sq It of buildings on a 30,000 sq It lot. Includes Sales Leasing and Property Management Offices. 15) Taxes reduced by 3% for on ime payment. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 20 Table 4-3 Estimated Total Property Tax Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and property values) Property Type Total Assessed Value Annual Property Taxes Residential Property $344,313,750 $4,677,150 Commercial Property $30,475,067 $413,973 Totals: $374,788,817 $5,091,123 Table 4-4 Distribution of Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Districts for Thornburgh(') Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates. Thornburgh estimated total assessed value of $374,788,817) ID Tax District Tax Rate Property TaxeS(2) 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 464,720 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 48,533 010 Fairgrounds Bond 0.141 51,260 011 County Library 0.55 199,950 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.95 345,368 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4 508,963 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 20,613 090 County Extension/4H 0.0224 8,143 093 911 0.1618 58,822 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.23 83,615 202 Rural Fire District #1 1.7542 637,731 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 135,130 620 School District #2J 5.0251 1,826,851 626 School #2J Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 301,997 628 School #2J Bond 2004 0.293 106,519 651 High Desert ESV) 0.0964 35,046 670 COCV) 0.6204 225,543 671 COCC Bond 0.0889 32,319 Total 14.0041 $5,091,123 1) Tax rates from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. 2) Tax revenues = (AV/1000) x Tax Rate x 0.97. Amount to taxing districts assuming the property owner takes advantage of the 3% discount for paying in full prior to 15 November. 3) High Desert Educational Service District. 4) Central Oregon Community College. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 21 Room Taxes Transient Room Tax revenues are generated from hotels and other overnight lodging facilities in Deschutes County. The tax rate is 7% of the total room charge payable to the County. As shown in Table 4-5, the estimated room tax revenue from the Thornburgh Resort is $430,296 per year. A complete technical explanation of room tax calculation is provided in the Appendix to the report. Currently room tax revenues are allocated to rural law enforcement and tourism, as shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-5 Estimated Transient Room Tax Revenues from Proposed Thornburgh Resort Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and rental rates) Number Daily Estimated Estimated of Room Occupancy Tax Daily Tax Annual Tax Type of Unit Units"' Rate"' Rate(3) Rate") Revenue 15) Revenue() Hotel Rooms 50 $121 29% 7% $123 $44,827 Residential Overnight Units() 425 $162 29% 7% $1,398 $408,115 Subtotal: $452,943 Less Collection Reimbursement('): ($22,647) Revenue to County: $430,296 1. Number of Units available as Visitor -Oriented Units is taken from page 4 of the Revised Application dated April 21, 2008. 2. Estimated Average Room Rate subject to the Room Tax. The rate for the Hotel is based on a weighted average of the rates for Hotels, Motels and Inns located in the Greater Redmond Area. The Inn at Eagle Crest showed standard room rates of $95 to $126 per night, depending on season. The rate for Residential Overnight Units is the average of the daily rate for 39 units in the Greater Redmond Oregon Area currently listed on the Vacation Rentals by Owner website for the area. Twenty-eight of these were located in Eagle Crest Resort. 3. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. So an occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then adjusted for the other months based on Total Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate of 29% for all rental types was derived. This table was also run assuming an annual occupancy rate of 100%, and 50% for both types of units. The resulting estimated revenue for Deschutes County was $1,818,010 for 100% and $909,005.13 for 50% annual occupancy rates. 4. The current Tax rate as set by Deschutes County Ordinance. 5. The number of units times the occupancy rate, times the daily room rate, times 7%. 6. The estimated Daily Tax Revenue times 365 days. For residential units, an 80% reporting rate for room taxes was assumed. 100% reporting was assumed for hotel rooms. 7. 425 is the number of units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for Short Term Rental at least 38 weeks a year. It is possible that some of the owners of the other 950 housing units in the resort might also want to rent their units at least some of the time, so the actual number of available rental units could be higher. 8. Deschutes County Code 4.08.120 requires the operator to bill the transient for the Room Tax as a separate line item on the invoice or receipt and allows the operator to retain a Collection Reimbursement Charge of up to 5% of all revenues collected. While it is possible for an operator to retain less then the full 5% permitted, for the purposes of this estimate a full 5% has been assumed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 22 Table 4-6 Distribution of Room Tax Revenues to County Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 room tax rates and rental values) Share" Amount For Rural Law Enforcement 73% $314,116 For Tourism -Related Activities 27% $116,180 Total Room Tax Revenue 100% $430,296 1) This distribution assumes the same 73-27% split as was used in the FY 2008-09 Budget for the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 23 S. Thornburgh Resort Costs This section examines the fiscal impacts of the proposed Thornburgh resort on the following six major service categories: Transportation System Schools Fire & EMS Public Safety System Parks & Recreation System General Government As described previously, costs occur in two basic categories: 1. Capital Costs: Initial, one-time costs for the increment of new or expanded capital (facilities, infrastructure and equipment) necessary to provide adequate levels of service to the resort; and, 2. O&M Costs: Annual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the services provided to the resort. The capital costs for expanding facilities, infrastructure and equipment were calculated for all six of the above service categories. These capital costs tend to be the greatest costs associated with serving new development. The O&M costs for providing services were calculated for fire/EMS, public safety, and parks and recreation. The tax revenues for each of these service areas were also determined, so that service costs could be compared with revenues. For transportation and schools, revenues come from multiple sources (County, State and Federal) and are allocated based on formulas described in the following sections. Since revenues for these two categories could not be tied directly to the resort, it was not possible to compare the annual O&M costs with the revenues resulting from resort development. O&M costs were not calculated for general government services due to the complexity of assigning service costs to the resort. The cost impacts the resort will have on these systems may be offset by tax revenues and impact fees or mitigation fees the resort will pay. The only impact or mitigation fees identified in this study are related to the transportation system. Deschutes County enacted transportation SDC (system development charge) in 2008. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is seeking mitigation funding from the resort for impacts to intersections with state highways. Both of these potential revenues are computed and deducted from the transportation system costs. The County collects no other impact fees and the Redmond School District collects no impact fee from new development. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & associates March 2009 page 24 The Thornburgh Resort is also credited with future tax payments that could potentially go towards repaying bonds for the infrastructure needs the resort creates. A new destination resort will increase the local tax base, which will distribute the bond repayment cost more widely. For example, if a new resort increases the local tax base by 5%, it will pay for 5% of the bond costs. The remaining 95% will be paid by the existing community. However, it is the new development that is creating the demand for new facilities that are calculated in this study, not the existing community. Therefore, new development will pay for only a fraction of the facility costs it creates (1/20` in this example). The actual 2008/09 tax bases for each category of service and the potential contribution of the resort towards future bond repayments is provided in the Appendix. To aid in calculating some costs, an estimate of the number of houses used as primary residences at the Thornburgh Resort and an occupancy rate of these residences was developed. Average occupancy per household in Deschutes County was 2.5 persons per the 2000 Census. The Census data is for all existing housing, and therefore does not accurately reflect the occupancy of new housing. New housing is typically larger than the average of exiting housing and typically has more occupants per unit. The American Housing Survey provides data on new homes for major cities in the US. The nearest city survey is for Portland where new housing units were found to have 8.2% higher occupancy levels than for all existing units." This same adjustment was applied to Deschutes County to produce an estimated household occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house. The percentage of housing in destination resorts used as primary residences has been the subject of some debate. Resort housing could be used for a primary residence, a second home (or vacation home), or a rental home (overnight unit). Undoubtedly, the mix of home uses will vary from resort to resort. The nearby Eagle Crest Resort appears to have a very similar profile to the proposed Thornburgh Resort and was used to establish a likely percentage of owner -occupied homes serving as primary residences. A complete tabulation of residential properties at Eagle Crest was generated by Deschutes County from County tax assessment data." There were 1,538 residential properties that were developed with homes on the tax rolls. Of these, 559 property owners received tax statements at their Eagle Crest address. Tax statements are usually sent to the property owner's primary residence, so this is highly indicative of a primary residence address. American Housing Survey for the Portland Metropolitan Area: 2002, Issued July 2003, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 18 Result from this tabulation were provided in Excel format to COLW by Tim Berg, Deschutes County Community Development Department on February 26, 2009. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 25 According to a survey provided to the County by Eagle Crest Resort, an estimated 252 of the single family homes in the resort were being used as overnight units rental units) in March of 2008.19 Deducting the 252 overnight units from the 1,538 total residential units leaves 1,286 owner -occupied units (both primary residences and second homes). Based on the addresses of the tax statements, the 559 primary residences represent 43% of the 1,286 owner -occupied units. The actual percentage of primary residences will be higher if some resort residents have tax bills sent to a post office box or to an accountant's address. 19 Letter from Alan VanVliet of Jeld-Wen Development to Catherine Morrow providing results of an annual housing survey, dated March 25, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 26 Transportation System Costs A key issue in destination resort development is the demand they place on the transportation infrastructure. The new travel demand generated by resorts creates costs for the required transportation infrastructure. The full cost of the transportation infrastructure to serve new growth is reflected both in the new infrastructure that must be built and in the existing capacity that is consumed. Travel demand is a function of both the number of new vehicle trips generated and the average trip distance. The combination of the number of daily trips and the average distance of trips results in the daily "vehicle miles traveled" or VMT. VMT reflects actual roadway usage, and therefore provides a good measure for allocating transportation system costs. Another measure of travel demand is "peak -hour trips," which is intended to reflect demand on the system during the peak period. Peak -hour trips are widely used in transportation studies because they provide an indication of transportation system conditions at the busiest time of day. However, as roads become more congested, travelers shift their travel times to avoid congestion. Instead, they contribute to congestion at other times. As transportation systems become more and more overburdened, peak congestion periods extend to multiple hours and can occur throughout the day. One deficiency of peak -hour trips is that they only capture those trips generated at the peak hour (usually 5-6pm weekdays) and miss traffic generation at other times. Schools, for example generate considerable traffic at other hours. Resorts will also generate most trips at other hours for golf and other recreational activities. With this measure, traffic sources that do not generate peak -hour trips are not counted as impacting the transportation system, despite increased travel demand. Peak -hour trips are based on the peak traffic hour of the adjacent roadway, and not the peak for the source of the trips being studied. Destination resorts are typically sited in relatively remote locations outside of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and away from existing cities and towns. Due to their remote locations, residents and guests will travel farther to reach common destinations, such as employment, grocery stores, department stores, etcetera. As a result, VMT generation will tend to be higher per unit of development than it would be in an urban location. Studies show that even in urban areas, the per capita VMT increases by a factor of two to three, or more on the urban fringe compared with the urban core. Daily per - capita VMT was found to be two to four times greater in the Atlanta suburbs than in Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 27 the city's core area.20 Similar findings were obtained for Eugene -Springfield in a 1994 travel study by Lane Council of Governments.21 According to a study in Rhode Island (1999), rural towns had on average 16.5 miles of local roads per 1,000 housing units, or almost three times as many as urban core communities (6.1 miles per 1,000 housing units)." Figure 5-1: Time of day for trips in rural Oregon (Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, 2' Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips. This is lower than the 9.57 trips that would be estimated using the ITE Trip Generation manual.24 Average rural trip time was 16.52 minutes. While this trip time is comparable to that in urban areas, rural trips will tend to cover more distance and be at a higher average speed, requiring 20 Source: Atlanta Journal -Constitution, 12/9/02, based on data from Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. 21 1994 Estimated VMT per Capita by Production Zone, by Lane Council of Governments. u The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island, Executive Summary, by Grow Smart Rhode Island, 1999, Providence, RI, The Rhode Island Foundation. Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000, Table 4.2. According to ODOT, survey data involves some underreporting, so actual daily trip will be higher than reported (see footnote, page 9 of Oregon Travel Behavior Survey). Institute of Transportation Engineers' reference manual for trip generation, 8`h Edition. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 28 more road infrastructure. If an average rural speed of 40 mph is assumed, the average trip distance would be 11 miles and household VMT would be 80.5 miles per day." The Cost of Transportation Facilities The "projection -based" method for estimating transportation system costs uses a planning estimate or projection of the future system improvements that are needed as a basis for allocating costs to the new development that will occur over the planning period. The County has prepared a 20 -year list of transportation projects as part of its adoption of a new transportation System Development Charge (SDC) in 2008. This list covers all projects in the unincorporated areas of the County that are anticipated from 2008 to 2028. The total cost of all projects is $280 million. Project costs are funding by a mix of County, State and Federal sources. Most of these projects are capacity -increasing and will serve the needs of new growth in the County. However, a portion of the projects are maintenance -related and will not expand the system capacity. Only a very brief description is available to characterize each project on the 20 -year list and no further information was available from the County. A simplified system was used to allocate individual project costs between capacity expansion and maintenance functions. New roads were allocated 100% to meet the needs of new growth. New bridges were allocated 75% to new growth. Road "widening and overlays" and "road reconstruction and widening," were allocated 50% to new growth. None of the costs for pedestrian and bike lane improvements were allocated to growth as they were considered system -wide upgrades. Based on this cost allocation, $240 million or 86% of these costs are growth -related capacity increasing), while $39 million, or 14% are for maintenance. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the project cost allocation. As shown in column 5 of Table 5- 1, Deschutes County will fund less than one-third of growth -related transportation facilities, while the State will fund two-thirds. (The Federal funding is shown as being fairly small, but Federal transportation funds that are distributed by the State are listed under the State funding, so the actual Federal contribution is larger than shown.) The average speed of 40 mph was used to reflect overall average trip speed, including stops, starts and turns on roadways with typical 55 mph speed limits. This was intended to be conservative, as higher trip speeds would result in longer travel distances and greater road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 29 Table 5-1 20 -year Transportation System Project List for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028)(') 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percent Percent of Growth Cost per Total Project of Total Growth -Related Growth Cost per Typical New Funding Entity Costs Costs Project Costs Costs Capita() House (4) Deschutes County 96,614,339 35% 70,165,715 29% 2,273 6,137 State of Oregon(2) 157,500,000 56% 157,500,000 66% 5,102 13,775 Federal Gov.(2) 25,431,250 9% 12,715,625 5% 412 1,112 Totals: 279,545,589 100% 240,381,340 100% 7,787 21,024 1) Source: Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. 2) State funding includes funds from the Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. 3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20 -year period. 4) Costs associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described earlier in this section of the report The per -capita cost for population growth can be estimated by allocating the growth - related (capacity increasing) components of the County's total future transportation system costs for the next 20 years ($240,381,340) to the estimated population increase for the same period. During this time period the population of the unincorporated County is projected to grow from 56,609 in 2008 to 87,480 in 2028, an increase of 30,871 people.26 This results in a cost of $7,787 per new person column 6 of Table 5-1). The County's share of this cost is $2,273 per person. The cost per new house can be estimated based on the typical occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house (calculated earlier). At this occupancy rate, the total cost per new house is $21,024. The County's share of this cost is $6,137 per new house. A new transportation System Development Charge (SDC) was approved by Deschutes County in July of 2008 to help recover a portion of the County's share of capacity -increasing transportation costs. While the State SDC Statute27 allows for a reimbursement component, the County's fee does not include a reimbursement component to recover the cost of existing roadway capacity that will be consumed by future growth. The SDC fee will be phased in gradually up to $3,504 per new peak - hour vehicle trip by 2011. For a new single-family dwelling, 1.01 peak -hour trips are generated and the SDC is $3,539 per SFD (not including the $45 administrative charge allowed by State Statute). Deducting the SDC (full 2011 rate) from the County's gross cost per new house ($6,137) results in a net transportation system cost to the County of $2,598 per new house for the capacity -increasing components. 26 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast was extended to 2028 using the growth rate for the 2020-2025 period of 2.2°/a/year. 2' ORS 223.297-314. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 30 Reimbursement Value of Existing Transportation Infrastructure As noted, the Deschutes County SDC project list does not address the value of transportation infrastructure capacity that has already been built that will be consumed by new development (also referred to as "excess capacity"). If average roadway congestion levels on existing roads did not increase over the 20 -year project timetable, then there would be no loss in mobility (or increase in congestion), and therefore no "consumption" of existing excess capacity. However, it is unlikely that the County will be able to build enough new facilities to prevent such congestion increases. Nationwide the roads have become increasing congested as cities, counties and states across the country have been unable to keep up with demand.28 To investigate changes in traffic levels on existing roadways, historic traffic count data must be analyzed. The County's traffic count data reports Average Daily Traffic ADT) for 281 roadway segments." Data was obtained from the County for the 11 - year period, 1998 to 2008. Data was not available for every year for every segment, so the average of the traffic counts in the first four years (1998-2001) was compared with average of the last four years (2005-2008). Only the 212 road segments that had traffic counts in both time periods were analyzed. The results show that traffic increased from an average ADT per road segment of 1,473 to 1,780, an increased volume of 20.8% on County roads in a roughly seven-year span.30 It is therefore reasonable to conclude that new development in the County is generating transportation system demand faster than the County is building new capacity and that new development is consuming existing excess road capacity. There is no data on the existing excess capacity of County roads. The County's Level -of -Service (LOS) standard for rural roads is "D" or better. A LOS of D represents average daily traffic (ADT) of up to 9,600 vehicles for a two-lane road. Therefore, 9,600 vehicles is the effective capacity of the roadway under the LOS standard. The County's 1996 Transportation System Plan shows ADT and LOS for the 36 busiest roadway segments in the County at that time. None of the segments exceeded a LOS of D and most were rated B or C with 3,000 to 5,000 ADT. Based on this somewhat dated data, it appears that the County had more than 50% excess capacity on its main road network in 1996.31 The 2007 Urban Mobility Report, by the Texas Transportation Institute reports that over last 24 years we have built only 41% of the transportation infrastructure necessary to keep up with growing demand. A sample of this data can be found on the Deschutes County Road Department web site at http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/download.cfm?DownloadFile=OD8135CF-BDBD-57C1- 98378109FA737581. The full data set was used for this study. 30 This increase in traffic occurred over a period of approximately seven years, based on using the midpoint of each of the two periods compared. The period is approximate because traffic count data was not available for all years. 31 The more -recent County traffic count data referred to earlier shows an average ADT at 212 road locations of 1,780 for the 2005-2008 period. If all of these roadways have a capacity of 9,600 ADT, Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 31 The value of the County's excess roadway capacity is significant, however, due to data limitation there is no direct way to accurately determine either the value of this capacity or the amount that will be consumed by new development. However, rather than leave this cost area completely unaddressed, a very rough, but conservative estimate was developed. To make this estimate, the following rough assumptions were used: 1. Excess capacity in 2008 is at least 40% of existing roadways. 2. New development over the next 20 years will consume half of the remaining excess capacity. 3. The value of the excess capacity can be indexed based on its replacement costs today and the population increase served by the total value of the capacity - increasing projects on the SDC project list. To roughly estimate the replacement value of the existing transportation system it was assumed that the value could be based on the estimated costs necessary to serve future population growth. The value of the growth -related (capacity increasing) projects in the 20 -year SDC project list is $240,381,340. This results in a cost of 7,787 for each new person projected in the County over the 20 -year period. Applying the per -capita cost to the 56,609 persons currently living in the unincorporated County in 2008 results in an existing system value of $441 million. This figure is the approximate replacement value for the system required to serve today's population. The figure is low, since it does not account for building the excess capacity that exists today. None -the -less, as a very rough estimate, the value of excess capacity consumed over the next 20 years is 20% of $441 million, or $88 million. Dividing $88 million by the projected population growth over the next 20 years of 30,871 people, results in a reimbursement cost of $2,856 per new person. Based on an occupancy rate for new homes of 2.7, the reimbursement cost per new home is $7,711. Table 5-2 combines the value of new facilities and the value of excess capacity used to serve new growth in the unincorporated area of the County. As shown, total transportation system costs (from all funding sources) for new growth are $10,637 per person, $28,720 per new house, and $3,929 per daily vehicle trip. Note that the estimates in Table 5-2 are based on planning projections and are therefore only as accurate as the projections they are based upon. then there is approximately 80% excess capacity in the road network. However, the data is not adequate to assess the actual capacity of each roadway segment. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 32 Standards -Based Costing Method The transportation system costs calculated above in Table 5-2 are based on the projected population growth of the County and the projected transportation infrastructure needs for the next 20 years. Both projections are estimates for a long period of time and could involve substantial errors. It is notoriously difficult to estimate future population growth, but it is even more difficult to anticipate and accurately estimate all the transportation infrastructure needs for a county 20 years into the future. To examine the transportation system costs from another perspective, a standards- based impact analysis was performed. This method is based on meeting County level -of -service (LOS) standards. Travel demand was used to determine the number of new lane -miles of roads that are needed to serve new homes. A roadway cost per - lane mile was developed and the number of lane -miles required by new development was used to estimate road costs. Estimates of new road costs were not available from Deschutes County, so road costs per lane -mile were compiled from three sources, including the County SDC project list and ODOT in order to develop a reasonable estimate. Values for two-lane, rural roads on flat terrain were selected. As shown in Table 5-4, the average cost per new lane -mile for all sources is $3.4 million. The seven new roads on the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Project List were used to develop one road cost estimate. The average cost of these roads per lane -mile was $3 million. The cost for one road segment included an overpass, so that some other roadway costs are included as well. Representative road costs should include the costs of intersections, signalization, bridges, and other associated system costs. For comparison, Table 5-4 shows the road costs for a rural road on flat terrain from ODOT's Highway Economic Requirement System ($2.7 million/lane-mile) and an estimate for rural roads from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute ($4.5 million/lane-mile). These figures bracketed the Deschutes County road costs, so the 3 million per lane -mile figure was used for road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 35 Table 5-4 Road Cost Estimates from Various Sources All costs adjusted to 2008 dollars) Cost per Lane -Mile Construction Land Source Cost Acquisition Cost Total Cost New Roads in Deschutes Co. SDC Project List(') $2,807,982 $240,000 $3,047,982 ODOT New HERS Improvement Costs(2) $2,461,980 $240,000 $2,701,980 Victoria Transportation Policy Institute(') $4,199,040 $263,340 $4,462,380 Averaqe of Sources: $3,404,114 1) Average cost for new roads on list. Land values based on total road ROW width of 80 feet and land acquisition costs of $50,000 per acre. 2) ODOT New Highway Economic Requirement System (HERS) Improvement Costs, lane -mile costs for constructing new rural major collector on flat terrain. 3) Source: ViPI Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II — Roadway Costs, Table 5.6.34, January 2009. Value for undivided highways in outlying areas. Year 2000 dollars were adjusted to 2008 using Oregon Highway Construction Cost Trends. As described earlier, the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey provides the best available travel demand data for rural households in the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. From this survey data it was estimated that the average daily rural household VMT is 80.5 miles. To translate this into a lane -mile demand for new roadways, a level -of -service standard must be assumed. The County's minimum LOS standard of "D" represents the maximum congestion limits acceptable on County roads. The ADT at LOS D is 9,600 vehicles. A two-lane roadway operating at LOS D could accommodate 4,800 vehicles per day per lane in each direction. At this congestion level, the lane -mile distance required to accommodate the 80.5 miles of daily VMT generated by the typical rural household is 0.017 lane -miles. The cost of building 0.017 lane miles at $3 million per lane -mile, is $51,000 per new household. To maintain a higher LOS standard of "C" (ADT of 5,700, closer to what County residents now enjoy), requires 0.028 lane miles per new household, or $84,000 in new road system costs per new household. The costs on a per -trip basis are shown for both LOS standards in Table 5-5. While costs of $51,000 to $84,000 per household may seem incredibly high, they should be adjusted even higher to reflect the higher occupancy rate that can be expected in a new home compared with the average of existing homes from which the travel survey data was derived. Using the 8% higher occupancy rate of a new house relative to an existing house, the costs would be $55,000 to $90,700 for LOS of D and C respectively. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 36 Table 5-5 Standards -Based Transportation System Costs per New Vehicle Trip Cost Per Household Cost Per New Vehicle Trip(') Cost to maintain LOS "D" $51,000 $6,977 Cost to maintain LOS "C" $84,000 $11,491 1) Based on 7.31 trips per household reported for Deschutes County in the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey. These standards-based costs are much higher than the $28,720 per new house cost estimated by using the County's 20 -year projections for new road infrastructure and population growth. One possible reason for the higher standards-based cost is that the County is not planning enough future road capacity to maintain current LOS standards and will see roads become increasingly congested in the future. As mentioned previously, road congestion is increasing nationwide and planned road construction is inadequate to maintain current standards. The high cost of maintaining even the County's minimum LOS standard under continuing growth may be too high for the public to bear. Instead of paying for construction of new roads, county residents will likely pay indirectly through the travel delays and increased fuel use associated with growing congestion. Standards -Based Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort As noted previously, a destination resort generates a complex mix of uses and accommodates many of its vehicle trip onsite. The trip generation estimate from Kittelson and Associates is a total trip generation rate of 4.4 trips per dwelling unit that includes all uses in the resort (residential and commercial). For Thornburgh this would be 6,050 daily vehicle trips. Using the cost per vehicle trip to maintain a LOS of D of $6,977 from Table 5-5, the cost for building the offsite road capacity for 6,050 new trips is $42.2 million. Depending on the fiscal impact analysis method employed, the gross transportation facilities costs for the Thornburgh Resort would range from $23.3 million to $42.2 million (see Table 5-6). While both figures are reasonable estimates, the higher, standards-based figure probably does a better job of representing the full cost of transportation system impacts. This is because the standards-based method assures that the current minimum LOS standard of D is maintained, while the projection - based method does not. It is also worth reiterating that the LOS standard used here still allows for a considerable increase in average road congestion that is not included in the $42.2 million cost, and therefore is a conservative (low) estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 37 Table 5-6 Estimated Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Impact Analysis Method Cost Planning projection -based estimate $23.3 million Standards-based estimate (LOS=D) $42.2 million Net Transportation Cost from Thornburgh Resort To obtain a net cost, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. The Thornburgh Resort will pay a Transportation SDC for each development. The SDC may be based on the standard rate indicated in the SDC adoption resolution, or an alternative rate based on the applicant's data showing that a reduced number of vehicle trips will be generated.34 The approximate total SDC payments under both methods range from $1.8 million to $6.5 million, as shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 Alternative Method with Trip Reductions Resort's Estimated PM Peak Trips 2) 517.0 $3,504 $1,811,568 1) Excludes administrative fees. 2) Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 9B, prepared for Thornburgh Resort. According to an unsigned "Cooperative Improvement Agreement" between the Thornburgh Resort and ODOT, the resort will mitigate its immediate, direct 34 Deschutes County Resolution #2008-059 establishes the SDC charge, standard rates, and the allowance for exceptions to the standard rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 38 Estimated SDC Payments for Thornburgh Resort— Conventional Method Assumes full rate charged with no trip reductions) ITE Expected PM Trip Cost per Full SDC Code SDC Category Units Units Rate PM Trips Trip"1 Rate 210 SF Detached DU 1375 1.01 1388.8 3,504 4,866,180 310 Hotel Rooms 50 0.59 29.5 3,504 103,368 493 Athletic Club TSF Gross 60 5.76 345.6 3,504 1,210,982 710 General Office TSF Gross 15 1.49 22.4 3,504 78,314 814 Specialty Retail TSF Gross 20 2.71 54.2 3,504 189,917 931 Quality Restaurant TSF Gross 5 2.15 10.8 3,504 37,668 Totals: 1851.2 6,486,430 Alternative Method with Trip Reductions Resort's Estimated PM Peak Trips 2) 517.0 $3,504 $1,811,568 1) Excludes administrative fees. 2) Transportation Impact Analysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 9B, prepared for Thornburgh Resort. According to an unsigned "Cooperative Improvement Agreement" between the Thornburgh Resort and ODOT, the resort will mitigate its immediate, direct 34 Deschutes County Resolution #2008-059 establishes the SDC charge, standard rates, and the allowance for exceptions to the standard rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 38 Table 5-2 Estimated Transportation System Costs to Serve New Growth for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028) County Costs State Costs() Federal Costs Total Costs Value of New Capacity for Future Growth0) $70,165,715 $157,500,000 $12,715,625 $240,381,340 Value of Existing Capacity Consumed(2) share unknown share unknown share unknown $88,000,000 Total Growth -Related Costs share unknown share unknown share unknown $328,381,340 Cost per Capita for New Population(') $10,637 Cost per New House (4) $28,720 Cost per Daily Vehicle Trip(') $3,929 1) Derived from Deschutes County SDC Project List, 2008. 2) Rough estimate based on estimated excess system capacity consumed by new growth. 3) Growth -related costs are divided by the projected population increase over the same 20 -year period. 4) Cost associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons, as described at the beginning of this section. 5) Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips 6) State funding includes funds from Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Estimating the transportation system impacts associated with a destination resort is more complex because standardized data on destination resort travel demand is unavailable and the use has unique characteristics. These resorts contain a variety of commercial and residential uses. The commercial uses cannot be readily estimated from the same per -capita basis used for residential land uses. Also, resorts will accommodate a certain percentage of vehicle trips internally. Internal trips are those that do not leave the resort, and would include residents visiting the golf course or resort restaurant. Since the road structure within the resort is funded entirely by the resort developer, these internal trips do not create an impact on the external public road system. There are various estimates for the number of external vehicle trips generated by resorts. The Thornburgh Resort submitted their own traffic study showing that a vast majority of vehicle trips would be accommodated internally and that the resort would generate a total of 517 peak PM hour trips (5-6pm weekdays).32 However, the peak PM trips" metric failed to capture the peak trip generation by the resort, which occurred earlier than for the adjacent roadways. Peak resort traffic occurred between 1pm and 4pm. Transportation ImpactAnalysis, Revision II, by Group McKenzie, September 28, 2005, Table 9B. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 33 A study by Kittelson and Associates33 measured the traffic generation from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort by counting trips in and out of the resort for several weekday periods. The study concluded that 4.4 offsite trips are generated per residential unit and suggested that this is an appropriate value to use for destination resorts. These trip counts include all the commercial and recreational activities at the resort, as well as the residences. Therefore, they are an indication of the total trip generation by the resort, indexed to the number of residential units. The Thornburgh Resort has 1,375 residential units. Based on the Kittelson Study, the resort would generate at total of 6,050 daily vehicle trips. These would all be external, or offsite trips. For comparison purposes, the trips were estimated using standard trip generation rates for conventional development (see Table 5-3). As a conventional development, the uses at Thornburgh would generate approximately 17,054 daily vehicle trips. However, since destination resorts are likely to accommodate more vehicle trips internally than conventional developments, the empirical data from Kittelson was used instead. Using the estimate based on the Kittelson Study of 6,050 daily trips and the cost per vehicle trip of $3,929 from Table 5-2, the total gross transportation system cost associated with the resort is $23.8 million. To obtain a net cost for the Thornburgh Resort, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. That step is done at the conclusion to this section. Table 5-3 Conventional Trip Generation Estimate for Thornburgh Destination Resort(') Expected Expected Daily Description (ITE Code) Units() Units Trips Single Family Homes (210) DU 1,375 13,159 Hotel (310) Rooms 50 446 Health/Fitness Club (493) TSF Gross 60 1,976 General Office (710) TSF Gross 15 165 Shopping Center (820) TSF Gross 20 859 Quality Restaurant (931) TSF Gross 5 450 Total Trips: 17,054 1) Based on rTE Trip Generation manual, r Edition. 2) DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet of gross floor area Central Oregon Resort Trip Generation Study, by Kittelson and Associates, September 12, 2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 34 impacts on a nearby intersection with the State highway. This mitigation includes payment of up to $1,125,000 towards improvements at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection in Tumalo. The improvement to the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection is included on the SDC project list, so this contribution should be deducted from the resort's gross transportation system costs. The maximum potential payment of $1,250,000 is applied. The increase in State gas tax revenues resulting from the resort should also be considered. Gas taxes are collected from gasoline sales, but the State distributes them to counties based on the number of registered vehicles in the county. The extent to which the resort increases the number of county -wide registered vehicles will determine the increase in gas tax revenues attributed to the resort. Only permanent, year -around residents of the resort are likely to register their vehicles locally. There was no clear method for estimating the increase in the number of register vehicles resulting from the resort, so this impact could not be computed. However, the impact would be quite small. For example, if there were 400 additional registered vehicles, County Road Fund revenue would increase less than $16,000, which would be insignificant relative to the costs.35 The final cost estimate for the transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort assumes that the resort will apply for trip reductions to lower their SDC payment to a total of $1.8 million. As shown in Table 5-8, the final cost range is 20.7 million to $39.1 million, depending on the impact method used. The higher standards-based figure is used in the final impact analysis because it does a better job of reflecting the full impacts of this development, as discussed previously. Table 5-8 Estimated Net Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Maximum SDC Developer Impact Analysis Method Gross Cost Payments(') Contribution(" Net Cost Planning projection -based estimate $23,770,450 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $20,708,882 Standards-based estimate (LoS=D) $42,210,850 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $39,149,282 1) Assumes alternate SDC calculation method with trip reductions. 2) Maximum possible contribution towards ODOT expenses at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection For the 2007-08 fiscal year Deschutes County received $7,963,277 in State Road Funds and had 205,402 registered vehicles, equivalent to $38.77 per registered vehicle (based on Oregon Department of Transportation, Financial Services, Highway Revenues Apportionment data). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 39 School Facilities Costs Destination resorts will generate new K-12 school students and additional demand for school facilities. This section looks at the likely impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort on the revenues and costs of the Redmond School District. The resort will generate school students both from the new resort housing and from the newcomers attracted to fill jobs created by the resort. According the current Working Draft of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan:` Schools One of the basic problems with larger amounts of residential development is that it rarely pays in property taxes for the services that must be provided. This is particularly true for the most expensive public facility --schools. Additional permanent residences require more facilities and teachers. When this plan was written, much of the new development had been provided for seasonal recreation and was therefore not likely to require schools. However, the County was realizing that much of the seasonal development was becoming full-time residences. This forced the school districts to seek additional funds for new buildings and more teachers. In addition, costs rose because many of the new residences were in rural areas and required ever more expensive busing. Student Generation by Resort Housing The new, private resort homes that are occupied as primary residences will generate new school students, but the specific level of student generation is unknown. There is no data that clearly differentiate the student generation rate of a private home in a destination resort from a typical new home in the same county. If resort homes are occupied full-time by their owners, they may have a similar demographic profile to other new houses in the area. If they are used as part-time second homes (or vacation homes), they will generate few, if any new students. It is assumed that homes built exclusively for overnight lodging purposes will generate no new students. Therefore, homes designated for overnight lodging are not included in the following analysis. As described at the beginning of this section, homes used as primary residences were found to constitute 43% of owner -occupied (non overnight) units in the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. This percentage may vary considerably from resort to resort. In order to examine the potential impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are used to model the range of potential student generation by the private, owner occupied homes in the resort: 36 Working Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, draft of 5-14-08, Page 3-18. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 40 Scenario #1: High student generation. Private, owner -occupied homes in the resort are assumed to generate the same demand as new private homes elsewhere in the County. (Overnight units are assumed to generate no demand.) This scenario may become increasing likely if resort homes are purchased and used as primary residences. The Thornburgh resort has no age limits or household limitations regarding children, so the market will decide who owns these units and how they are used. A continued weak national economy may encourage consolidation of home ownerships, reducing the number of second homes. A weaker economy may also reduce the sizes and prices of future resort homes, making them more attractive to families. Scenario #2: Low student generation. This is the "vacation resort" scenario. Private, owner -occupied homes in the resort are assumed to be used largely as retirement homes and as second (vacation) homes and to generate only 25% of the new students generated by new homes elsewhere in the County. This scenario would be more applicable if expensive, higher -end housing is constructed, which would favor more -affluent owners and may reduce the number of families with school-age children and increase the percentage of retirees without school-age children. If a resort were age -restricted (such as 55 and above), it might generate no students from the new homes. However, we are not aware of any destination resorts in Oregon with age restrictions. In Deschutes County, 16.1% of the population is of K-12 school age, 5 through 17 years of age.37 This is slightly lower than the statewide school-age figure of 16.9% of the population. Applying the percent of school-age children to the occupancy rate of 2.7 for new homes, yields a school-age generation rate of 0.43 students per new house. State Law requires that destination resorts provide a certain amount of overnight accommodations to assure that they meet their tourism function. In Deschutes County there must be at least one housing unit available for overnight accommodations for every two private, owner -occupied housing unit created at a destination resort. Most resorts build only the minimum number of overnight units, and therefore adhere closely to this ratio. It is not clear that resorts continue to adhere to the minimum number of overnight units once construction is completed, and some overnight units may convert to owner -occupied status. For the Thornburgh Resort, 950 of the 1,375 housing units will be owner -occupied. A 50 -room hotel will be used to meet the balance of the overnight housing requirement. There are no age or demographic restrictions on ownership, so the use 37 The most recent US Census estimates for households in Deschutes County are for 2006. This data includes the incorporated areas of the county. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 41 of these homes will be market-driven. These homes may be used either as primary residences or as second homes (vacation homes). Table 5-9: Estimated K-12 student generation by residential housing at Thornburgh Resort. Student Generation from Resort Employment In addition to student generation from the housing in a destination resort, there is a secondary demand resulting from the new jobs created at the resort. These new jobs will attract new households to the area and generate new students. Since the construction jobs are temporary, the number of new students generated by resort employment will fluctuate as households move in and out of the area to meet employment needs. Employment impacts are addressed in more detail in the Economic Impacts section of this report. The direct and induced employment resulting from the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to peak in year six at 2,015 jobs and then decline by 1,471 jobs to a steady level of 544 jobs from year twelve onward. There is no straightforward method for estimating school system impacts resulting from short-term employment. Undoubtedly the students generated by the 1,471 temporary jobs will significantly impact the school system. This study evaluates the school impacts resulting from only the permanent jobs generated by the resort. These employment-related school impacts are included in order to better account for the full impact resort development has on the local school district. Based on estimates developed in the Economic Impacts section, 347 new households will be created by the 408 jobs filled by newcomers. Table 5-10: Estimated K-12 student generation by newcomers filling permanent jobs at Thornburgh Resort. Total new housing units for resort -related employment 347 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 Students generated by resort employment 149 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 42 Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Total owner -occupied housing units 950 950 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 0.11 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Student Generation from Resort Employment In addition to student generation from the housing in a destination resort, there is a secondary demand resulting from the new jobs created at the resort. These new jobs will attract new households to the area and generate new students. Since the construction jobs are temporary, the number of new students generated by resort employment will fluctuate as households move in and out of the area to meet employment needs. Employment impacts are addressed in more detail in the Economic Impacts section of this report. The direct and induced employment resulting from the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to peak in year six at 2,015 jobs and then decline by 1,471 jobs to a steady level of 544 jobs from year twelve onward. There is no straightforward method for estimating school system impacts resulting from short-term employment. Undoubtedly the students generated by the 1,471 temporary jobs will significantly impact the school system. This study evaluates the school impacts resulting from only the permanent jobs generated by the resort. These employment-related school impacts are included in order to better account for the full impact resort development has on the local school district. Based on estimates developed in the Economic Impacts section, 347 new households will be created by the 408 jobs filled by newcomers. Table 5-10: Estimated K-12 student generation by newcomers filling permanent jobs at Thornburgh Resort. Total new housing units for resort -related employment 347 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 Students generated by resort employment 149 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 42 Table 5-11 shows total student generation for new resort housing and resort employment. Under Scenario #1, resort housing will generate a similar number of new students as other new housing in Deschutes County, resulting in a total of 558 new students. Under Scenario #2, resort housing will generate only 25% of the students of a typical new house in the County, resulting in a total of 253 new students. These two scenarios provide a reasonable range of 251 to 558 new students generated by the Thornburgh Resort. Table 5-11: Total K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Students generated by resort employment 149 149 Total students generated 558 251 School Funding in Oregon Schools in Oregon are funded primarily by a combination of state and local sources. The primary local source is property taxes. The State School Fund formula determines how much state funding a school district gets. The formula bases the state funding on the number of students served and deducts the local property taxes going to schools. The state funding is directed to school operations, maintenance, repairs and transportation needs. If the local property tax revenues increase due to a new destination resort, the state contribution to local school funding will be reduced by an equal amount. For new students generated by the resort, the district will receive the same funding per student as they do for the rest of their students. Therefore, new developments provide no extra funding to local school districts for general operations. New school facilities needed to serve growth are funded primarily through issuance of voter -approved local general obligation bonds that are repaid through local property taxes. Local property tax revenues for bond repayment are not deducted from the State's operation funding. The tax base for the Redmond School District comes from the total assessed values of the District in both Deschutes County and Jefferson County. Table 5-12 shows the total tax base is $4,937,455,942 for 2008-09. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 43 Table 5-12: Assessed value for the Redmond School District 2J tax base. Assessed Value Total County 2008-090) Deschutes County $3,594,082,824 Jefferson County $1,343,373,118 Total School District Tax Base: $4,937,455,942 1) Source: Redmond School District Assuming that the Thornburgh Resort is fully built out as planned, the estimated increase in the assessed value of the school district's tax base would be $374,788,817. At full buildout, Thornburgh would represent 7.1% of the tax base available to the school district. Based on the estimated increase in the total tax base available to the Redmond School District that would be created by the Thornburgh Resort, the resort will pay for approximately 7.1% of facility bonds issued for new construction by the District. This percentage will be deducted from the school facility costs generated by the resort. School Facility Costs To estimate the cost of expanding school facilities to increase student capacity, the total costs for new facilities at all grade levels must be determined. The Redmond School District passed a bond in May of 2008 for a new high school and new elementary school. A new middle school was built by the District in 2006. The costs for these new facilities are added to the land values to obtain a total school facility cost for each grade level, as shown in Table 5-13 below. Table 5-13: School facility costs, Redmond School District, 2008. Notes: 1) Building costs based on a bond issue by the Redmond SD approved by voters May 20, 2008 as Measure 9-56. 2) Building cost based on Elton Gregory Middle School completed in 2006 for $20 million. Costs adjusted to 2008 using ENR Construction Cost Index for closest location (Seattle). 3) Based on actual acreage and a current land value estimate of $200,000 per acre. The total school facility cost is divided by the capacity of students for each facility to calculate at cost per unit of student capacity (see Table 5-14). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 44 Total School Grade Level Building Cost Land Cost(') Facility Cost High school(') 80,000,000 13,600,000 93,600,000 Middle schools 1 22,764,955 3,000,000 25,764,955 Elementary school(') 20,000,000 2,600,000 22,600,000 Notes: 1) Building costs based on a bond issue by the Redmond SD approved by voters May 20, 2008 as Measure 9-56. 2) Building cost based on Elton Gregory Middle School completed in 2006 for $20 million. Costs adjusted to 2008 using ENR Construction Cost Index for closest location (Seattle). 3) Based on actual acreage and a current land value estimate of $200,000 per acre. The total school facility cost is divided by the capacity of students for each facility to calculate at cost per unit of student capacity (see Table 5-14). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 44 Table 5-14: School facility costs per unit student capacity, Redmond School District, 2008. The "cost per unit of student capacity" is then distributed across the student generation rate at each grade level for a typical new house in Deschutes County, as shown in Table 5-15. Based on facility costs in the Redmond School District, the total school facilities cost associated with typical new house is $21,542. Table 5-15: School facility costs per new house, Redmond School District, 2008. Cost per Percent of Cost per Unit School Total School Student Student Grade Level Facility Cost Capacity"' Capacity High school 93,600,000 1400 66,857 Middle school 25,764,955 804 32,046 Elementary school 22,600,000 600 37,667 1) Capacity for each school from Redmond School District. Middle school 32,046 The "cost per unit of student capacity" is then distributed across the student generation rate at each grade level for a typical new house in Deschutes County, as shown in Table 5-15. Based on facility costs in the Redmond School District, the total school facilities cost associated with typical new house is $21,542. Table 5-15: School facility costs per new house, Redmond School District, 2008. 1) Based on 2007 enrollment data. Estimated School Facilities Costs for Thornburgh Resort The Redmond School District does not charge a school excise fee (a development impact fee authorized by the State Legislature) for new and expanded school facilities, so development makes no direct contribution to school facility costs outside of ordinary property tax payments. If the district were to adopt the fee, it could collect up to $1 per square foot. A new 3,000 square foot house would pay a fee of up to $3,000. Based on the high and low student generation rate scenarios (Scenarios #1 and #2), it is possible to estimate the range of total students generated by the destination resort and the resulting total facility costs. The Thornburgh Resort will generate costs for new and expanded school facilities ranging from a low estimate of $12.6 million to a high of $27.9 million, as shown in Table 5-16. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 45 Cost per Percent of Student School Unit Total Students Generation by Facility Student at Grade Grade Level for Costs per Grade Level Capacity Level"' New House New House High school 66,857 47% 0.202 13,507 Middle school 32,046 23% 0.098 3,147 Elementary school 37,667 30% 0.130 4,888 Totals: 100% 0.430 21,542 1) Based on 2007 enrollment data. Estimated School Facilities Costs for Thornburgh Resort The Redmond School District does not charge a school excise fee (a development impact fee authorized by the State Legislature) for new and expanded school facilities, so development makes no direct contribution to school facility costs outside of ordinary property tax payments. If the district were to adopt the fee, it could collect up to $1 per square foot. A new 3,000 square foot house would pay a fee of up to $3,000. Based on the high and low student generation rate scenarios (Scenarios #1 and #2), it is possible to estimate the range of total students generated by the destination resort and the resulting total facility costs. The Thornburgh Resort will generate costs for new and expanded school facilities ranging from a low estimate of $12.6 million to a high of $27.9 million, as shown in Table 5-16. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 45 Table 5-16: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resortl' 950 238 Number of new households for permanent employees Total new households generating school-age students Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) School facility costs per new house 347 347 1297 585 558 251 21,542 21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x $/hse): $27,939,974 $12,591,299 Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate noschoolchildren. For the final fiscal impact on school facilities, only the student generation from Thornburgh Resort housing was included. Impacts from resort employment were not included in order to be consistent with the rest of the impact study, which did not include secondary or induced impacts. The costs associated with only the resort housing range from $5 million to $20 million, as shown in Table 5-17. Table 5-17: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing. In order to credit the resort for future property tax payments that would potentially contribute to school construction bonds, the estimated 7.1% contribution to the tax base should be deducted from the school facility costs attributed to the resort (see previous discussion on this). Therefore the net costs for school facilities attributed to the resort range from $4.8 million to $19 million, as shown in Table 5-18. To be conservative, the $4.8 million cost associated with the low -student -generation -rate scenario (Scenario #2) was used in the final cost estimates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 46 Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resort(') 950 238 Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 409 102 School facility costs per new house 21,542 21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x $/hse): 20,464,900 5,116,225 Note (1) Scenario #1 assumes that 950 owner -occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County, while Scenario #2 assumes that only 25% of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. In order to credit the resort for future property tax payments that would potentially contribute to school construction bonds, the estimated 7.1% contribution to the tax base should be deducted from the school facility costs attributed to the resort (see previous discussion on this). Therefore the net costs for school facilities attributed to the resort range from $4.8 million to $19 million, as shown in Table 5-18. To be conservative, the $4.8 million cost associated with the low -student -generation -rate scenario (Scenario #2) was used in the final cost estimates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 46 Table 5-18: Net K-12 school facilities costs for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Total school facilities costs: Net School Facilities Costs Scenario #1 Scenario #2 20,464,900 $5,11b,225 Future property tax contribution (at 7.1 %) ($1,453,008) ($363,252) Net school facilities costs: $19,011,892 $4,752,973 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 47 Fire & EMS System Costs The Thornburgh resort would receive fire and emergency medical service (EMS) services from the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 (DC RFPD#1). Four of the ten existing land parcels that make up the proposed Thornburgh Resort are located within the boundaries of the Fire District and the remaining 6 parcels have been recently annexed within the District at the request of the resort developer. Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 does not independently provide fire and EMS services, but rather has entered into a cooperative agreement with the City of Redmond to jointly provide Fire Protection and EMS services to both City and District residents through Redmond Fire and Rescue (RF&R). With an annual budget of $6,483,074 and utilizing the services of 40 career and 23 volunteer fire fighters, Redmond Fire and Rescue provides fire and EMS services to the 42,000 residents of its 145 square mile service area (450 square miles for ambulance service).38 To do this it operates four fire stations: The Headquarters Station located within Redmond proper; the Airport Station at Roberts Field; and the Cline Falls and Terrebonne Fire Stations within DC RFPD#1. Operational Capacity Assessing the capacity of a fire department is a difficult task. First, it is impossible, for both fiscal and operational reasons, to have a fire department of sufficient size to meet all possible operational situations. Second, the random nature of emergency calls makes establishing a reasonable base level of service difficult. In 2007 RF&R experienced 4,253 dispatched 9-1-1 service calls, 2,864 in the city of Redmond and 1,388 rural calls.39 This included 2,894 EMS calls, 830 fire calls and 511 medical transfers. While this averages out to roughly 12 calls per day, or 3 calls per station per day, these call levels are not consistent. They can come in bunches as well as one at a time. Several years ago, a single arsonist, starting fires along Highway 97 managed to overtax the fire departments in three Central Oregon counties.ao The impression from Chief Knorr's report on RF&R operations in the agency's 2007 Annual Report is that of an organization operating within its capabilities. Yet one of the unfunded budget requests in the FY 2008-09 RF&R Budget was for three additional firefighter/paramedics to staff a second ambulance to handle non- emergency medical transfers. Because this went unfunded, the Terrebonne position 38 2007 Annual Report, Redmond Fire & Rescue, page 11 and data provided by RF&R staff. 39 2007 Annual Report, Redmond Fire & Rescue, page 3. From phone conversation with Redmond Fire and Rescue staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 48 is vacant and they are unable to respond to calls for these transfers.41 It appears that the Redmond Fire & Rescue has sufficient capacity to provide a reasonable level of Fire Protection for the 42,000 residents living and working within its 145 -square mile area of responsibly. Whether the RF&R has sufficient un -utilized operational capacity to provide additional fire protection for the residents of the Thornburgh Resort is not clear. Capital Costs The combined operation provides one fully -equipped fire station for every 10,500 residents.42 In order to apply this current population -based service standard to the resort, an "effective population" was used that reflects the number of structures at the resort requiring fire protection. This population figure is the number of people typically associated with these structures in the County and is not intended to represent the actual population of the resort at any given time.43 As shown in Table 5-19 the Thornburgh Resort would have an effective population for Fire/EMS demand of 3,813. To meet the standard of one station for every 10,500 people, an additional 36.3% of a fire station would need to be provided to meet the demand Thornburgh places on the capacity of Redmond Fire & Rescue. Table 5-19 Thornburgh Effective Population Estimate for Fire/EMS System Demand Estimated Population: 3,813 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is the residential occupancy rate for new homes in Deschutes County. 2) Number of Units x Persons per Unit. 3) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. 41 Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 5 42 It would be preferable to use number of addresses or type or number of structures located within the district as the main metric in an evaluation of this type, but as Redmond Fire & Rescue does not have that data we were limited to what is available, which is population data. In the case of fire protection, all buildings (empty as well as occupied) have the potential of placing demand on the capacity of the system. "Effective population" was used here to reflect the number of structures in the resort, relative to those serving the general population. This population figure is different than the figure used in estimating the demand Thornburgh would place on public safety or public parks. In the case of public safety or the park system, it is people who place demand on the capacity of the system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 49 Number of Persons per Persons per Type of Housing Unit units unit(') Type (2) Hotel 50 2 100 Residential Overnight Units(') 425 2.7 1,148 Houses 950 2.7 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,813 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is the residential occupancy rate for new homes in Deschutes County. 2) Number of Units x Persons per Unit. 3) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. 41 Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 5 42 It would be preferable to use number of addresses or type or number of structures located within the district as the main metric in an evaluation of this type, but as Redmond Fire & Rescue does not have that data we were limited to what is available, which is population data. In the case of fire protection, all buildings (empty as well as occupied) have the potential of placing demand on the capacity of the system. "Effective population" was used here to reflect the number of structures in the resort, relative to those serving the general population. This population figure is different than the figure used in estimating the demand Thornburgh would place on public safety or public parks. In the case of public safety or the park system, it is people who place demand on the capacity of the system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 49 The Terrebonne Fire Station opened in August of 2007 and is the newest station in the Redmond Fire and Rescue system. It cost $1.3 million dollars to construct. The cost of constructing a similar station in 2008 is about $1,362,920.4 This station is staffed 24/7 by 6 firefighters and has the equipment listed in Table 5-20. Table 5-20 Fire Apparatus at Terrebonne Fire Station Equipment Typeltl Cost Light Rescue Truck() 70,000 Light Brush Truck (Type 6 Fire Engine)() 80,000 Heavy Brush Truck() 150,000 Fire Engine(5) 250,000 Ambulance(') 150,000 Total 700,000 Notes 1) Equipment list provided by staff at the Terrebonne Station. In addition to the apparatus listed that station also has a boat to facilitate access to parts of Smith Rock Park. 2) The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet. 3) The $80,000 is the amount budgeted to purchase the truck. 4) The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet 5) The cost value used was provided by RF&R staff. The combined cost of constructing a new station and providing it with the same type and number of apparatus is about $2,062,920.45 Based on the estimated need to provide 36.3% of a new fire station to serve the Thornburgh Resort, the total capital cost for providing Fire Protection services to the resort is about $748,840. Oregon Law does not permit the imposition of System Development Charges or impact fees to recover the Fire/EMS system capital costs associated with new development. Therefore, these capital costs for expanding the system will fall on all of the property owners within the DCRPD#1, not just those in the Thornburgh Resort. One of the projects RF&R has been undertaking is researching the feasibility of a fire station in DCRFPD#1's southern area. Due to prudent fiscal planning the DCRFPD#1 has $840,800 in its building reserve fund and $77,250 in its equipment 4a Adjusted using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the nearest city (Seattle). 41 In addition to the fire house structure and the fire apparatus there are a large number of other items that are needed for a fully functioning Fire Station. Items such as beds, stove, washer -dryer, hoses, breathing apparatus, tools, lights, hose nozzles, etcetera, were not included in this cost estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 50 reserve.46 However, that is much less then the $2,062,920 needed to build and equip an additional fire station in the District's southern operating area, particularly as those funds would also be needed to cover the eventual replacement of existing buildings and equipment. To obtain the final net fire/EMS system costs, estimated future contributions to the District tax base from the resorts are deducted from the cost above. If fully developed, the Thornburgh Resort would represent 22% of the DCRFPD#1 tax base. Deducting the contribution through future tax payments, leaves a net cost for fire/EMS facilities of $580,813, as shown in Table 5-21. Table 5-21: Net fire/EMS facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Fire/EMS Facilities Costs Total fire/EMS facilities cost: 748,840 Future property tax contribution (at 22%) ($168,027) Net fire/EMS facilities cost: $580,813 Operational Costs Redmond Fire & Rescue has an annual budget of $6,487,876 of which $5,830,680 is allocated for department operations 47, 48 That amount includes the replacement of the division commander's vehicle and $27,000 to replace four ambulance gurneys and similar operational expenses. For the service district population, this operations cost amounts to $138.83 per resident per year. For the estimated 3,813 Thornburgh residents, it should take about $529,359 to maintain this level of service. It is important to note that 18 of the firefighter positions in the RF&R are to be filled by volunteers. As such, the value of their labor is not included in that operational cost 49 At this time, finding individuals with the interest, ability and commitment necessary to become volunteer firefighters is not easy. As reported in the Revenues section of this report, Thornburgh Resort property owners will pay an estimated $637,731 in property taxes to the DCRFPD#1. This exceeds the estimated cost of $529,359 needed to provide the current level of service 46 DCRFPD# 1 FY 2008-09 Annual Budget 47 Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 4 Ibid Section 2, Fire Fund, City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget, page 2 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 51 for those residents. The revenue surplus of $108,372 would not be adequate to meet the capital costs to build and equip the additional fire station infrastructure necessary to serve the resort. There is another non -monetary operational cost that the rest of the District residents will bear, at least in the short term, because of the development of the Resort within their District: A reduction in the level of service caused by increased driving time. The Thornburgh resort is located at the extreme edge of the district's southwest boundary and, as a result, fire and EMS vehicles going to and coming from Thornburgh will have longer response times to call in other parts of the district. The construction of an additional fire station in the southern part of the DCRFPD#1's operating area should mitigate some of this negative impact. Additionally, as the proposed Thornburgh Resort is not intended for permanent full time residents, it is not a likely source of additional volunteer firemen and this burden will fall on the other full-time residents of the District. So while the property taxes should adequately cover the day-to-day costs of providing fire protection for the Thornburgh resort, the need to provide volunteer firefighters and to bear the major portion of the capital cost of constructing and equipping an additional station as well as a reduction in service due to extended travel times until it is built means that in the final analysis the current residents of the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 would incur net costs if the Resort is constructed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 52 Public Safety System Costs Public safety involves many different functions, including patrols, prosecution, incarceration, parole, 911 services, courts, and others. Some resorts provide their own onsite security and patrol services. Sunriver, Black Butte and Pronghorn are examples. Some, such as Eagle Crest provide limited onsite security. These services lack the police powers of the Sheriff's officers and are therefore a limited substitute for County public safety services.50 Thornburgh Resort has not indicated that it will provide any onsite security, so security and patrols are assumed to be provided by the Sheriff's Department. To estimate the impacts of the Thornburgh Resort on public safety facilities and services, data is needed on public safety facility costs and the Sheriff's Department operating budget. This analysis was complicated by the many different public safety functions and the lack of usable facility cost data. There are three Sheriff's substations that serve unincorporated Deschutes County: Terrebonne, Sisters and La Pine substations. There is no facility cost data for any of these since two are being leased (Sisters and Terrebonne) and one is part of the South County Building that contains multiple uses. The service area for the substation also cannot be determined, since they have no particular boundaries and overlap coverage. The Thornburgh Resort could be served by either the Sisters or Terrebonne substation. In addition, the main Sheriff's office in Bend provides services for the unincorporated area near Bend. Public safety functions include: 911 County Service District Adult Parole and Probation Community justice - Juvenile District Attorney's Office Justice Court Sheriff's Office Deschutes County Adult Jail Public safety facilities must be adequate to handle peak demands at the height of tourist season. There is very little opportunity to adjust or downsize the system for off-peak periods. For this reason, public safety facilities must have capacity to serve the resort during peak occupancy. private security services are limited in their ability to arrest, detain and use force and do not replace the need for true law enforcement services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 53 The Deschutes County Adult Jail was built in 1994 and has a capacity of 228 beds. According to the Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan (January 26, 2006),51 the capacity of the jail is currently being exceeded. The 2005 average daily population (ADP) was estimated to be 270 inmates. Modeling of future jail demand results in a projected ADP of 578 in the year 2015, increasing to 818 in 2025. A two -phased plan is proposed for meeting current and future jail expansion needs. Allowing for fluctuations in jail bed demand, the first phase of development would address projected corrections needs through year 2015 at 690 beds, with occupancy of expanded facilities assumed to occur, in the year 2010. A second phase of development would then address projected corrections needs through the year 2025 at 975 beds, with facility occupancy assumed to occur in the year 2020. The cost for phase one is $70,989,839. Phase two, to be constructed starting in 2020, will cost approximately $54 million. Table 5-22 Deschutes Jail Expansion Master Plano) Population Existing Jail Jail Beds Year EstimateM Beds ADPM Needed (4) 2005 143,053 228 284 349 2010 166,572 690 427 520 2015 189,443 690 578 690 2020 214,145 975 689 820 2025 240,811 975 818 975 1) Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. 2) Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. 3) ADP is average daily population from page D.3.3 of Corrections Needs Assessment. Current values for ADP are higher than actual to include early releases. 4) Includes capacity to handle daily fluctuations (peaking factor). Based on the estimated population increase of 3,688 people resulting from the peak occupancy of the Thornburgh Resort (Table 5-23) and the cost for the associated increase in jail capacity, at $1,129 per person (Table 5-24), the associated cost for jail capacity is $4,163,752. Note that jail facility costs are assigned on a population - weighted basis and do not assume that resort residents will be more or less likely to be incarcerated than average residents. In principle, all residents benefit equally from the increased safety that adequate jail facilities provide. 51 Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006. See http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/go/obiectid/29B167F2- BDBD-57C 1-9A456F288808D927/index.cfm. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 54 Table 5-23 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Public Safety System Demand Estimated Population: 3,688 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure is the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. This occupancy rate is applied to overnight housing as well, even though many resort rentals show capacity for 8 to 12 persons. 2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. 4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. Table 5-24 Jail Expansion Costs Associated with Population Growth Phase One Costl' 70,989,839 Increase in Beds Peak Cost per New Bed: 153,658 Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unit(') Rate (') Type (3) Hotel 50 2 90% 90 Residential Overnight Units (4) 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure is the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. This occupancy rate is applied to overnight housing as well, even though many resort rentals show capacity for 8 to 12 persons. 2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. 4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. Table 5-24 Jail Expansion Costs Associated with Population Growth Phase One Costl' 70,989,839 Increase in Beds 462 Cost per New Bed: 153,658 Increase in Needed Beds, 2005-2015 341 Cost for increase in needed beds, 2005-2015 52,397,262 Cost per capita for population growth, 2005-2015(2) 1,129 1) Cost to meet projected needs in 2015 per Corrections Needs Assessment: Deschutes County, Volume One, Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices, January 26, 2006 2) Population growth for this period was based on the official population forecast for Deschutes County provided in the Appendix. To estimate the costs for other public safety facilities (other than jail facilities), the 2008-09 Deschutes County Capital Asset Query File was used to compile capital costs. It was impossible to determine values for all facilities because some are shared facilities that provide multiple functions and there was no way to separate out the public safety components. These facilities are indicated as zero -values in Table 5-25. Table 5-25 provides the most complete listing possible from the Capital Asset database. Each facility cost was adjusted to 2008 building costs using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the year in which the asset was built or purchased to obtain an estimated current replacement value. The total estimated replacement Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 55 value of public safety facilities is $22.5 million. This total does not include some shared facilities nor any rented facilities. Land values, patrol cars and Sheriff's equipment costs were adjusted for inflation to 2008 values. Table 5-25 Value of Existing Public Safety Facilities (Excluding Jailf ) Source: Deschutes County 2008-09 Capital Asset Query File All buildings and improvements adjusted to 2008 values using ENR Construction Cost Index) Dept Code Location code) Facility/Dept Name Buildings and Imarovements Land Total Facility Improvements Value (2) 21 Civil/Special Units 0 0 0 29 Automotive/Communiciations 0 45,536 45,536 33 Investigations/Evidence 7,653 0 7,653 34 Patrol 18,214 0 18,214 35 Records 0 0 0 38 Court Security 0 0 0 39 Emergency Services 0 0 0 41 Special Services 7,819 0 7,819 43 Training 0 132,266 132,266 75 911 General Operations 200,727 0 200,727 82 Adult Parole/Probation 152,855 70,222 223,077 45 Non-Departmental(3) 45(170002) Sheriff's Office Building 3,863,921 0 3,863,921 45(170202) Juvenile Community Justice Bldg 10,929,783 0 10,929,783 45(170302) Regional Correctional Building 3,567,591 0 3,567,591 Facilities Subtotals: 18,748,562 248,024 18,996,586 170*** Patrol Cars (VO4)(4) 1,688,946 170*** Sheriff Equipment (SE)141 488,409 170100 Land for Public Safety Bldg (LA)(4) 1,359,059 Total Capital Value: 22,532,999 Notes: 1) Three Sheriffs Substations were not included because they are rented or shared facilities. Other shared facilities also were not included. 2) Total costs do not include the values of any shared facilities or facilities used for public safety purposes that are rented, such as the Terrebonne and Sisters Substations. 3) Only public safety facilities were included from this department code. 4) Cars, equipment and land costs adjusted for inflation to 2008 values using the Consumer Price Index. To arrive at a per -capita cost for public safety facilities (not including jail cost), the total of facilities values of $22.5 million (from Table 5-25) were distributed across the entire County population. The full County 2008 population of 156,733 persons Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 56 was used because most of the facilities serve the entire County.52 The per -capita cost for these public safety facilities is $144. Based on the demand resulting from the assumed peak population of the Thornburgh Resort of 3,688 persons (Table 5-23), the incremental cost for expanding these facilities to serve the resort is $531,072. As shown in Table 5-26, the total public safety facility costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort is $4,694,824. It is important to note that the cost value is understated due to the lack of data mentioned previously. Table 5-26 Total Public Safety Facility Costs for Thornburgh Resort Per New Person For Resort Jail Expansion $1,129 4,163,752 Other Public Safety Facilities $144 531,072 Total Cost: 4,694,824 To obtain net public safety facility costs, estimated future tax contribution by the Thornburgh Resort are deducted from the cost in Table 5-26. At full buildout, the resort would represent 2.2% of the County's tax base and would fund the same percentage of County facility costs. As shown in Table 5-27, the net cost for public safety facilities is $4,591,181. Table 5-27: Net public safety facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Public Safety Facilities Costs Total public safety facilities cost: 4,694,824 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) ($103,643) Net public safety facilities cost: $4,591,181 sz Exceptions are the patrol cars and patrol facility cost, which serve primarily the unincorporated area. These costs are relatively small, so the error is negligible, but the effect is to slightly lower public safety costs attributed to the resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 57 Cost of Public Safety Services The actual amount spent for the Sheriff's office for the budget year ending June 30, 2008 was $26,844,500.53 This expenditure was allocated to countywide and rural service districts as shown in Table 5-28. The cost for each district was divided by the 2008 population for the district to arrive at per -capita costs. Rural unincorporated residents received service from both districts, so the total per -capita cost is $295 per year. For the estimated 3,688 peak residents of Thornburgh Resort, the cost to provide public safety services is approximately $1,087,960 per year. Table 5-28 Sheriff's Department 2008 Operations Costsltl 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. As shown in Table 5-29, the total estimated annual public safety revenues from the proposed Thornburgh Resort are $1,310,884. This is about $223,000 more than the estimated costs to serve the resort. The surplus is due to the allocation of 73% of all room taxes to law enforcement, as described in the Revenues section. Table 5-29 Estimated Public Safety Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Revenue Source Revenue0) Countywide Law Enforcement $345,368 Rural Law Enforcement $508,963 911 Service 142,437 Share of resort room taxes to law enforcement $314,116 Total: $1,310,884 1) From Table 4-4 in Revenues section 53 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 58 Population Per -Capita District Expenditure Served Cost Countywide District 15,908,322 156,733 102 Rural District 10,936,178 56,609 193 Total 26,844,500 295 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. As shown in Table 5-29, the total estimated annual public safety revenues from the proposed Thornburgh Resort are $1,310,884. This is about $223,000 more than the estimated costs to serve the resort. The surplus is due to the allocation of 73% of all room taxes to law enforcement, as described in the Revenues section. Table 5-29 Estimated Public Safety Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Revenue Source Revenue0) Countywide Law Enforcement $345,368 Rural Law Enforcement $508,963 911 Service 142,437 Share of resort room taxes to law enforcement $314,116 Total: $1,310,884 1) From Table 4-4 in Revenues section 53 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Deschutes County, Oregon, For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008, pages 63 and 64. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 58 Parks & Rec. System Costs The Thornburgh Resort is within the Boundaries of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District (RAPRD). The District is supported through a combination of user fees and property taxes. The District operates the Cascade Swim Center, with a 25 meter indoor pool, the RAPRD Activity Center with indoor basketball, volley ball courts and batting cage; and multipurpose activity room; the High Desert Sports Center with 4 softball fields a BMX track and a Remote Control Airplane Landing field; Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve a 26 -acre park and nature preserve located along the Deschutes River, and Historical Tetherow Crossing, an 11 -acre Deschutes River -front park. The recreational opportunities offered by RAPRD at its swim and activity centers directly duplicate those that would be available to Thornburgh residents and guests at Resort -owned and operated facilities. As those facilities are closer and should be available at little to no out-of-pocket expense, it is likely that Thornburgh residents and guests would use the resorts facilities rather then driving long distances to a similar RAPRD facility. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no measurable impact on the operation of the RAPRD Aquatics and Activity Centers. The facilities provided by the High Desert Sports Center are not duplicated at the Thornburgh Resort. But as the resort is intended to provide short term rentals, and vacation or second homes, it is not likely that many of the residents would be participating in local softball leagues or otherwise using these facilities. The one possible exception would be out of area teams renting a house or houses to stay in while participating at a tournament hosted by the High Desert Sports Center or Cascade swim Center. However, if that should occur, it would be more accurate to say that the sports complexes were utilizing the short term housing capacity of the Resort rather than Resort residents utilizing the capacity of the sports complexes. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no significant impact on the operation of the High Desert Sports Center. While the resort does intend to provide open space for the use of residents and guests these facilities do not duplicate those provided by Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park. The Deschutes River is one of the significant tourist attractions in Central Oregon. The Thornburgh Resort does not have any river frontage and both of these parks include extensive Deschutes River frontage. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that residents and guests of the Thornburgh Resort would utilize these two parks. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 59 Capital Costs The flexible nature of park facilities such as the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park makes it difficult to determine the maximum number of users that could utilize them at a time. Thus making a determination of whether they are at, over, or below capacity difficult to impossible. It is however, relatively easy to determine what the current level of service that is being provided by these two parks to the 32,000 residents of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District, and from that determine the amount of similar river front park acreage that would be needed to maintain that level of service.54 Currently RAPRD provides 1. 156 acres of open space per 1,000 residents." Table 5-30 Parks and Open Space Operated by RAPRD Facility Acreage Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve 26 Historical Tetherow Crossing Park 11 Total Acreage 37 Park and recreation facilities receive peak demand in the summer months, the same time that resort occupancy will peak. The limited data available for the proposed Thornburgh Resort does not contain any demographic or population figures, but it is possible to arrive at a peak population estimate for the resort by working from the number of planned housing units, as shown in Table 5-31. If the advertisements for vacation rentals in the greater Redmond area are any indicator of the occupancy rates, the estimate for the occupancy of residential overnight units of 2.7 persons may be low. Many of these ads indicate that rental homes sleep from 8 to 12 persons. sa population figure was provided by RAPRD staff. ss (37 acres/(32000/1000) = 1.156 acres per thousand residents Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 60 Table 5-31 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Park System Demand 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is for the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. 2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are the same as those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. 4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. To meet the current standard of 1.156 acres per 1000 residents, the RAPRD would need to acquire an additional 4.26 Acres of parkland with river frontage for the estimated 3,688 new Thornburgh residents. At an acquisition cost of $250,000 an acre, 56 that 4.26 acres would cost the district $1,065,000. As RAPRD does not impose a Systems Development Charge for Parks the money for this land acquisition would need to come from District Reserve Funds, operating revenues, a Parks Bond or some combination thereof. Given the current political climate and the funds available to the district it is unlikely that this land acquisition would happen. So rather than paying to meet this new demand for service, the existing residents would likely experience a reduction in the level of service. The new level of service would be lowered to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. Crediting the Thornburgh Resort for future property tax contributions (assuming full buildout), results in a net cost for parks and recreation facilities of $463,562, as shown in Table 5-32. Replacement Land cost was provided by RAPRD staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 61 Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unitf'I Rate f2f Type (3) Hotel 50 2 90% 90 Residential Overnight Units 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate. The 2.7 figure used is for the residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County. 2) The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are the same as those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. 4) These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. To meet the current standard of 1.156 acres per 1000 residents, the RAPRD would need to acquire an additional 4.26 Acres of parkland with river frontage for the estimated 3,688 new Thornburgh residents. At an acquisition cost of $250,000 an acre, 56 that 4.26 acres would cost the district $1,065,000. As RAPRD does not impose a Systems Development Charge for Parks the money for this land acquisition would need to come from District Reserve Funds, operating revenues, a Parks Bond or some combination thereof. Given the current political climate and the funds available to the district it is unlikely that this land acquisition would happen. So rather than paying to meet this new demand for service, the existing residents would likely experience a reduction in the level of service. The new level of service would be lowered to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. Crediting the Thornburgh Resort for future property tax contributions (assuming full buildout), results in a net cost for parks and recreation facilities of $463,562, as shown in Table 5-32. Replacement Land cost was provided by RAPRD staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 61 Table 5-32: Net parks and recreation facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Parks and Recreation Facilities Costs Total parks and recreation facilities cost: $1,065,000 Future property tax contribution (at 56%) ($601,438) Net parks and recreation facilities cost: $463,562 Operating Costs As it is unlikely (for the reasons provided above) that Thornburgh residents would be utilizing the Cascade Swim Center, the RAPRD Activity Center, or High Desert Sports Center, there should not be any additional operational costs caused by the resort's demand on the capacity. As for the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park, which are more likely to be utilized by Thornburgh residents, they do not currently generate General Fund operating expenses. Historic Tetherow Crossing Park is in the public planning phase of development and the limited operations of the Wildlife Preserve are supported by gifts, donations and inter -fund transfers to a special fund. This year the fund's $400 -dollar beginning balance was supplemented by a transfer of $500 from the District's General Fund. On the expenditure side, a total of $500 dollars57 has been budgeted for Materials and Services out of the fund's $900 -dollar balance. The salary and benefits for the minimal Groundskeeper labor are absorbed into that of the rest of the District's operations. This breaks down to $15.63 per thousand residents. Assuming that the per -capita cost generated by new users is equal to the current per - capita cost, and no new acreage is provided, then the increased operating cost resulting from the 3688 peak Thornburgh residents is $57.63. If the additional 4.26 acres is added to the park so as to maintain current levels of service, then an additional $81.91 would be needed to provide the same level of operations and maintenance expenditures that the Wildlife Preserve currently receives. Conclusion Thornburgh property owners will be paying taxes toward the Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District amounting to an estimated $135,130 per year. This greatly 57 The actual expenditure for FY 2006-07 was $551 (RAPRD 08-09 Annual Budget). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 62 exceeds the $57.63 operating cost associated with meeting their demand on parks capacity. In terms of level of service, District residents would likely see a small drop from 1.156 acres to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. There is a limit to how many development projects similar to the Thornburgh Resort could be constructed within the District's boundaries before the cumulative negative impacts caused by reductions in the level of service are felt by the current population. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 63 General Government Facilities The costs for expanding Deschutes County's general government facilities to accommodate the Thornburgh resort are calculated in this section. None of the infrastructure or facility costs addressed on other sections of this report are included here, so there is no duplication of costs. Deschutes County's Capital Asset Data File was used to identify the costs of all County facilities purchased or built since 1978 (Table 5-33). This database does not include the road system or facilities operated by independent districts, such as schools, fire, and parks. Note that the County rents some facilities, so these costs will not be included here. The costs for each of these facilities were adjusted to reflect 2008 replacement values using the ENR Construction Cost Index and the BLS Consumer Price Index. Facilities for the Sheriff's Office and the County Jail were removed from this list, as they were already included in the Public Safety Impacts section of this report. Table 5-33 Deschutes County General Government Facilities Costs(') All costs adjusted to 2008 values) Buildings and Land Vehicles, Improvements Improvements Equipment Facility (BU, BI) (LI) Land and Other Total Value All County Facilities $120,614,699 $34,384,960 $18,388,936 $115,653,683 $289,042,278 Deduct Sheriff & Jail ($31,681,617) ($325,792) ($1,359,059) ($2,177,355) ($35,543,823) County -(Sheriff & Jail) $88,933,082 $34,059,169 $17,029,877 $113,476,328 $253,498,455 1) Includes all facilities and equipment purchased since 1978. Buildings and Land Improvement values adjusted with CCI. Land and Equipment values inflated with CPI. Sheriff and Jail facilities were addressed under Public Safety Impacts. The new population added by the Thornburgh Resort that would require general county services was assumed to be limited to the occupants of primary residences. As previously describe in this report, primary residences were found to comprise 43% of the owner -occupied housing at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort, so this figure was applied to Thornburgh. Other property owners at Thornburgh who have second homes may also used County services and facilities, but this impact was considered to be relatively minor. As shown in Table 5-34, the estimated population in primary residences at Thornburgh is 1,103 persons. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 64 Table 5-34 Thornburgh Population Estimate for General Government Facilities Demand Percent Number Persons Primary Type of Housing Unit of units per unit(') Residences(') Population(') Owner -Occupied Houses 950 2.7 43% 1,103 N otes: 1) The 2.7 occupancy rate is for a new houses in Deschutes County. 2) Percent primary residences is based on an analysis of tax records for the Eagle Crest Resort 3) Number of Units x Persons per Unit x % Primary Residences. Based on the per -capita value of existing County facilities of $1,617 shown in Table 5-35, the cost of expanding general government facilities in Deschutes County to accommodate the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $1,783,984. Table 5-35 General Government Facilities Costs Associated with Thornburgh Resort Countywide General Government Facilities Cost (Tbl 5-33) 253,498,455 2008 County Population(1) 156,733 Per -Capita Facilities Cost 1,617 Thornburgh Population Estimate (Tbl 5-34) 1,103 General Gov. Facil. Cost: 1,783,984 1) From Coordinated Population Forecast Since the resort will make future tax payments to the County, those payments should be deducted from the facilities cost in Table 5-35. When fully built out, Thornburgh Resort will represent approximately 2.2% of the County's tax base and will therefore fund 2.2% of these facility costs. The net cost for general government facilities after deducting future tax revenues is $1,744,601, as shown in Table 5-36. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 65 Table 5-36: Net general government facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net General Government Facilities Costs Total general gov, facilities cost: $1,783,984 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) ($39,383) Net general gov. facilities cost: $1,744,601 The costs and revenues associated with general government services were not estimated in this study, as there are many types of services and it would have been very difficult to determine how much demand for each of these services would be created by the Thornburgh Resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 66 6. Fiscal Impact Summary The section compares the costs and the revenues calculated in the previous sections to determine the net fiscal impacts for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Table 6-1 summarizes the total gross annual tax revenues that are estimated for the Thornburgh Resort. Combined property and room tax revenues total $5,521,419 per year. These gross revenues go to pay for all of the services and facilities provided by local government to the resort and therefore do not represent a net windfall. As shown below, these revenues are more than offset by the infrastructure costs created by the resort. Table 6-1: Annual revenue summary for Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Revenue Category Revenue Property Tax Revenue $5,091,123 Total Room Tax Revenue $430,296 Total Annual Revenues $5,521,419 Costs of Facilities As shown in Table 6-2, the total net cost for the five categories of infrastructure required by the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $51,284,705. These are effectively one-time costs to local governments that are "due" upon completion of the resort. As noted previously in the text, some of the transportation system costs will be incurred by the State, so not all of these costs will accrue to Deschutes County and its various districts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 67 Table 6-2: Net cost summary for infrastructure required by Thornburgh Resort. Net Facility Cost Summary Category of Facility Net Cost Estimate(') Transportation System 39,149,282 School Facilities (2) 4,752,973 Fire & EMS Facilities 580,813 Public Safety Facilities 4,591,181 Parks & Rec. Facilities 463,562 Gen Gov. Facilities 1,744,601 Total Net Cost: 51,284,705 1) Net costs are total gross costs, minus any payments or revenues from the resort that fund infrastructure, including future tax payments and SDCs. 2) The school cost figure is for the lower estimate of student generation in Scenario #2. Services Impacts The costs to provide ongoing services were calculated for three of the six impact categories and compared with the tax revenues generated for that same category. It was not practical to calculate comparative values for schools, transportation and general government, as described previously. Table 6-3 summarizes the revenues and costs and gives a net impact for each category of service. The net impacts are positive for each category. The total net impact is a surplus of $466,344 per year. This accrues to the County and its service districts, since each of these services is funded exclusively by either the County or the service district. Table 6-3: Net annual services impact for Thornburgh Resort. Net Annual Services Impacts for Thornburgh Resort Category of Service Revenue Estimate Cost Estimate Net Impact Transportation System(' NA NA NA School Facilities(') NA NA NA Fire & EMS Facilities 637,731 529,359) 108,372 Public Safety Facilities 1,310,884 1,087,960) 222,924 Parks & Rec. Facilities 135,130 82) 135,048 Totals: 2,083,745 1,617,401) 466,344 1) Direct revenue and service costs were not be calculated for these categories because they are funded from a combination of sources (Federal, State and County) and revenues from the resort could not be determined. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions The net $51.28 million in infrastructure costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort greatly overshadow the $466,344 annual surplus for County services. In order to consider the overall net fiscal impacts of the resort, the annual surplus for County services was converted to an equivalent amount of capital that could be financed with this cash flow. The $466,344 surplus could service interest and principal payments on a 20 -year loan at 6% interest for $5.35 million. Assuming this surplus was used for this purpose, the $51.28 million in infrastructure costs could be reduced to $45.94 million, as shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Net Fiscal Impact of Thornburgh Resort Net Infrastructure Cost $51,284,705 Less Capital Equivalent of Revenue Surplus( ($5,348,967) Net Fiscal Impact: $45,935,738 1) This is the value of capital facilities that could be financed with a $466,344 annual revenue stream at 6% interest over 20 years. In conclusion, local governments and local taxpayers will be left with a net cost burden of $45.94 million if the Thornburgh Resort is fully completed as proposed. This is a net cost after the resort has been credited for all known payments and tax revenues it will generate. The $45.94 million cost will be externalized and will ultimately be borne by other taxpayers (not the resort) through some combination of higher taxes, reduced public services, and lower facility service standards. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts This section provides a review and analysis of the jobs and housing issues resulting from destination resorts by examining the proposed Thornburgh Resort as a representative case study. The resort developer, Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, maintains that the resort will create many new construction and operations jobs and will have little impact on housing in the area. To support their position, they have submitted the following two reports as part of the required application materials: An Economic and Benefit Study for the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics, January 21, 2005. An Employee Housing Analysis for the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics, August 22, 2005. These reports are referred to here respectively as the Peterson Economic Report and the Peterson Housing Report and collectively as the Peterson Report. The Peterson Economic Report was prepared as part of the required application materials for the Thornburgh Resort. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.113(B)(19) requires the destination resort applicant to provide: An economic impact and feasibility analysis of the proposed development prepared by a qualified professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall be provided which includes: a. An analysis which addresses the economic viability of the proposed development; b. Fiscal impacts of the project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue, demands for new or increased levels of public services, housing for employees and the effects of loss of resource lands during the life of the project. [Emphasis added.] In spite of the Code requirement, the Peterson report lacks a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project and instead focuses on the property tax revenues that may be generated if the resort is completed. Absent from the report is any analysis of the demands for new or increase levels of public services. The report also neglects to report transient room tax revenues from overnight lodging. The Peterson study, like many economic impact studies provided by developers, portrays an unrealistically optimistic and beneficial picture of the development Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 70 project. Tax revenues, for example, are projected by Peterson to be three times greater than for comparable resorts located nearby. According to a separate study comparing projected tax revenues for commercial developments with actual tax revenues after the developments were completed, projected revenues were found to be overstated by an average of 39%. 58 The portrayal of resort development as beneficial is also achieved by ignoring the costs and negative impacts of the project. The Peterson Report ignores all external costs associate with the Thornburgh Resort development. While new jobs, employment compensation and property tax revenues are presented in explicit detail, there is little to no effort made to address the many costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, or any of the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. In this case, most of the costs are likely to be borne by the current and future residents of Deschutes County via increased taxes or declining services, or both. Costs that are externalized by the developer and shifted onto the local community improve the developer's profitability at the expense of local residents. job Creation and Employment Impacts The employment and compensation data in the Peterson Economic Report (as Table II -1) was revised downward seven months later in the Peterson Housing Report (as Table 1), so the more -recent Housing Report data is used here. The Housing Report bases projected wages for the Thornburgh Resort on a past projection for an analysis the company did for the Suncadia Resort in Roslyn, WA in 2002 and inflated to 2005 values. By their own figures, almost half of employees (49%) will make less than $21,000 per year and 67% will make less than $26,000 per year. As shown in Table 7-1, Federal guidelines indicate that household incomes below $21,200 represent the poverty level for a family of four. Such households may qualify for Federal aid from the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low -Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. 58 Commercial Development: Impact Analysis Before and After Construction, by C. Fred DeKay, Ph.D. and Barbara M. Yates, Ph.D., Economic Development journal, fall 2005, p 7. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 71 Table 7-1: 2008 US Poverty Guidelines. Persons 48 Contiguous in Family or Household States and D.C. 1 10,400 2 14,000 3 17,600 4 21,200 5 24,800 6 28,400 7 32,000 8 35,600 For each additional person, add: 3,600 Source: Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 15, January 23, 2008, pp. 3971-3972 Resorts are notoriously low-paying businesses. The "leisure and hospitality" sector, that includes destination resorts, pays the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County. This sector paid average annual wages of only $16,096, about half as much as the average annual wage in Deschutes County of $31,492 in 2006, according to the Oregon Employment Department.59 The Peterson Report appears to be considerably overestimating wages for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Peterson claims that only 7% of jobs will pay less than 16,000 per year. This contrasts sharply with the $16,096 average wage in this sector. Many more than 7% of the jobs created at the resort will likely pay minimum wage. Such jobs include maids, waitresses, dishwashers, groundskeepers, landscape maintenance workers, janitors, and laborers. Minimum wage in Oregon was $7.25 per hour, or about $14,500 in 2005 when the Peterson report was written. In 2008 the State's minimum wage was $7.95 per hour, or approximately $15,900 before taxes. According to Oregon's Report on Poverty 200660 for Deschutes County: The 2005 average [monthly] wage of $2,624, however, proved inadequate for single parents. Deschutes County's 2005 average wage could not fund the basic family budget for a single adult and one child or more. The second largest industry in Deschutes County, leisure and hospitality, paid an average wage nearly half of the county average—$1,342 a month.... Families earning poverty level wages could afford no more than 40.2 percent of basic family expenses in Deschutes County. 9 Oregon Employment Department, 2006, as quoted in 2007 Central Oregon Area Profile, by Economic Development for Central Oregon. 60 Oregon Housing and Community Services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 72 Based on the Peterson Housing Report,61 the median wage offered at Thornburgh would be about $21,000. Median household income in Deschutes County was 45,894 in 200462, more than twice as much as the resort will pay. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median County household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Peterson uses "induced jobs" to enhance the total employment-related compensation associated with the resort. However, this induced employment works both ways: increasing jobs when hiring, but decreasing jobs in a similar proportion when firing. Using Peterson's assumption of 0.5 induced jobs per construction job and 0.2 induced jobs per operations job, total employment associated with the resort will peak at 2,015 jobs in the sixth year of development. However, when construction is completed, 1,471 of these jobs will be lost. The loss of 1,471 jobs is roughly equivalent to the closing of Central Oregon's second largest employer, Les Schwab Tire Centers (1500 employees). It will have an even greater impact due to the relatively higher salaries paid to construction workers. The loss of these jobs will have a profound impact on the region as these households struggle to pay bills and seek to relocate to other areas in search of employment. The lost jobs are likely to increase local demand for social services and public assistance and may result in evictions, foreclosures and bankruptcies. The magnitude of these job losses could negatively impact the local economy for years after the resort is completed. 61 Peterson Housing Report, Table 2. 62 According to the US Census Bureau. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 73 Figure 7-1: Direct employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report, Table 1). Projected Direct Jobs, Thornburgh Resort 1200 - 1000 rn 800LO-- 00 00 600 400 o D 200 M LoLo 0 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year Construction Jobs Operations Jobs Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 74 Figure 7-2: Total direct and induced employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report, Table 1). Projected Jobs, Thornburgh Resort 2500 2000 m " N 1500 co NLn N 1000 LOV p O T co coN p 500 C\J 11 LO Nm 9 co N N N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year Direct Jobs Induced Jobs M Total Jobs Figure 7-3: Employment changes resulting from the Thornburgh Resort development (based on Peterson Housing Report). Annual Changes in Projected Employment, Thornburgh Resort 1000 899 800 566 600 400 200 0 200 400 1 600 411 185 r --1 22 -_ 69 1- 52 179 -188 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 490 -512 Project Year Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 75 Theoretically, the only way to prevent such employment shocks from impacting the local economy (other than not building the resort in the first place) is to continually and indefinitely build more resorts at a steady and even pace in Deschutes County. However, this approach is completely impractical as the County could not sustain such development over the long term, and it would be impossible to transition seamlessly from one development to the next for employment purposes. Who Will Fill New Resort jobs: Locals or Newcomers? The Peterson Report claims that "in excess of 90%" of employees will live in Deschutes County. To support this, they cite anecdotal evidence from conversations with the management of Black Butte and Eagle Crest Resorts that a "vast majority" of employees live within the County. Without additional evidence, Peterson claims that these employees were also local County residents before their employment at these resorts.63 This apparently forms the bases for Peterson's conclusion that only 8% to 10% of jobs created at Thornburgh Resort will be filled by newcomers. However, empirical data and studies indicated that the percentage of newcomers moving into Deschutes County to fill resort jobs will be much higher. Recently it came to light in a Bend Bulletin article that not only are resorts filling some of their jobs from out of the area, they are actively recruiting foreigners.' The Sunriver Resort filled 85 jobs last year with people from as far away as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. People may move to a new county for a variety of reasons. Deschutes County has outstanding recreational opportunities and natural amenities that attract people from all over the country. A limiting factor to County in -migration is employment. While there may be a large number of people who would like to live there, most will need employment to make such a move successful. Thus, the more jobs created in the County, the more people will be able to move there. To a large extent this same phenomenon applies statewide in Oregon. The State is viewed as offering attractive natural amenities and a desirable quality of life that act to stimulate in -migration. But the limiting factor to in -migration is the lack of employment opportunities. As a result of this "pent up" demand, new jobs created in the State are rapidly absorbed by newcomers and unemployment levels tend to remain consistently above the national average. This was the case even during the 1990s, a decade of the most rapid economic expansion and job creation in the State's history. Job seekers who move to a new location seeking work often obtain a local address to use for job applications, so employers may not know if they are hiring new arrivals. Unemployment might be high, but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin, May 11, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 76 As shown in Figure 7-4, the US Census found that "work-related" reasons accounted for 31.1% of all intercounty moves." More specifically, 24% of all moves were either for new jobs/transfers or to look for work. "New jobs and job transfers" accounted for the most moves of any category in the Census survey. Clearly, employment is a major motivational factor in migration. This factor is amplified when a region offers additional amenities and quality -of -life benefits as found in Central Oregon. Figure 7-4: Reasons for moving to another county (US Census). Intercounty movers Other reasons 10.1 Family -related reasons 26.9 Work-related reasons 31.1 Housing -related reasons 31.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000. When new jobs are created in a community by a development project, its proponents often claim that the jobs will go to local workers. However, studies show that in the near term, 40% to 60% of new jobs go to newcomers and in the longer term, 60% to 90% of these jobs are filled by newcomers." Applying the midpoint estimates to the Thornburgh Resort, we can assume that construction jobs are shorter -term jobs that are filled by 50% newcomers and operations jobs are longer-term and are filled by 75% newcomers. As shown in Table 7-2, at peak employment, the resort will generate an estimated net in -migration of 1,150 workers to fill the jobs. This is considerably more than the 133 newcomers identified in the Peterson report. 65 Why People Move: Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey, Special Studies, US Census Bureau, March 2001. See: Who Benefits from Local Job Growth, Migrants or the Original Residents, by Timothy J. Bartik, Regional Studies, vol. 27, No. 4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 77 Table 7-2: Peak In -Migration to Deschutes County Due to Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort. 1) Based on Peterson Housing Reporg (2) From Bartik, 1993 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Increased demand for housing will tend to increase prices, especially when there is a relatively fixed supply of housing and a marked increase in demand. Unless housing is expanded to meet the new demand, prices will increase and housing will become less affordable in the County. The loss of housing affordability becomes a regional cost associated with the resort. The Peterson Housing Report states that, due to the vacancy rate in Deschutes County, all housing needs generated by construction and ongoing operations at the resort will not "pose a problem." This conclusion seems to imply that the resort will have no significant impacts on the local housing demand or supply in Deschutes County. To the contrary, we find that the resort will have substantial impacts on the needs and demands for local housing. Peterson indicates that additional offsite job creation will be induced by the onsite jobs at the resort. However, no consideration is given to the housing demand created by the induced employment. Peterson reports that induced jobs peak in year six of the development at 577 jobs. Total jobs are estimated to peak at 2,015 at that time, including construction, operations and induced employment. The addition of more than 2000 new jobs to Deschutes County, many of which are temporary and low- paying, will have a very significant impact on the local housing market. This effect on the housing market is aggravated by the fact that most of these jobs 985 by Peterson's estimate) will be temporary. Temporary demands for a significant quantity of local housing can create multiple problems. As the demand grows rapidly, housing prices go up, housing availability and affordability decline, and additional home construction may be stimulated. As the temporary demand comes to an end, there is a glut of housing with a sharp increase in vacancies and unsold homes that may leave the housing market in worse shape than before the resort started. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 78 Peak Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employment(" Newcomers") Newcomers Construction 964 50% 482 Const. Induced 482 50% 241 Operations 474 75% 356 Oper. Induced 95 75% 71 Total: 2,015 1,150 1) Based on Peterson Housing Reporg (2) From Bartik, 1993 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Increased demand for housing will tend to increase prices, especially when there is a relatively fixed supply of housing and a marked increase in demand. Unless housing is expanded to meet the new demand, prices will increase and housing will become less affordable in the County. The loss of housing affordability becomes a regional cost associated with the resort. The Peterson Housing Report states that, due to the vacancy rate in Deschutes County, all housing needs generated by construction and ongoing operations at the resort will not "pose a problem." This conclusion seems to imply that the resort will have no significant impacts on the local housing demand or supply in Deschutes County. To the contrary, we find that the resort will have substantial impacts on the needs and demands for local housing. Peterson indicates that additional offsite job creation will be induced by the onsite jobs at the resort. However, no consideration is given to the housing demand created by the induced employment. Peterson reports that induced jobs peak in year six of the development at 577 jobs. Total jobs are estimated to peak at 2,015 at that time, including construction, operations and induced employment. The addition of more than 2000 new jobs to Deschutes County, many of which are temporary and low- paying, will have a very significant impact on the local housing market. This effect on the housing market is aggravated by the fact that most of these jobs 985 by Peterson's estimate) will be temporary. Temporary demands for a significant quantity of local housing can create multiple problems. As the demand grows rapidly, housing prices go up, housing availability and affordability decline, and additional home construction may be stimulated. As the temporary demand comes to an end, there is a glut of housing with a sharp increase in vacancies and unsold homes that may leave the housing market in worse shape than before the resort started. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 78 Most ongoing jobs will be low-paying groundskeepers, maids, and maintenance positions. Such jobs may attract workers who will require low income housing assistance and will increase demand for affordable housing in the County. Furthermore, many of the lower -paying jobs will be seasonal, or have significant seasonal variations in employment. Seasonal jobs will further stress households that are struggling to afford market -rate housing as their employment varies from season to season. Lower -paid workers will have more difficulty finding affordable housing near the resort and they will need to travel farther to meet their housing needs. The additional commuting requirements will further exacerbate their financial stress. Renters in Deschutes County are currently struggling to meet housing costs. According to the US Census, 41% of the County's renters are paying more than 30% of their income for rent." New destination resorts will increase local housing demand and push up rental prices forcing more local residents to spend a greater share of their incomes on housing. Peterson estimates that during the 11 -year period of resort construction, between 37 and 133 housing units will be required to supply the new workers (both construction and resort operations) and that all of these units can be met from the current inventory of vacant housing. However, this conclusion is based partly on the unrealistic assumption that more than 90% of jobs will be filled by local residents and that only 8-10% will be filled by people moving into the county. As shown previously, the Thornburgh Resort is likely to attract newcomers to fill 1,150 of the peak jobs generated by the resort. Most of these newcomers will create new households in the County. However, some may live with others or have a spouse that is also employed by the resort. To estimate new households it was assumed that 30% of the newcomers will either live with others who work at the resort or have a spouse also working at the resort. These cohabitating workers would reduce demand for new housing by 15% (half of 30%). The newcomers will therefore generate a peak demand for 978 housing units in Deschutes County (Table 7-3). 67 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ZOOS American Community Survey, Deschutes County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 79 Table 7-3: Estimated new households created by peak employment at Thornburgh Resort. Jobs & Households Generated Number Peak jobs at Thornburgh 2,015 Peak jobs to newcomers (from Table 7-2) 1,150 Newcomers cohabitating (30% assumed) 345 Households by new cohabitating workers 173 Households by other new workers 805 Total new households by newcomers: 978 The Peterson Housing Report states that there was "an existing vacancy inventory of more than 320 rental units in Deschutes County" in order to show that the County can absorb the modest demand they predict from resort employees without generating any need for additional housing. However, the Peterson data does not appear to be accurate and there is no source cited. The Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2004 showed 411 vacant units for all of Central Oregon. The most recent Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2007 (1" Quarter) showed 270 vacancies for all of Central Oregon with a 6.86% vacancy rate. However, this survey provides only a partial account of vacancies, since the US Census 2005 American Community Survey shows there were 18,552 rental units in Deschutes County in 2005 with a vacancy rate of 6.4%, or about 1,187 vacant units. Vacancies always exist in the rental housing market and don't necessarily represent housing availability. Vacancies are a natural part of the rental housing business. Turnover of rental units typically requires a period of vacancy between tenants so that the unit can be cleaned, marketed and leased. Rental units also require repairs and improvements during unoccupied periods. Less -desirable, substandard, or overpriced units may take longer to rent. Rental vacancy rates in 2005 were 9.8% nationally and 8.3% in Oregon, much higher than the 6.4% rate in Deschutes County. The likely demand for housing resulting from resort employment will be much greater than Peterson has estimated. Peterson estimated a peak demand of 133 housing units, compared with the estimate here of 978 housing units. It is unrealistic for the Thornburgh Resort to rely on local rental vacancy rates to meet the housing needs for the estimated 1,150 peak jobs filled by newcomers. As shown in Table 7-4, the Thornburgh Resort is projected to create direct and induced long-term employment of 544 persons from year 12 of the project onwards. An estimated 75% of these jobs will be filled by newcomers. Of the 408 permanent jobs filled by newcomers, an estimated 347 new households will be created by these Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 80 employees." This will result in a permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Table 7-4: Newcomers to Deschutes County Filling Permanent Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort (year 12 of project and onwards). Permanent Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employment(') Newcomers() Newcomers Operations 453 75% 340 Oper. Induced 91 75% gg Total: 544 408 1) Based on Peterson Housing Report 2) From Bartik, 1993. Spending by Destination Resorts The typical economic analysis presented by a developer estimates the total gross spending in connection with the development as a net benefit to the local community. The spending estimate is often magnified by use of multiplier -effects to show even greater benefit to the local community as direct spending ripples through the local economy. Thus, spending figures typically include both direct and induced secondary) spending for wages, construction materials and services. Such spending figures tend to greatly overstate local benefits. For example, assumptions are made that 100% of spending for construction, including materials and supplies, will stay in the local county. However, construction materials such as lumber, cement, appliances, cabinets, flooring, plumbing fixtures, lighting, doors, windows, plaster and paint are obtained through a national and international supply network. It is highly unlikely that a significant portion of these construction materials will be produced within the county. Therefore, most of this spending quickly leaves the county. Many economic studies also assume that other construction -related spending, such as design, engineering, and construction labor, will stay in the local county. However, many of the design firms and construction companies are likely to be based out of the area, or even out of state. Most of the expenditures to firms and employees based out of the area will leave the local county. Estimate assumes that 30% of employees will share housing with another employee, reducinghouseholdgenerationby15percent. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 81 Use of "multiplier effects" is a common practice in economic analysis. Multipliers are used to show how money can be recycled in a community or region and can significantly inflate the apparent economic benefits. In contrast, empirical studies show that local growth does not result in real benefits to the community in terms of increased per -capita income.69 Therefore, it must be assumed that much of the direct and indirect economic activity flows out of the community and does not significantly benefit local residents. In this case, "multiplier effects" are likely to be offset by national builders, national building materials suppliers, and non -local workers who will take much of the money out of the community. If multipliers are to be used in impact analysis, they should be applied to cost as well as revenues (see sidebar on this topic). Use of multipliers An increasingly common method among the building industry and some governments for projecting fiscal impacts involves the use of multipliers derived from economic models. Using data from the models, an analyst might take the estimated direct economic activity in dollars associated with a project and "multiply" it by a given amount to account also for indirect, secondary impacts. The total measure of economic activity is then used to estimate revenues for the purpose of determining fiscal impacts. Such multiplier approaches to fiscal impact analysis suffer from several shortcomings. First, the multipliers are usually obtained from economic models of large regions or states. But they are applied at the level of an individual local jurisdiction that is usually only a fraction of a region's or state's economy. The smaller the jurisdiction relative to the economic region for which the multipliers have been derived, the less reliable the multipliers will be for that jurisdiction. Furthermore, while the multipliers are applied to the revenue side of the budget, few such analyses ever apply a multiplier to the cost side of the local budget. The implicit (but often wrong) assumption is that local governments can generate revenue from secondary, induced, or indirect development without incurring increased costs in providing services to that development. Another shortcoming of the multiplier approach is its tendency to "double -count" revenues. A multiplier -based fiscal analysis of a project might credit it with the additional revenue impacts as derived from 1,000 new jobs elsewhere in the jurisdiction. But, when the separate fiscal impact analysis of the development where these jobs are located is (or was) prepared by its developer, the revenues would also be claimed on behalf of that development. Source: Developments and Dollars: An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis in Land Use Planning, by Michael L. Siegel, May 2000, Natural Resources Defense Council. In the case of the Peterson Economic Report for the proposed Thornburgh Resort, compensation is estimated for both direct and induced jobs. While totaling all the wages paid for direct and induced employees is straightforward, it is far less clear how this spending should be counted in terms of net benefits to Deschutes County. 69 Gottlieb, Paul D., Growth Without Growth: An Alternative Economic Development Goal For Metropolitan Areas, Center for Regional Economic Issues, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, February 2002. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 82 Wages benefit the individual employee, but he or she must exchange their time and labor for the wage. Employment is therefore an economic transaction exchanging labor for money. From the local perspective, existing residents of Deschutes County will benefit from resort employment if: They are currently unemployed and obtain employment at the resort, or They are working part-time and obtain full-time employment at the resort, or They are currently employed, but are able to obtain higher wages at the resort. On the other hand, existing residents of Deschutes County will not benefit from resort employment if newcomers move into the County to fill the jobs. Only the incremental increase in the incomes of existing local residents resulting from resort employment can be counted as a clear economic benefit. This incremental increase in income is a fraction of the total compensation figure estimated for the resort and does not include the 40% to 90% of new jobs likely to go to newcomers. Economic Risks In addition to considering the likely economic impacts of a successful and completed resort, there are emerging risks associated with resort development that could dramatically affect local homebuyers, local government investments, and the local economy. The national economic downturn has revealed structural weaknesses in the real estate markets. Property values became over -inflated and banking institutions lent too much money to unqualified buyers. The supply of homes grew at record levels until supply greatly exceeded demand. It may take several years before the real estate market stabilizes. In the mean time, foreclosures and bankruptcies are at levels not seen since the Great Depression. In the past, California provided many of the second home and investment home buyers in Oregon. Many were able to transfer equity from their California homes to make these purchases. But California's real estate market has suffered greatly. The median price of a home in that state dropped 38% in December from a year earlier.70 Under any circumstances, a destination resort is a risky business venture. If it goes well, it is a potential bonanza to investors. But a great deal of investment is required up front. Typically a hundred million dollars or more must be borrowed and spent to build these resorts. The Thornburgh Resort estimates the total project cost at 160 million." What happens if revenue streams don't match projections? What if 70 December median home prices in California dropped to $249,000 from $402,000 a year earlier the Associated Press reported January 22, 2009. Peterson Economic Report, Table N-1. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 83 lots don't sell, or prices drop? If one resort fails, how will other resorts in the area be impacted? In Deschutes County the Tetherow Resort's golf course was heralded as the "Best New Course of 2008" by Golf Magazine. However, lot sales have stalled, investors are unable to make loan payments, and the bank is foreclosing on properties.72 The large, upscale Tamarack Resort in Idaho made the Wall Street journal last year when investor money dried up and the resort went into default on loans.73 Construction of resort facilities stopped and the bank filed for foreclosure. Homebuyers had already committed more than $500 million for fancy homes, condos and building sites. The resort village remains unfinished, home sales have withered and the local economy is suffering. The resort closed on March 4, 2009 and 250 employees were fired. Of 2,100 planned chalets, condos and town homes, only 250 are completed.74 The Vineyards Resort in Yakima, WA declared bankruptcy last year.75 It was to be a destination resort in wine country designed as a Tuscan -themed village with 500 acres, 600 homes, an 18 -hole golf course, clubhouse, hotel, and recreation center. They were unable to obtain financing for the $100 million investment needed. The posh Yellowstone Club resort in Montana is also declaring bankruptcy.76 According to the Wall Street journal article on the Tamarack Resort, A resort's success was often staked to real-estate sales: As a Tamarack lender recounted in recent court filings, the resort had a business model in which "operating expenses would exceed revenues and the primary source ofprofit would be generated by the sale of real estate." Destination resorts are following the same business model as the rural subdivision: buy large tracts of cheap rural land to make hundreds, or thousands, of buildable residential lots for a large profit. The resort elements are often unprofitable, but make the residential subdivision possible. The Tetherow and Pronghorn Resorts in Deschutes County have been unable to build the required amount of overnight housing, which is intended to support tourism. According articles in the Bend Bulletin, Pronghorn was to have completed a hotel by 2006." It has received four time extension from the County and cut its planned hotel expenditure in half. 7z "Tetherow housing lots are entering foreclosure," The Bend Bulletin, January 15, 2009. 73 Wall Street Journal, "In Idaho, Ski Resort's Promise Fades," 7/7/2008. Tamarack Resort closes; employees cut loose," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 4, 2009. 75 Reported by the Associated Press, November 23, 2008 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. See httip://www.bloomberg.com/at)vs/n-ews?t)id=20601103&sid=ai WwtVGzHrY&refer=news. Without financing, Tetherow on hold indefinitely: Hotel won't open in spring 2009 as planned," The Bend Bulletin, October 15, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 84 If Thornburgh Resort is successful, its developer could make $300 million on lot sales, almost doubling its investment. The lucrative profit potential for developers creates a formidable incentive for them to pursue resort projects on Oregon's cheap rural lands in beautiful natural settings. They can afford to spend liberally to make their resort projects possible. Economic Impact Conclusions Many of the economic impact studies provided by developers portray an overly optimistic picture of the development project's benefits by ignoring the costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, and the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. The "leisure and hospitality" sector (that includes destination resorts) paid average annual wages of only $16,096, the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County and about half as much as the average annual wage in the County of $31,492 in 2006. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Household incomes below $21,200 represent the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Most jobs created by the resort will be temporary and when construction is completed, 1,471 jobs will be lost, causing ripple effects in the local economy. The addition of more than 2000 peak new jobs to Deschutes County will have a very significant impact on the local housing market, especially when the temporary jobs are lost. Low-wage jobs created by the resort will increase demand for affordable housing. While the Peterson Housing Report estimates a peak of only 133 new households generated by the resort, it is more realistic that a peak of 978 new households will need to find housing in Deschutes County. After the resort is completed, there will be an estimated permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & AssociatesMarch2009page85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon This section considers the potential statewide and regional impacts that may result from the resorts that are currently under construction and those that are proposed. In order to examine the potential statewide impacts of destination resorts in Oregon, total figures for the number of residential units were calculated for all resorts that are currently planned or under construction. The total number of residential units was then used as an index for gauging statewide impacts. The impact per residential unit is based on the impact analysis for the Thornburgh Resort. As described previously, the Thornburgh Resort is fairly typical of destination resorts in Oregon in terms of its overall profile (land area, mix of homes and overnight units, and recreational facilities). Some factors affecting impact will vary from place to place. For example, sewage treatment, water supply, and stormwater management may involve offsite public expenses for some resorts, but did not in the case of Thornburgh. Such cost factors may be governed by county policies and individual siting issues. The transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort were partially mitigated by the transportation SDC implemented recently by Deschutes County. Total estimated transportation SDC payments for the resort were deducted from the transportation system costs. Most counties in Oregon have no transportation SDC, so the costs will be higher in those counties. It should also be noted that no impacts were calculated for Thornburgh Resort for libraries. As a result of these factors, Thornburgh's fiscal cost impacts may be somewhat less than for the typical new resort. None -the -less, it serves as the best available gauge at this time. The net fiscal impact per residential unit for the Thornburgh Resort is a cost of $33,408.78 Based on the 22,374 residential units in destination resorts that are either under construction or proposed in Oregon, the total fiscal impact is estimated to be a net cost of $747 million. As shown graphically in Figure 8-1, almost two-thirds of this cost will come from the resorts that are proposed. Note that these net infrastructure costs are the externalized costs from the resorts after all payments and contributions are deducted. 78 This net cost incorporates the projected revenue surplus from services in the form of the capital cost that could be financed with the same annual revenue stream, as described in the Fiscal Impact Conclusions section. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 86 Figure 8-1 Future Statewide Resort Costs Total Net Cost = $747,455,211) Resorts Flannel 485,415,483 lesorts Under construction, 262,039,728 Destination resorts have regional impacts that often receive little or no consideration in the resort planning and siting process. Resorts located near cities tend to create a fundamental fiscal inequity. The counties receive all the tax revenues, and the nearby cities receive much of the impacts, especially from increased traffic. Resort residents and visitors will avail themselves of the urban services and amenities of the city. They may travel to the cities to purchase necessities, for entertainment, or to commute to work in these cities. They may also travel through these cities going to and from the resort and to visit other attractions in the area. Resort employees are likely to find housing in the nearby cities and will create additional traffic. The City of Redmond will be especially impacted by new resort development, as four new destination resorts are planned nearby: Remington Ranch, Hidden Canyon, Brasada Ranch, and Thornburg Resort. The Remington Ranch Resort is just 5 miles from Redmond and it is estimated that 75% of the trips generated by the resort will use the city's road network. An estimate 35% of the trips from the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort will be to, or through, Redmond. According to City of Redmond Public Works Director, Chris Doty, the city's growth is currently constrained by road capacity and by requirements of the State's Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 87 Transportation Planning Rule.79 Yet resort development can continue to burden these transportation facilities without having to mitigate their impacts. Housing needs for resort employees put added pressure on nearby cities to provide additional affordable housing, as resort workers are among the lowest -paid in the State. Impacts of resorts on nearby cities are beyond the cities' control and occur outside of the cities' planning processes. Redmond, for example, collects a Transportation System Development Charge on new development within the city, but is unable to collect such charges from resort development. Resorts have the potential to function like suburban subdivisions or bedroom communities, taking advantage of a nearby city's urban amenities, but paying no taxes to the city. Revenue sharing by the county, or mitigation requirements from the resort developers, could offset some of these impacts. 79 Letter from Chris Doty regarding Remington Ranch Resort to Bill Zelenka, Crook County Planning Department, September 7, 2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 88 Appendices Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & AssociatesMarch2009page89 A-1. Property Tax Explanation The single largest revenue source for local governments, school districts and agencies in Oregon is the property tax. Property subject to taxation includes all privately owned real property (land, buildings, and improvements). This tax is collected by the county tax collector for all agencies within the county. As the boundaries of the various taxing districts do not align the county is divided into Code Areas. Each Code Area represents a unique combination of taxing districts. For the 2008/09 tax year, the proposed Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas: 2-003, with a total tax rate of $12.2499 per thousand dollars of Assessed Value; and, 2-004 with a total tax rate of $14.0041 thousand dollars of Assessed Value. The difference being that property in 2-004 is subject to a tax from Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. Table A-1 Tax Code Area 2-00380 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non -Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District #2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School #2j Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School #2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 12.2499 5.7419 4.9642 1.5438 80 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 90 Table A-2 Tax Code Area 2-004" Id District Total Rate Education Government Non -Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 202 Rural Fire District #1 1.7542 1.7542 351 Redmond Area Park & Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District #2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School #2j Bond 92 & 93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School #2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 14.0041 5.7419 6.7184 1.5438 Since 1997Sz the assessed value (AV) of a property, and not its real market value RMV), is used to calculate the amount of property tax due. This assessed value was initially established in 1997 by rolling back the RMV of a property to 90% of its 1995 level. As long as the resulting AV is less then the current RMV this value is allowed to increase by 3% annually. For new properties, like the proposed Thornburgh Resort, the County Tax Assessor's Office appraises the property and sets a RMV for the land and its improvements. Then, an Exception Value Ratio is applied for the property class" of the parcel to arrive at the properties initial RMV. For example, the AV of a parcel in a property class with a ratio of 0.46 and a RMV of $100,000 would be $46,000. The Exception Value Ratio is calculated annually and is the ratio between AV and RMV for properties of the same property class. The Current Exception Value Ratio for resort properties is 0.491.83 Property tax is levied on July 1 and due on November 15 each year. It can be paid either in a single payment on or before November 15, in which case a 3% discount can be taken, or in three payments due on the 15`' of November, February and May. If taxes are not paid within three years the property is subject to foreclosure. 81 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll page 80. 82 A relatively detailed history of the Oregon Property Tax system can be found as Appendix B of Oregon Property Tax Statistics an annual publication of the Oregon Department of Revenue. 83 Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll, page 9. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 91 Property Tax Revenue Methodology The basic formula for calculating the initial property taxS4 on a new development such as Thornburgh is simple and straight forward. It is: Property Tax = ((RMV x Exception Value Ratio)/1000) x Tax Rate The (RMV x Exception Ratio) establishes the initial AV for a new property. All that is necessary is to supply values for the RMV, Exception Ratio and Tax Rate. The Property Class" for the Thornburgh Resort is "#8 Resort," and the Exception Value for all properties in the Resort for 2008-09 is 0.491 which was the value used. As pointed out earlier, the Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas (2-003 and 2-004) with different tax rates. But, as those parcels not in Code Area 2-004 are to be annexed into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Prevention District #1,55 it was assumed that the $14.0041 tax rate of Code Area 2-004 would apply to all properties in the resort. Establishing a RMV for each type of property was difficult as only the briefest of descriptions was provided in the Thornburgh Resort Application. These descriptions lacked information as to parcel or lot size, building size, construction materials to be used, amenities or expected or proposed costs. Three different methodologies were used to establish a RMV for the various types of properties. For the 1,375 residential properties86 proposed for the Thornburgh Resort a single methodology was used. The land -use application for the resort contained very little information on the characteristics of the residential development, so for calculation purposes, it was assumed that all the residential units and lot sizes would be similar. To arrive at a value for these properties, a sample of 49 residential properties located in the nearby Eagle Crest ResortS7 was obtained by selecting a number of parcels from each of the tax maps containing part of Eagle Crest. The current RMV for the land and improvements for each of these parcels was obtained from Deschutes County's D.I.A.L system.88 Townhouses were excluded from the sample. Average values were calculated for a sample of 38 lots and 35 houses. 84 In subsequent years the formula is the same as all other property, (AV/1000)*Tax Rate. 85 Letter from Fire Chief Tim Moor of DCRFPD# 1 to Deschutes County Commissioners dated 25 March 2008. 86 The total includes 425 with deed restrictions that they be available for short term rental and 950 without the deed restrictions. 87 Eagle Crest Resort is an existing Destination Resort similar in concept to and located in close proximity to the proposed Thornburgh Resort for which property tax records were available. 88 This is an online tax record system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 92 The County RMV data from 2008 reflects the peak prices of the real estate bubble should be adjusted downward to reflect current market conditions. The Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20 -city housing price index fell 18% in October of 2008 from a year earlier.S9 It appears that this downward trend in real estate values is likely to continue through 2009 and possibly longer. To reflect the decline in values, average values from the Eagle Crest sample were reduced by 20% to obtain the RMV of the residential land and improvements in our calculations. For Commercial and resort -owned properties,90 total building square footage was provided in the application. A $200 per square foot construction cost was used to establish an RMV for the commercial improvements. To determine the RMV of the land it was assumed that the lot associated with a building would be twice the square footage of the building (i.e. 50% lot coverage). To reflect declining real estate values, the value of comparable developed commercial parcels at Eagle Crest were reduce by 20 percent in the same manner as residential property. For the Golf Courses it was assumed that they would be 150 acres each and would cost $3 million dollars each to construct.91 The land value was obtained by averaging the cost per acre of 5 Eagle Crest parcels identified as containing significant parts of a golf course. 89 Year -over -year declines in property values were reported in the Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20 -city housing price index. See Home Prices post 18 percent annual drop in October, by J.W Elphinstone, AP, December 30, 2008. 90 Hotel, Recreation Centers, Golf Club Houses, SPA and Retail Center 91 The web sites for the United States Golf Association and American Society of Golf Course Architects both contain a $1.6 to 4.5 million range for the construction cost of a Golf Course, $3 milllion is roughly the midpoint in that range. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 93 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation Deschutes County imposes a Transient Room Tax on the guest of any Hotel or short term rental housing92 located in an unincorporated part of the county. This tax is in the amount of 7% of the full rent charged by the rental manager for the occupancy of a room. The room tax is not imposed on items separate and independent from the use of the room93 nor is it imposed on recreational fees. If the room is rented as part of a package deal that includes food and or recreational activities the Hotel operator is permitted to exclude from the rent the cost of providing the food or activities. The hotel operator collects this tax on behalf of Deschutes County at the time the room rate is paid. Monthly, the hotel or rental operator remits the amount of taxes collected minus a 5% "Collection Reimbursement Charge." Revenues from the Transient Room Tax are currently being used to fund services provided by the Sheriffs Office and for tourism through the Central Oregon Visitors Association." By state law the minimum proportion spent on tourism promotion and tourism -related facilities can not be less then that allocated on 1 July 2003. The current division is about 73%/27% with the majority going to the Sheriffs Office.' In the FY 2008-09 Annual Budget $2,435,020 or about 19.6% of the operating funds devoted to Rural Law Enforcement came from Transient Room Taxes 97 Room Tax Methodolog In its most basic form estimating the amount of revenue raised by the Deschutes County Room Tax from a hotel is a very straight forward process. The revenue equals the room rate, times the occupancy rate, times .07, times 365 days, minus 5% of the total. Making an estimate of a proposed hotel where the only information is 92 The Deschutes County Code (DCC) defines "Hotel" as "...any structure or space, or any portion of any structure or space which is or intended or designed for Transient Occupancy for 30 days or less, for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes, but is not limited to any Hotel, inn, tourist home, tourist accommodation, condominium, motel, studio Hotel, hostel, bachelor Hotel, lodging house, bed and breakfast, vacation home, vacation rental home, rooming house, apartment house, public or private dormitory, fraternity, sorority, public or private club, mobile home, R.V. or trailer park, campgrounds private home, or similar structure or portions thereof so occupied. [DCC 4.08.0451 93 Items such as Food service, Room Service, Pay for view movies long distance telephone. 94 "Recreation Fee" means a fee charged, assessed, or allocated by a Hotel to a Hotel occupant or occupants for use of Destination Resort recreation facilities, whether the Hotel charging the Recreation Fee is a Destination Resort or has a contract or agreement with a Destination Resort for use by the Hotel's guests of the recreation facilities of the Destination Resort. [DCC4.08.0651 95 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page iii. 96 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 pages 332 and 370 97 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page 370 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 94 the number of rooms, as is the case here, requires a number of assumptions to be made. In order to estimate the average room rate, it was assumed that the Hotel and other rental units would meet the American Automobile Association's Three -Diamond Rating" criteria. This rating is the middle of a 5 level scale and is typical of the ratings held by other resorts in Oregon'. There are 14 Three -Diamond Hotels operating in Deschutes County of which rate information is available for 12 of them. The rates range from a low of $89 to a high of $439 per night. Based on the number of distribution of room types in the AAA Guide, it was assumed that there are four times as many inexpensive rooms as there are expensive rooms. The weighted average room rate is $121 per night. just as there is little information on the configuration of the hotel there is little information on the configuration of the 450 houses that will be available for short- term rental. In order to estimate vacation home rental rates, the assumption was made that they would resemble those currently on the short term rental market for the Greater Redmond area. The Vacation Rentals by Owner web site listed 39 vacation homes available for vacation rental in Redmond, Oregon.10° Twenty-eight of these listings were for rentals in Eagle Crest Resort. The rates for these houses run from $100 to $300 a night, with an average rate of $162. The last variable is the occupancy rates for each type of unit. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts paid by all operations subject to Transient Room Taxes are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. To develop an annual occupancy rate estimate, a peak occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then an adjusted occupancy rates for each of the other months was calculated based on the actual monthly Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate for all rental types was derived, as described below. Occupancy Rates for Room Tax Revenues Room tax revenues are difficult to estimate for a planned, but unbuilt resort such as Thornburgh. Occupancy rates and reporting rates (the percent of private rentals for which room taxes are paid) must be estimated. To estimate occupancy rates, County- wide room tax revenues101 were examined and adjusted to reflect the likely seasonal 9' According to AAA, "Three diamond lodgings offer a distinguished style. Properties are multi- faceted with marked upgrades in physical attributes, amenities and guest comforts." (AAA Oregon and Washington Tour Book, AAA Publishing, Heathrow, Florida, 2008, page 21) 99 The 2008 AAA Oregon and Washington Tour book lists 7 Oregon Resorts, one Two -Diamond, five Three -Diamond and one Four -Diamond. Data collected on 21 December 2008 from http:www.vrhbo.com/vacation- ren tal s/regi on/usa/Oregon/cen tral-oregon. 101 Data from Deschutes County Treasurer Marty Wynn. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 95 nature of this resort. The County -wide vacancy rate was estimated based on the assumption that a peak occupancy rate of 90% is achieved during the peak month of August. This may be overly optimistic, as many private rentals will be occupied by owners during this month. However, this peak occupancy rate was used as a reference to estimate occupancy rates for the rest of the year (see Figure A-1). Average annual occupancy for the County was estimated to be 33% based on this method. Hotels and lodging in Bend, and resorts such as Sunriver and Inn of the Seventh Mountain, are close to Mt. Bachelor and can maintain modest winter occupancy rates. However, resorts such as Thornburgh are located too far away to benefit from skiing. Since Thornburgh would lack off-season appeal, it was assumed that rental occupancy would drop to an average of 10% from November through April. For the remainder of the season, County -wide vacancy rates are applied (see Figure A-2). This results in an average annual occupancy rate at Thornburgh of 29%. Figure A-1: Deschutes County occupancy rates based on monthly room tax revenues. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates, Deschutes County, 2007 100% 90% ---- - - -- 80% ---- - 70% 50% 40% -- -- O 20% _ - 10% — - - 0% C: -0 a _ a ami > o cn z 0 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 96 Figure A-2: Occupancy rates used for Thornburgh Resort. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates for Thornburgh Resort 100% -- --- -- - 80% --- -- 70% - - -- - ix A 60% - 40% 30% - -- - - - -- O 20% - 10% _— 0% 75 cm tCzcri :3 cn O z o Resort vacation homes that are managed by a property management firm will tend to fully report room taxes, as the room tax revenues provides compensation to these firms to offset administrative and collection costs. However, privately -owned vacation homes that are owner -managed may not fully report room taxes to the County. This situation may occur at Eagle Crest Resort, where a recent property owner survey conducted by Jen -Weld specifically mentioned that survey respondents would not be reported to the County if they were renting their house. For Thornburgh, it was assumed that 80% of privately -owned rental homes are fully reporting room taxes, and that 100% of hotel room rentals are reported. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 97 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study The population figures used throughout this study are from the Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast data for each of the 5 -year increments was interpolated using exponential growth rates to create data for each year in between, making it possible to examine population changes over any period of time. In order to create a 20 -year forecast through 2028, the projection data was expanded beyond 2025 to 2028 using the same growth rate as in the final 5 -year period (2020-2025). Table A-3 Interpolated Population Data for Every Year to 2028 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast Added projections based on previous 5 -year growth rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 98 Bend Redmond Sisters Unincorp. Total Year UGB UGB UGB County County 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 143,053 2006 71,294 20,100 1,864 54,199 147,475 2007 73,661 20,989 1,966 55,391 152,033 2008 76,106 21,916 2,074 56,609 156,733 2009 78,632 22,885 2,187 57,854 161,578 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 59,127 166,572 2011 83,135 24,953 2,379 60,428 170,914 2012 85,072 26,056 2,454 61,757 175,369 2013 87,054 27,208 2,532 63,116 179,940 2014 89,082 28,411 2,611 64,505 184,630 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 65,924 189,443 2016 92,981 30,979 2,782 67,374 194,144 2017 94,841 32,348 2,874 68,857 198,962 2018 96,738 33,778 2,968 70,372 203,900 2019 98,673 35,272 3,065 71,920 208,959 2020 100.646 36,831 3,166 73,502 214,145 2021 102,337 38,459 3,275 75,119 219,231 2022 104,056 40,159 3,387 76,772 224,437 2023 105,804 41,935 3,503 78,461 229,768 2024 107,582 43,788 3,623 80,187 235,225 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 240,811 2026 111,227 47,745 3,875 83,754 246,530 2027 113,095 49,856 4,008 85,597 252,385 2028 114,995 52,060 4,146 87,480 258,379 Data from County (population for intermediate years are added). Added projections based on previous 5 -year growth rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 98 A-4. Tax Bases for jurisdictions Used in Study The total assessed values of the tax base for each of the local jurisdictions used in this study are provide in Table A-4. The final column of the table shows the percentage of each tax base that would be represented by the Thornburgh Resort if fully developed. This percentage was treated as the potential future contribution by the resort towards repayment of bonds associated with the infrastructures costs generated. Table A-4 Potential Contribution to Infrastructure Costs Through Future Tax Payments 1) Data from the 2008-09 District Summary Table on page 16 of the 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll published by the Deschutes County Assessors Office. Assessed value of school district from Redmond School District. 2) The percent of the total future tax base represented by the resort based on a fully -developed resort with a total assessed tax value of 374,788,817. 3) Transportation system is not funded by property taxes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 99 Percent of Future Taxes Assessed Value Paid by Category of Infrastructure Jurisdiction of Tax Base(') Thornburgh(') Transportation System') Deschutes County NA NA School Facilities Redmond School Dist. 4,937,455,942 7.1% Fire & EMS Facilities DCRFPD#1 1,295,518,889 22.4% Public Safety Facilities Deschutes County 16,602,476,500 2.2% Parks and Rec. Facilities RAPRD 288,870,875 56.5% Gen Gov. Facilities Deschutes County 16,602,476,500 2.2% 1) Data from the 2008-09 District Summary Table on page 16 of the 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll published by the Deschutes County Assessors Office. Assessed value of school district from Redmond School District. 2) The percent of the total future tax base represented by the resort based on a fully -developed resort with a total assessed tax value of 374,788,817. 3) Transportation system is not funded by property taxes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 99 A-5. About the Authors Eben Fodor, Principal Author Mr. Fodor is Founder and Principal of Fodor & Associates, a consulting firm based in Eugene, Oregon since 1993. The firm specializes in community planning and land use consulting, including fiscal impact analysis, growth management, land -use planning, economic forecasting, and research and analysis. He is an expert in development impact analysis. He created a development impact model for the City of San Diego that quickly estimates infrastructure and service costs for new developments of any size and mix of uses. He has examined the fiscal impacts of development proposals in Washington, Oregon, Maryland and Wyoming for various clients. He conducted statewide assessments of infrastructure impacts of residential development in Oregon and Washington. Mr. Fodor holds a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning and a M.S. degree in Environmental Studies, both from the University of Oregon. He holds a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. David Hinkley, Research and Analysis Mr. Hinkley has worked since 1996 providing public policy research, analysis and advocacy services to lobbyists, candidates, businesses and individuals. Areas of expertise include land use codes, government budgeting, tax increment financing, development impacts, state land use programs, systems development charges, transportation issues, disability issues, bottle bills, campaign contributions, and liquor laws. He served 8 years on the City of Eugene's Public Works Rates Advisory Committee helping to revise the City's System Development Charge methodologies for transportation, waste water and parks systems. Mr. Hinkley holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in History from the University of San Francisco and a B.S. degree with Honors in Criminal Justice Administration from San Jose State University. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor & Associates March 2009 page 100 RICHARD R_ HORNER, PH.D. 230 NW 55TH STREET TELEPHONE: (206) 782-7400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 E-MAIL: rrhorner(,msn.com December 6, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To Whom It May Concern: I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute to review the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR) proposal regarding the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the project on the water quality of Hood Canal and the groundwater in the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications to perform this review. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE I have 30 years of experience in the urban stormwater management field and 11 additional years of engineering practice. During this period I have performed research, taught, and offered consulting services on all aspects of the subject, including investigating the sources of pollutants and other causes of aquatic ecological damage, impacts on organisms in waters receiving urban stormwater drainage, and the full range of methods of avoiding or reducing these impacts. I received a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1978, following two Mechanical Engineering degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Although my degrees are all in engineering, I have had substantial course work and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry. For 12 years beginning in 1981 I was a full-time research professor in the University of Washington's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. I now serve half time in that position and spend the remainder of my time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. Serving as a principal or co -principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has produced three books, approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, over 20 reviewed papers in conference proceedings, and approximately 100 scientific or technical reports. My consulting clients include federal, state, and local government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that work for these entities. My full curriculum vitae are attached. FINDINGS General Findings As stated by section 3.3.7 of the Brinnon MPR Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the basis of the stormwater management program is the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE] 2005), together with the Low Impact To Whom It May Concern December 6, 2007 Page 2 Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT] 2005). The proponent goes on to state that the stormwater management plan will be designed to meet the project's requirement for zero discharge of water to the Hood Canal from the golf course resort area and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the harbor. I now give my general impressions of this basic plan, to be followed with more detailed observations on each point. It is first necessary to recognize that application of the WDOE stormwater manual in no way guarantees reaching a goal of zero discharge. That manual does not feature management practices having strong capability to achieve zero discharge. The PSAT low impact development (LID) manual shows how to design drainage features that could reach zero discharge. However, that manual has none of the prescriptive requirements of the WDOE manual and is just a "how to" guide to employ once the components of the stormwater management system are selected. Hence, it does not appear at all that the zero -discharge goal for the golf course resort has any force behind it. Even if the resort can be held to zero discharge, the FEIS presents insufficient information, even for the level of a rezoning application, for a reviewer, and the public at large, to judge well the prospects for achieving the goal. While I recognize that more detail will be presented at a later stage of project development, the public needs some more information beyond that given in the FEIS to have any confidence that the project will function as advertised and to countenance a major rezone. The marina portion of the project will not be held to the zero -discharge standard. While the FEIS states that its discharge will receive "full treatment," it gives no information at all on what that treatment might be and what is meant by "full." As with the plan for the resort, the public must be given a more complete basis upon which to evaluate the quality of the plan at this point in project development. Outside of the immediate project area, the FEIS does not assess the water quality impacts of anticipated traffic additions associated with the development. The Transportation Impact Study indicates increases on a number of local roads and highways of hundreds of cars a day on average. Automobiles emit or mobilize numerous pollutants that enter water bodies and degrade aquatic ecosystems. The FEIS is inadequate as long as it does not give the public a means by which to understand the full environmental impact before being willing to see rural zoning changed to accommodate this project. Further Observations Zero Discharge from Resort Achieving zero discharge depends on effective implementation of the types of site design and stormwater management practices presented in the PSAT LID manual. Fundamentally, these practices come down to infiltrating rainfall into the ground or harvesting water from roofs and other surfaces for a use such as landscape irrigation or "gray water" system supply (e.g., toilet flushing). The FEIS states that both of these methods will be used but not the role each would play. The intention is to store runoff in existing "kettles," use it to meet "water demands" , and direct the excess into the ground (by To Whom It May Concern December 6, 2007 Page 3 what means is not revealed). Even though I did not have much information to go on, I feel safe in assuming that the project will have to make substantial use of infiltration to reach zero discharge. Successful water quality protection by infiltration depends of having soils that will percolate water rapidly enough to drain surface holding areas in time to prevent various problems that can occur with excessive ponding times (generally, within 72 hours), but not so fast that contaminants will reach groundwater and pollute it. The natural soils do not necessarily have to possess desirable soil pore storage space and hydraulic conductivities themselves, but can be amended (usually, with organic compost) to function well. However, clays cannot be sufficiently amended to provide enough pore storage and hydraulic conductivity to percolate rapidly enough; and, conversely, coarse sands and gravels cannot be amended to slow percolation enough to ensure groundwater protection. The authors of Chapter 3 of the FEIS made no reference to the site soil and hydrogeologic data in Appendix 4 and did not use it to assess in even the most rudimentary way what it means for the prospective success of their plan. The data are very sparse, with the soils information consisting of only the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil survey results. Soil survey data are generally not site- specific enough for conclusive determinations of infiltration potential, which often varies considerable in quite small distances. The reported data show very gravelly loamy sand predominating, which if actually the case would tend to encourage the belief that water could be infiltrated successfully but could penetrate too rapidly. Nevertheless, an informed judgment requires more site-specific data. The public cannot be expected to accept a major rezone in their county until they are told enough to gauge potential success. Insufficient soil storage and hydraulic conductivity will render zero discharge an illusion. Overly rapid percolation will threaten groundwater, a potable supply source in a rural area, and reach streams on the site and other nearby surface waters as seepage. There is heightened concern about groundwater quality when a golf course is involved. Golf courses are large consumers of fertilizer and pesticide chemicals, as well as irrigation water. The common water pollutant least capable of interdiction in soils is nitrate -nitrogen, which is introduced to the surface in large quantities with fertilization, from where it can be carried along with percolating irrigation or rain water to the water table. Nitrate is the agent causing methemoglobinemia, generally in infants, when consumed with drinking water. Pesticides reaching drinking supplies are obviously also a major health concern. Treatment of Marina Discharge The term "full treatment" as promised for the marina is simply meaningless. Different treatment systems have varying efficiencies in treating different pollutants. In addition to terrestrial runoff from upland areas, marinas are sources of all the pollutants associated with engines and petroleum products, cleaning agents, and household chemicals, used right on the water. Their potential for release and in what quantities depend on marina activities, particularly how much maintenance is performed, but they are always a factor. Also, it can be expected that a resort of this size will lead to greatly increased use of the existing marina, which would itself increase pollutant loading. Some treatment systems can do an excellent job in capturing these various pollutants, others are poor overall, and some are mixed depending on the pollutant in question. The project proponents must state how they would handle and treat marina discharge before the public can consider their plan. To Whom It May Concern December 6, 2007 Page 4 Potential Traffic Impacts Table 11 of the Transportation Impact Study shows the "Statesman" alternative to increase traffic by 6 to 89 percent on the various roads and highways in the project vicinity, with a 41 percent rise at one point on highway U.S. 101 (near Woodpecker Road). However, the origin of these figures is unclear and probably in error. My calculations do not agree when comparing the cited "Statesman" alternative traffic volumes with either the "Without Project" or "No Action" columns. For example, I got increases of 875 and 225 percent comparing "Statesman" Black Point Road traffic with "Without Project" and "No Action," respectively. I found the "Statesman" increase on U.S. 101 near Woodpecker to be 69 or 51 percent with the same respective comparisons. I was likewise unable to reproduce Table I l's percentages for the "Brinnon" and "Hybrid" alternatives. It would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to go forward on this major action with such anomalies in key information supplied in its support. Motor vehicles are responsible for water body contamination from many sources. Brake pad and tire wear introduce copper and zinc, respectively, both highly toxic to aquatic life. Wear of engine parts contributes these and other toxic metals, like lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. Petroleum products leak from engines, transmissions, and braking systems. Sediments drop onto roads from chassis and undercarriages. These pollutants wash immediately into receiving waters during rainy periods but also stay on and around roads for later wash off when rains come. It is reasonable to assume that the roads around the resort and marina complex would experience the most elevated traffic in the summer months. Even though there is not much rain then, the remnants would be in concentrated form in the first flush of fall rains. Concentration of toxic materials, such as the various metals in road runoff, is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life. The FEIS is an incomplete and thoroughly inadequate document in not addressing these potential impacts at all. SUMMARY The Comprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the Brinnon MPR proponent can provide convincing evidence that: (1) zero discharge from the golf course resort can be achieved; 2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment; 3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or result in below -ground delivery of pollutants to surface receiving waters, with particular attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4) marina discharge will be treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that source to the greatest extent possible; and (5) increased traffic will not degrade the water quality of Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well being of their resident and anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence must be made available to the public for another review of the proposal before its official consideration. I would be please to discuss my comments with you and invite you to contact me if you wish. Sincerely, Richard R. Horner Waterworks Consultants 4017 Willowbrook Lane Bellingham, WA 98229 360-296-8084 Memo To: Gerald Steel From: Llyn Doremus Date: July 17, 2009 Re: Technical review of: Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort — November 20, 2008 (SDEIS) Recommendations for Additional Hydrogeologic Testing at Black Point Background The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is planned for construction on the Black Point Peninsula in Hood Canal. The peninsula is surrounded by salt water for more than 75% of it's shoreline. At least 15 wells are located along the Black Point eastern and northern shorelines that are at risk of seawater intrusion. Hood Canal is known to have a serious problem with depleted dissolved oxygen content, which has resulted in what has been termed a "dead zone". The dead zone creates conditions where a wide range of sea life that requires dissolved oxygen in the waters of their environment cannot survive. The depleted oxygen condition is known to result from enhanced activity of bacteria and algae that is promoted by discharge of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) dissolved in surface and groundwater to Hood Canal. The two conditions: seawater surrounding the Black Point Peninsula and the potential for seawater intrusion to degrade water quality in shoreline wells, and extreme sensitivity of Hood Canal biologic health to the release of nutrients generate a very delicately balanced hydrogeologic environment in which the Resort is proposed for construction. The Resort water supply for residential, commercial and irrigation purposes has been proposed through a combination of rainwater capture, reuse, reclamation, infiltration, and groundwater withdrawal processes. While the general scheme of the supply system has been outlined in previous documents, the specifics of how each of the components will operate has not yet been accurately defined. The potential for negative impacts of the various supply system components on the delicately balanced hydrogeologic environment is high. A sophisticated understanding of the Black Point hydrogeologic system is mandated to assess potential for degradation from the proposed water supply scheme to dissolved oxygen levels in Hood Canal, to seawater intrusion into the Black Point aquifer, and for the design, maintenance and operation of that system to function without degrading the Black Point aquifer and Hood Canal. These comments address the hydrogeologic characterization presented in the report: Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by Subsurface Group, LLC. November 20, 2008 (Report) with respect to the information necessary for characterization, design and operation of a water supply system that does not degrade the Black Point aquifer. The accuracy and completeness of the Report assumptions, information and conclusions are assessed, and recommendations for additional testing to fill in the information gaps in the Report are listed. Hydrogeologic System Groundwater moves through the sediments and rock, which, along with the other water moving through the system, defines the hydrolgeologic system of a specific site. Sediment tends to form in layers, which can be visualized as a "layer cake" type configuration. Sediments and rock layers with a large percentage of void spaces typically transmit water more quickly, which is termed a high permeability hydrogeologic unit. Sediment layers that are more dense, with tiny void spaces are termed "low permeability" or "impermeable". Low permeability sediment layers impede downward migration (infiltration) of groundwater, and tend to accumulate water on their upper surface. This is normally how unconfined aquifers form. The permeability of an aquifer is usually determined by conducting a pump test. With the exception of the single pump test of the American Campground well, and the marginal data generated from that test, there is no data presented on the aquifer properties of the various hydrogeologic units on the Black Point Peninsula. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING The Report describes results from a pump test conducted in the American Campground well for 48 hours to assess the permeability and other aquifer properties in the well vicinity. The data generated by the test was found to be insufficient to assess the aquifer properties, because the drawdown in Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 2 the monitoring wells was almost undetectable. Pump testing should be conducted in all of the wells that are proposed for water supply purposes. The pumping rate used should be equivalent to the rate at which water is proposed for withdrawal for the water supply needs of the resort (at a minimum 75 gallons per minute to provide the 121 acre feet annual use projection), because of the likelihood that individual wells may be relied upon for the full volume for the resort water demand when problems with water level drawdown and seawater intrusion occur. The tests should be run for sufficient duration (minimum 72 hours) to derive measurable drawdown curve in at least one of the monitoring wells, so that reliable aquifer properties can be calculated. The direction of groundwater movement is defined by the groundwater gradient. Groundwater moves from locations of high water elevation level to low elevation discharging eventually to lower -elevation surface water bodies. The groundwater elevation pattern often mimics the ground surface topographic elevation pattern. Downgradient (lower groundwater elevation) locations manifest the affects of groundwater movement and withdrawal in higher elevation locations. It is important to understand the directions of groundwater movement in order to assess the magnitude and distribution of ground water level decreases associated with groundwater withdrawal (pumping from wells). In particular, reduction in the groundwater levels in shoreline areas increases the risk of seawater intrusion into water supply wells. The Report presents an interpretation of groundwater flow direction towards the center of the peninsula and then to the east (discharging into Hood Canal). The groundwater surface elevation contours are illustrated in Figure 4 of the Report, and suggest that a groundwater high point (at MW -2) dominates groundwater flow direction on the entire peninsula. That single data point (MW -2 water level elevation) is disproportionally valued in interpreting the groundwater flow directions. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING Groundwater levels should be measured in every accessible Black Point Peninsula well on the same date, so that a groundwater elevation contour level map can be constructed that is reliable for use in interpreting the direction(s) of groundwater movement. A better understanding of the direction of groundwater movement will support a better interpretation of the groundwater withdrawal impacts to private wells on the Black Point Peninsula and seawater intrusion risk. Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 3 Diagrams of the Black Point Peninsula hydrogeologic system are presented in the Report Figures 11, 12 and 13. Much of the site is covered with dense, low permeability till. About one third of the site has additional sediments deposited on top of the till that are higher in permeability and allow water to migrate more quickly through them. Water that migrates downward through these higher permeability sediments might slow down and accumulate in a "perched" aquifer upon encountering the underlying low -permeability till. There is no evidence of perched conditions at this site presented in the Report. Basalt bedrock is shown in Figures 13 in wells located on the northern part of the site. The contribution of groundwater flow transmitted through bedrock to the Black Point aquifer is not well characterized in the Report, nor is the bedrock permeability, or the hydraulic connection between bedrock and the overlying unconsolidated sediments. With the exception of the single pump test of the American Campground well, and the marginal data generated from that test, there is no data presented on the aquifer properties of the bedrock or unconsolidated sediment hydrogeologic units on the Black Point Peninsula, or on the hydraulic continuity between unconsolidated sediment units and the bedrock underlying them. Further pump testing (as previously described) is necessary to better define aquifer properties of the hydrogeologic units and the hydraulic continuity with bedrock on the site. Water Budget A water budget uses estimates or measurements of each component of the hydrologic cycle to assess the entire movement of water through a specific hydrologic system annually. For the purposes of characterizing the impact of the proposed water management scheme on the the Black Point Peninsula aquifer and hydrogeology, the water budget should encompass the entire Peninsula. To prevent or at least minimize detrimental impacts it is essential that the components of the water budget are defined as accurately as possible. A typical equation for a water balance is as follows. Ppt=E+Q+dS9+dS, Where: Ppt = annual precipitation E = annual evaporation plus transpiration (evapotranspiration) Q = stream flow or surface water runoff dSs = the change in quantity that is stored as surface water for the year negative for a decrease in the water quantity in surface storage) Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 4 dS9 = the change in the water quantity that is stored as groundwater for the year (negative for a decrease in the groundwater storage, indicating a drop in groundwater levels) Surface Water Flow Although surface water is not flowing onto the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort site, the quantity of water discharged from Black Point Peninsula as stream flow impacts the water budget for the Peninsula. Accurate stream flow measurements help reduce uncertainty in other portions of the hydrologic budget that are more difficult to estimate. Stream flow emitting from the lake in the eastem-central portion of Black Point Peninsula, as well as any other stream flow on the Peninsula needs accurate assessment in order to calculate its contribution to the water budget, and its influence on the other components of the budget. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (Q) Stream flow emitting from the lake on the eastern -central margin of the Peninsula, and flowing to the east shoreline should be monitored to assess the rate of surface water runoff from the Peninsula. Surface Water Storage Surface water is typically stored in lakes and wetlands. To better understand the changes in surface water storage that are ongoing under current conditions dSs), and that may be expected from the proposed use of kettles as water storage facilities, the water stored in Lake (on the eastern margin of the Peninsula) should be monitored for changes in lake elevation. It is likely that the lake is in hydraulic continuity with groundwater, and receives groundwater discharge. A better delineation of lake level variations, and their relationship to precipitation quantities and timing, and groundwater levels will improve the understanding of how groundwater moves through the Peninsula hydrogeologic system. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (dSs) Monitor lake level elevation over the period of a year (concurrent with other monitoring data collected). Precipitation Precipitation provides water that supports the various water uses and hydrologic components. Annual precipitation at this site is poorly understood because of the variability in precipitation along the north south extent of Hood Canal, and the lack of monitored data collected in the Black Point Peninsula or Brinnon vicinity. Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 5 RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (PP0 Precipitation should be monitored on the Black Point Peninsula for an entire year. In addition, the data available from the NOAA approved weather station at location AS461 on the west side of Hwy. 101 across from Pleasant Harbor should be analyzed. See Attachment 1 hereto. Groundwater Storage Groundwater that is stored in an aquifer is the amount of water that is added to the aquifer over the course of the year (termed recharge) minus the amount withdrawn or discharged from the aquifer. Recharge to an aquifer derives from precipitation that infiltrates into the ground. Discharge from an aquifer typically goes to stream flow (Q), or it may be pumped for water supply or irrigation purposes, or, in this case, includes flow into Hood Canal to diminish salt water intrusion into the fresh water supply. The difference between the amount recharged and the amount discharged is the change in storage (dSg). Quantification of recharge is an important factor in assessing the storage changes in groundwater, as is quantification of the discharge. Recharge of an aquifer results from vertical infiltration of precipitation that falls on the ground surface overlying the aquifer. Aquifers are more rapidly recharged when the sediment overlying the aquifer is of "high permeability" and when there is high annual precipitation. Consider if the precipitation that infiltrates to recharge the aquifer is half (50%), the standard assumption when data is not available to calculate actual recharge rates. For this site the annual precipitation rate is not well known, which makes the annual recharge rate even more difficult to assess. Table 3 lists 55 inches for annual precipitation in Quilcene (the closest site monitored). Half of this is 27 inches, or 2.3 feet. For this 220 acre site, this provides an annual recharge of 504 acre feet (significantly less than the 783 acre feet claimed in the Report on page 17). The presence of low permeability till will slow down groundwater infiltration, and likely reduce the rate of groundwater recharge to the aquifer even further than estimated using these assumptions. There will be substantial additional evapotranspiration caused by the watering of the golf course and other vegetation in the hot months of the year. This has not been adequately considered. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING NS9) Groundwater levels in the three monitoring wells (MW -1, MW -2 and MW -3) should be monitored for at least one year, to determine the variation in groundwater elevation. Precipitation should be monitored on the site for at Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 6 least one year to determine the actual precipitation received annually concurrently with other monitoring data collected). Analyses of recharge quantities and rates should be done using monitored data, and presented in the calculation of the water budget for the site. A separate set of calculations should be done assuming serious drought conditions — perhaps an estimated 500 -year drought. Quantification of groundwater discharge is calculated using measurements of changes in groundwater elevation, stream flow measurements, pumped quantities from the aquifer, and precipitation measurements. It is important to delineate the groundwater flow direction and to delineate locations of groundwater discharge, to more accurately assess the annual amount of groundwater discharging from the aquifer. The change in groundwater storage calculated amount (dSg) relies upon an accurate estimation of annual groundwater discharge and its relative value with respect to the annual recharge amount. Additionally, discharge of groundwater from beneath the proposed resort to Hood Canal, that contains contaminated landscaping chemicals especially nitrate and phosphorus) poses a significant risk to the environmental health of Hood Canal. Evapotranspiration The information presented in the Report on estimations of evapotranspiration 24.1 or 24.2 inches per year), need to be presented with data, formulas, tables, and assumptions used in those calculations, as part of the comprehensive water budget estimation. Summary of Recommendations for Additional Testing To better understand the hydrogeologic response to the proposed water supply management scheme in this relatively sensitive groundwater environment, each of the components of the hydrologic cycle should be more accurately quantified. In addition, the aquifer properties must be better defined to design a supply system that does not overstress the aquifer. The following tests are recommended in order to gather that information. Aquifer properties Aquifer testing — pump tests should be conducted for a minimum of 72 hours in any wells that might be proposed for water supply purposes (American Campground Well, Pleasant Tides Coop Well (Sam Boling Water System/Black Point Water Company) and MW -2). Pump tests should be conducted for long Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 7 enough to generate a measurable drawdown in at least two monitoring wells in the vicinity. Pumping rate at the Pleasant Tides Coop Well should include the 300 gpm for existing water rights plus the proposed new withdrawal. Pump testing at MW -2 should include installation of a monitoring well, at a location that is as close as existing wells are to the eastern shoreline, in line with the MW -2 well. Chloride testing of water pumped from the aquifer should be done when the MW -2 is pump tested. Pump testing at the Pleasant Times Coop Well should include monitoring for water level drawdown and for chloride at the other Black Point Water Company wells, the Babare well, the Tudor well and the other Pleasant Harbor Beach Tract Owners wells. Seawater intrusion Chloride content in groundwater should be determined in samples collected from wells pumped adjacent to the marine shoreline over the duration of the pump tests. At a minimum one sample should be collected prior to initiation of pumping, another after at least 12 hours of pumping and a third shortly before pumping is stopped. More samples provide more confidence in the data collected, and the interpretations derived from that data. Chloride concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/I indicate wells at moderate risk for seawater intrusion, with 200 mg/I being the trigger for high risk, according to Island County's Seawater Intrusion Policy (a copy is included with these comments as Attachment 2). Groundwater movement Groundwater levels should be measured in every accessible well on the same date, so that a groundwater elevation contour level map can be constructed that is reliable for interpreting the direction(s) of groundwater movement. A better understanding of the direction of groundwater movement will support a better interpretation of the groundwater withdrawal impacts to private wells on the Black Point Peninsula and seawater intrusion risk. Water Budget The presentation of the water budget in the Report makes it impossible to assess the individual components of the water budget, their relationship to each other, and what data was used to derive them. A comprehensive explanation of the water balance calculations must be provided. This should include: water budget equation used Values for each component the equation Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 8 data, calculations and assumptions used to derive each value In particular the following components need better delineation. Precipitation Precipitation should be monitored on the Black Point Peninsula site for the duration of a year (concurrent with other monitoring data collection). Recharge Groundwater levels should be monitored with continuous electronic logs in the three monitoring wells, and reported for the duration of a year to assess the range of groundwater level variation, and the recharge resulting from precipitation events. Precipitation monitoring should coincide with groundwater level monitoring periods. Precipitation should be used to evaluate the changes in groundwater levels associated with precipitation events (i.e. recharge) Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration calculations, and the data and assumptions used in those calculations needs to be presented in report form. Streamflow Stream flow emitting from the lake on the eastern margin of the Peninsula, and flowing to the east shoreline should be monitored to assess the rate of surface water runoff from the Peninsula. Lake Level Monitor lake (located in the central -eastern portion of Black Point Peninsula) level elevation over the period of a year concurrent with other monitoring data collected. Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 9 From: Sent: Cecile Culp <cecile.culp@live.com> Friday, March 16, 2018 10:57 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Hearing Comment re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development To the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: My husband and I have owned property in Brinnon since 2005, and completed our dream retirement home here in 2016. We love our community and look forward to spending many happy years here, but can't help but notice that our neighbors are suffering and things are falling into disrepair as the local economy continues to shrink. As I drove past the Port Ludlow Marina and Resort this morning, I couldn't help but notice similarities between it and the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort. Port Ludlow comprises a 300 -slip full-service marina, 18 -hole golf course, inn and restaurant, condominiums, and individual residences. The county approved the Port Ludlow project in an era of fewer environmental studies and regulations, and other legal and bureaucratic restrictions on commercial development, than are the norm today. Astonishingly, the water table remains intact, traffic is manageable, the adjoining Hood Canal has not become a fetid sewer, marine life has not been killed off, local people are gainfully employed, tourists who stay there also spend time and money in Port Townsend and elsewhere, and the surrounding community prospers—while the county's coffers take in far more sales, lodging and property tax revenues than if the area had remained undeveloped! Why would you deny a similar shot at prosperity for the Brinnon area, especially after so many years of study and intense public scrutiny have shaped the Pleasant Harbor Resort into a far more modest, environmentally friendly and sustainable project than originally envisioned? How on earth could you pass up the opportunity to increase county revenues and improve emergency services (especially police response times!) and infrastructure at the south end of the county, without having to raise the tax burden on already strapped property owners? Please allow this project to move forward and inject new economic life into both our beautiful area and Jefferson county as a whole. Your voters will thank you. Sincerely, Cecile Culp Brinnon Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Rick Wantoch <rwantoch@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 2:17 PM To: Terry Dolan; Doug Whittle; Cec Harrington; trowte@comcast.net; jeffbocc Subject: Re: Fwd: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Cannot in good faith support this. Pleasant Harbor has always been a small, pristine place to drop hook or moor and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Hood Canal. As a child, I spent many days there in summer. We used to hike up to the store on 101 that bore the name "Liquor Store" on the side. Quite often we were the only boat in the harbor. Over the years, it has grown significantly and has, in my opinion, reached optimum size. To place a resort of this magnitude here would destroy the basic beauty of the harbor and turn it into a tourist trap which would only benefit the investors involved and ruin basic appeal of the harbor. I would guess that most of the money for this project would come from out of town sources with little or no interest in preserving the rural nature of the area -just achieving a high return on their investment. I would be curious to see what portion of the local boating population supports this. Once this resort is developed and the natural beauty destroyed, it cannot be restored. It will be lost forever to the great satisfaction of a few wealthy developers. We don't need a Roche Harbor in Hood Canal. To me, "developing" property is nothing more than destroying it forever -property cannot be created and once lost it is lost forever. And it also goes without saying that once gone, the flora and fauna is gone with it. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Monday, March 5, 2018, 11:36 AM, Terry Dolan <saildabob(c;gmail.com> wrote: Don't know if any of you received this. Link shows development plan as is now. I am going to send email of support to Jeff County. Terry Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Pleasant Harbor Marina <officegphmresort.com> Date: February 27, 2018 at 6:06:08 PM PST To: <saildabobgmail.com> Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Reply -To: Pleasant Harbor Marina <officegphmresort.com> View this email in your browser Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Update We are reaching out for help to get positive comment to the planning commission and B to support moving forward with the MPR. County Dept. of Community Development (DC has completed the draft development agreement and development regulations. Board c County Commissioners (BoCC) has approved a 60 -day public comment period with the agreement on the April 9, 2018 agenda for vote. A vote to approve will allow the project move forward to the next step, application for permits for phase 1. If you want this project to move forward, please send comment to the BoCC. If you live area or own property in the area it is important to voice your opinion. If you visit the are< your opinion is also important. The organized opposition appears to be primarily people living in South Jefferson County. Public comment may be made now through closing of deliberations April 9. Send comment to ,effbocc(o)-co.mefferson.wa.us. There have been a lot of changes since approval of the county ordinance allowing this p to proceed back in January 2008. The ordinance listed 30 specific conditions that have met, including no runoff allowed into Hood Canal, MOUs with local agencies such as Fir School, Transportation and Sheriff. Water quality and traffic has been addressed, as wE housing. The golf course has been reduced to 9 holes, impervious surface has been reduced, natural landscape and vegetation has been increased, number of units has bei N reduced, changes have been made to meet concerns of citizens and local Tribes. The applicant has proposed changing the use of the main building in the resort (terrace -1) fr( convention & resort focus to community activity and sports focus. This would provide a facility for local and regional schools to participate in indoor sports like soccer, basketba swimming and more. It would give adults opportunity for indoor recreation as well, with training and spa facility, pro shop, restaurants, and upper floors with short term accommodations. Current information and history of the project is available on the county web site MPR p, http://www.co.jeffpr n,,,A.,q i j z1797/Play-,ant-Harhor-Master-Planned-R There is a L information there. If you click the links and explore you will find the development agreer presentation, tribal consultations, planning commission recommendations, county ordinE FSEIS and more. If you're looking for something specific and can't find it contact L)ofl(w,pieasan ijaruurr, aiiria.L u, and he will help. I'd like to emphasize that it is critical for those that would like to see this project move foi to comment. Don Coleman don cb-pleasantharbormarina.com Copyright © 2018 Pleasant Harbor Marina, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email as a current or previous tenant at Pleasant Harbor Marina OR have indicated in the past you up to date on the Black Point Project. If you do not wish to receive information in the future, click on "update preferences" below to remove you from the Development Updates. 3 Our mailing address is: Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 4 C effbocc qoTto From: Judith Heckert Woehr <trowte@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 9:29 AM To: Rick Wantoch Cc: Terry Dolan; Doug Whittle; Cec Harrington; jeffbocc Subject: Re: Fwd: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Dear Rick, Although we enjoy the upraded comforts of Pleasant Harbor Marina each summer, Jim and I agree with your thoughts about future development. Best regards, Judith Woehr On Mar 16, 2018 2:17 PM, Rick Wantoch <rwantoch@yahoo.com> wrote: Cannot in good faith support this. Pleasant Harbor has always been a small, pristine place to drop hook or moor and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Hood Canal. As a child, I spent many days there in summer. We used to hike up to the store on 101 that bore the name "Liquor Store" on the side. Quite often we were the only boat in the harbor. Over the years, it has grown significantly and has, in my opinion, reached optimum size. To place a resort of this magnitude here would destroy the basic beauty of the harbor and turn it into a tourist trap which would only benefit the investors involved and ruin basic appeal of the harbor. I would guess that most of the money for this project would come from out of town sources with little or no interest in preserving the rural nature of the area -just achieving a high return on their investment. I would be curious to see what portion of the local boating population supports this. Once this resort is developed and the natural beauty destroyed, it cannot be restored. It will be lost forever to the great satisfaction of a few wealthy developers. We don't need a Roche Harbor in Hood Canal. To me, "developing" property is nothing more than destroying it forever -property cannot be created and once lost it is lost forever. And it also goes without saying that once gone, the flora and fauna is gone with it. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Monday, March 5, 2018, 11:36 AM, Terry Dolan <saildabob@gmail.com> wrote: Don't know if any of you received this. Link shows development plan as is now. I am going to send email of support to Jeff County. Terry Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Pleasant Harbor Marina <office cr phmresort.com> Date: February 27, 2018 at 6:06:08 PM PST To: <saildabob(wgmail.com> Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Reply -To: Pleasant Harbor Marina <officegphmresort.com> View this email in your browser Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Update We are reaching out for help to get positive comment to the planning commission and E to support moving forward with the MPR. County Dept. of Community Development (D( has completed the draft development agreement and development regulations. Board County Commissioners (BoCC) has approved a 60 -day public comment period with the agreement on the April 9, 2018 agenda for vote. A vote to approve will allow the projec move forward to the next step, application for permits for phase 1. If you want this project to move forward, please send comment to the BoCC. If you liVE area or own property in the area it is important to voice your opinion. If you visit the arE your opinion is also important. The organized opposition appears to be primarily peopl( living in South Jefferson County. Public comment may be made now through closing o deliberations April 9. Send comment to Leffbocc co.iefferson wa.us. There have been a lot of changes since approval of the county ordinance allowing this to proceed back in January 2008. The ordinance listed 30 specific conditions that havE met, including no runoff allowed into Hood Canal, MOUs with local agencies such as Fi School, Transportation and Sheriff. Water quality and traffic has been addressed, as w 2 housing. The golf course has been reduced to 9 holes, impervious surface has been reduced, natural landscape and vegetation has been increased, number of units has bE reduced, changes have been made to meet concerns of citizens and local Tribes. The applicant has proposed changing the use of the main building in the resort (terrace -1) f convention & resort focus to community activity and sports focus. This would provide a facility for local and regional schools to participate in indoor sports like soccer, basketbi swimming and more. It would give adults opportunity for indoor recreation as well, with training and spa facility, pro shop, restaurants, and upper floors with short term accommodations. Current information and history of the project is available on the county web site MPR K ottp-//www.co.iefferson.wa.us/727/Pleasant-Harbor-Master There is a information there. If you click the links and explore you will find the development agree presentation, tribal consultations, planning commission recommendations, county ordin FSEIS and more. If you're looking for something specific and can't find it contact Don(pa)and he will help. I'd like to emphasize that it is critical for those that would like to see this project move fc to comment. Don Coleman don pleasantharbormarina.com Copyright © 2018 Pleasant Harbor Marina, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email as a current or previous tenant at Pleasant Harbor Marina OR have indicated in the pac you up to date on the Black Point Project. If you do not wish to receive information in the future, click on "update 3 preferences" below to remove you from the Development Updates. Our mailing address is: Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Au I r, p r r r, From: Rick Wantoch <rwantoch@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:18 PM To: Judith Heckert Woehr Cc: Terry Dolan; Doug Whittle; Cec Harrington; jeffbocc Subject: Re: Fwd: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Thanks, Judith. One thing I didn't mention but I remember most was waking up to the shrill cry for food from the hungry osprey chicks. Then, of course, there were the countless evenings spent in the pool and hottub with family and friends. If this development comes, Pleasant Harbor will lose it bucolic, country feel and become another large, soulless country club. Rick Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Saturday, March 17, 2018, 9:29 AM, Judith Heckert Woehr <trowte@comcast.net> wrote: Dear Rick, Although we enjoy the upraded comforts of Pleasant Harbor Marina each summer, Jim and I agree with your thoughts about future development. Best regards, Judith Woehr On Mar 16, 2018 2:17 PM, Rick Wantoch <rwantoch@yahoo.com> wrote: Cannot in good faith support this. Pleasant Harbor has always been a small, pristine place to drop hook or moor and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Hood Canal. As a child, I spent many days there in summer. We used to hike up to the store on 101 that bore the name "Liquor Store" on the side. Quite often we were the only boat in the harbor. Over the years, it has grown significantly and has, in my opinion, reached optimum size. To place a resort of this magnitude here would destroy the basic beauty of the harbor and turn it into a tourist trap which would only benefit the investors involved and ruin basic appeal of the harbor. I would guess that most of the money for this project would come from out of town sources with little or no interest in preserving the rural nature of the area -just achieving a high return on their investment. I would be curious to see what portion of the local boating population supports this. Once this resort is developed and the natural beauty destroyed, it cannot be restored. It will be lost forever to the great satisfaction of a few wealthy developers. We don't need a Roche Harbor in Hood Canal. To me, "developing" property is nothing more than destroying it forever -property cannot be created and once lost it is lost forever. And it also goes without saying that once gone, the flora and fauna is gone with it. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Monday, March 5, 2018, 11:36 AM, Terry Dolan <saildabob(& il.com> wrote: Don't know if any of you received this. Link shows development plan as is now. I am going to send email of support to Jeff County. Terry Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Pleasant Harbor Marina <officegphmresort.com> Date: February 27, 2018 at 6:06:08 PM PST To: <saildabobggmail.com> Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Project Public Comments Reply -To: Pleasant Harbor Marina <officeAphmresort.com> View this email in your browser Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR; Update We are reaching out for help to get positive comment to the planning commissio to support moving forward with the MPR. County Dept. of Community Developm has completed the draft development agreement and development regulations. County Commissioners (BoCC) has approved a 60 -day public comment period agreement on the April 9, 2018 agenda for vote. A vote to approve will allow the move forward to the next step, application for permits for phase 1. If you want this project to move forward, please send comment to the BoCC. If area or own property in the area it is important to voice your opinion. If you visit your opinion is also important. The organized opposition appears to be primarily living in South Jefferson County. Public comment may be made now through cic deliberations April 9. Send comment to 'effhocc(o-)co.iefferson.wa.us. There have been a lot of changes since approval of the county ordinance allowir to proceed back in January 2008. The ordinance listed 30 specific conditions th met, including no runoff allowed into Hood Canal, MOUs with local agencies suc School, Transportation and Sheriff. Water quality and traffic has been addresse housing. The golf course has been reduced to 9 holes, impervious surface has I reduced, natural landscape and vegetation has been increased, number of units reduced, changes have been made to meet concerns of citizens and local Tribe, applicant has proposed changing the use of the main building in the resort (terra convention & resort focus to community activity and sports focus. This would pry facility for local and regional schools to participate in indoor sports like soccer, b; swimming and more. It would give adults opportunity for indoor recreation as WE training and spa facility, pro shop, restaurants, and upper floors with short term accommodations. Current information and history of the project is available on the county web site httD://waww.co.ieffprson.wa.us/727/Pleasant-Harhnr-Master-r'!annQr4-Resor` Thei information there. If you click the links and explore you will find the developmen presentation, tribal consultations, planning commission recommendations, count FSEIS and more. If you're looking for something specific and can't find it contac Don pleasantharbormarina.c. and he will help. I'd like to emphasize that it is critical for those that would like to see this project r to comment. Don Coleman ui i wwpivaz)ai itharbormarina.com 3 Copyright © 2018 Pleasant Harbor Marina, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email as a current or previous tenant at Pleasant Harbor Marina OR have indicated i you up to date on the Black Point Project. If you do not wish to receive information in the future, click of preferences" below to remove you from the Development Updates. Our mailing address is: Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. CC C'k effbocc ']y6 From: rose wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:37 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Black Point proposed resort A Please scale way way back or do not allow this project. It is so out of scale with what the area can support. The roadways to get there are easily congested. Environmentally hundreds of units on a small point above the water is extreme. The waters here are at risk. Alsojobs are being touted. Service jobs are not a living wage. This development would drastically change the nature of the area and affect the whole edge of the canal there. Please scale way way back. Something like forty units with no golf course is a much more reasonable vision. Thank you, Rose Wilde Sent from my iPhone i jeffbocc 1" 1 Scott's email <fscottfarleigh@gmail.com> From: j, Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:45 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Jefferson County: I am providing these comments in support of the latest Pleasant Harbor Resort Master Plan as revised. I am a tenant since last August at the Pleasant Harbor Marina, and my wife and I have become quite fond of the south Jefferson County area, and especially Brinnon. We have studied the proposed expansion plans, including the modest scaled down golf course (we are not golfers), and we support this project with great enthusiasm. This present Marina and resort is a credit to the environment and to the entire Hood Canal area with competent management and vision and responsibility to local citizens and the Native American Community. In over forty years of boating, I have never seen a more environmentally conscious Marina with more complete and sensitive rules and regulations which preserve and protect the state of Washington and its natural beauty. This project has been on hold now for too long and the additionAl jobs it will create are badly needed. Please give this Resort your support so that we can continue our numerous visits with friends and family to this great area of Washington and Hood Canal! From: VictoriaStarr Marshall <Victoria@3rdactmagazine.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:44 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Letter in support of Pleasant Harbor Planned Master Resort Attachments: VM Ltr in Support of Pleasant Harbor Resort.docx Dear Commissioners, I am a Brinnon resident and business owner. Please see my attached letter in support of the Planned Master Resort in Pleasant Harbor. I welcome you to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration, Victoria Marshall Victoria Starr Marshall Publisher/Editor Office: 360-796-4837 Cell: 360-391-9590 Linkedln Facebook WWW.3rdActMagazine.com 3 rd Actm iagax ne AGING WITH CONFIDENCE We contain all the ages we have ever been." Anne Lamott 1 3rd Act M A G A Z I N E March 18, 2018 To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Victoria Starr Marshall Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort A long -planned resort at Black Point would either be a boon to Brinnon's economy or the bane of its natural beauty and bucolic way of life, according to area residents and interested organizations." Port Townsend Leader, 1/13/16 Is it really one or the other? It's a beautiful spring day today in Brinnon. Warm, sunny, and when I stepped out my door to walk my dog in our "natural beauty" I was met by the acrid smoke of burning trash. It's illegal to burn trash in Jefferson County, but that doesn't stop one of my Brinnon neighbors. Who's here to enforce it? I live on Canal Lane and for the past 10 years I have walked my dog in the Canal Tracks, just south of Black Point, almost daily. On my 2 -mile trek I walk by numerous derelict properties that are abandoned, neglected, and ravaged due to lack of care or poverty. I distressingly observe properties full of heavy metals and other toxic substances melting into the ground near small streams that head down to the Hood Canal. There are piles of trash, abandoned cars, abandoned boats and trailers, and inhabited cabins and shacks without plumbing or septic systems. I have attached some pictures I took on one of my walks of a few (only uninhabited or abandoned) properties I walk by. This fall I posted some of these pictures on the Brinnon Facebook page in response to posts about concerns over the potential environmental impact of the Master Plan Resort. My question was, 'What about the environmental impact of poverty and neglect?' Initially, some responded with outrage over the environmental degradation in the pictures, then the bullies took over and I was attacked. I was called a trespasser (I had not trespassed. I took these images from a county road and a dirt road with my cell phone.) I was called a law breaker, I was shamed for taking pictures of people's property without their permission. (Does Google Earth ask permission?) People became mean. I was threatened. "I shoot trespassers." I realized there was no point in defending myself. I deleted the post. I tell this story because the prevailing opposition narrative about the Master Planned Resort is disingenuous. Some profess concern over the environmental impact because that plays well in Jefferson County, but when shown that we have a real environmental problem, here, now, they attack the messenger and defend the offenders. Pleasant Harbor Resort Developers have proposed state-of-the-art systems to protect the environment—systems and 1 3rd Act M A G A Z I N E infrastructure that the County cannot afford to develop. They are not going to be the problem, they are a solution. The proposed development will provide badly needed tax revenues for Brinnon Schools and hopefully, with more tax revenue available to the county, also bring more county scrutiny and code enforcement to the south county where it is seriously needed for both public health and environmental protection. I believe that there are people who don't want this because they may be violators and fear being in a situation of needing to fix something or do clean up that they can't afford to do. I understand that. And maybe we need to find a way to help them. But we shouldn't turn a blind eye. To protect the beauty of the Brinnon area, the environment here, and the waters of the Hood Canal we need the principled investment in the south county that this development will bring; not more poverty, not more neglect, not the status quo. This developer has amply responded to all environmental concerns, substantially revised their plans in response, and crossed every T' and dotted every "i". Here are my reasons for supporting approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort: 1. Environmental Protection – As noted above the plan calls for state-of-the-art waste treatment facilities, run-off recapture, and other environmental safeguards. They will decommission old septic systems currently on Black Point and hook them up to the new system with minimal cost to the homeowners. A related protection is the potential for increased housing demand in the south county, which could help to rehabilitate blighted and neglected property, and additional tax revenue to help the County enforce environmental and public health and safety codes here. Exhaustive studies have verified that Black Point has access to a high-volume aquifer and its water needs will not negatively impact private wells. 2. Positive Economic Impact – There is no doubt that this project will increase the tax base in the south county and create jobs. It will provide much needed additional tax base for the Brinnon School. There will be entry level jobs for local youth and people without skills where currently there are none. More skilled jobs will bring new families and workers to the south county, revitalizing our community. Property is very affordable here and will be attractive to new residents. 3. Positive Increase in available Products, Services, & Recreational Opportunities If it wasn't for the Food Bank in Brinnon, we'd be in a food desert. The Brinnon General Store is a convenience store, not a grocery store. The planned resort will be opening a grocery store, a medical clinic, offer overnight lodging (there is currently no available overnight lodging in the Brinnon area), a community recreation center, restaurants, and much more. There will be movies and events – and not having to drive dark curvy roads at night to and from Port Townsend just to see a movie would 2 110 3tdAct A G A Z I NE be wonderful! This is a boon to both older and younger people who live here. Isolation can be deadly to our oldest citizens. Increased services will help our oldest South County residents to remain independent and, in their homes, longer. 4. Infrastructure Improvements will attract other clean, home-based businesses— As a publisher and small business owner in Brinnon we rely on high-speed Internet access which is spotty at best. Increased demand for high-speed internet by the resort will make it more attractive for providers to invest in improving access to this rural area. More reliable service makes it easier for other savvy, homebased entrepreneurs to locate and work here. 5. High Likelihood of Success — Some have cited concerns over what might happen if the resort did not succeed. The marketing plan (as I am aware) entails marketing Pleasant Harbor Resort to southern Arizonians as a place to come to beat their heat in summer. I don't think Arizona is going to get any cooler, and I'm sure that the seasonal residents will love and appreciate our environment just as much as we love heading south in the winter to beat our rain and grey. Seasonal residents tend to develop deep bonds with their adopted homes—they contribute to the community and care about it. I speak from experience of both being a seasonal resident of another community, and also having spent most of my adult life living in seasonal communities. (Orcas Island, Sun Valley, Idaho, Sun Peaks, BC) The market is currently very strong for seasonal, destination areas. These people will be a plus to our area. I challenge the narrative that the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort is "One man's economic boon is another's environmental blight," as headlined in the Leader. Don't buy it. This development will provide both an economic lift and increased environmental protections to our area. I urge the Commissioners to approve the current Pleasant Harbor plan and allow them to move forward. Thank you for your consideration, Victoria Starr Marshall 81 Canal Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 In regard to these pictures: These picture show some of the environmental damage happening today in Brinnon due to abandonment, poverty, and neglect. 3 3rd Act M A G A Z I N E I invite any or all of the commissioners to walk with me on my dog walk to see this and more for yourselves. Complaints have been made to the Canal Tracks board, but there is little they can do. And people are afraid to complain for fear of retaliation. I am worried about this, myself, given my Facebook experience and the fact that this letter will be public record. But I refuse to be intimidated. 4 t iy l r J ._ _ f ,.r v I i . T F . r T y.. Vit, , tip '' /I c' -m-4 9 effbocc qEA txs I a_l yp From: Verschueren, Lynne <Lynne.Verschueren@compass-usa.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:50 PM To: jeffbocc Jeff, We have had a vacation home in Brinnon for 40 years and plan on retiring there. Pleasant Harbor Marina with the addition of a golf course would be a welcome improvement to the area. It will being added recreation to a depressed town in need of financial opportunities. Sincerely, John and Lynne Verschueren Sent from my iPhone effbocc From: Lynn Hisey <Ihisey@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort Dear Jefferson Co. Commissioners: I wish to go on record that I strongly support the Pleasant Harbor Resort and the positive effects it will have on the economy and the beauty of our county. If you do not vote to support this resort then you have closed your minds to the voters that voted for jobs; not higher taxes. Why not be the Board that finally starts to turn this county around and help to provide good jobs and more tourists to frequent the businesses here? Please vote to support this development. Thank You, Lynn Hisey Jefferson County Resident and Voter Note: This was sent to this email on March 16th but I don't believe it ever appeared in you recorded comments C effbocc From: Sent: pamyhr@icloud.com Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:56 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Comment Jefferson County Commissioners: What follows are my comments delivered via email to you last February 2nd, 2017. They are re -stated here as my comments have not changed. I remain in support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as long as the two issues of traffic and aquifer infiltration are adequately addressed to protect the Pleasant Tides community. I would like my comments to be included in your upcoming deliberations on this development. My comments that follow reference the resorts Final Supplemental EIS that was part of your January public hearing meeting a year ago: First, I am in favor of the Statesman (applicant) preferred. Alternative Three and believe it will benefit the community both with desirable employment, amenities, and improved tax base. I can envision a multitude of resort options that would add none of these. Statesman has gone the distance to create a desirable end result, but not without these reservations. At the January public hearing in Btinnon, concerns were addressed that I share: Traffic — It is understood that HWY 101 southbound, will have a left turn lane onto Black Point Rd. Since the "T" intersection is at an elevated point along Hwy 1.01, both south and northbound Hwy 101 traffic have limited sight visibility. Please also include a Black Point Rd outbound left merge lane onto southbound Hwy 101 as well .... AND a caution light. Aquifer infiltration — Local residents have expressed concerns over saltwater infiltration of the aquifer and pollutant contamination as a result of the recycled water recharge to the aquifer. These concerns come from studies within the documents. The aquifer is described as "at sea level" with saltwater penetration possible if it is drawn down repeatedly. Plans 1 and 2 may create that scenario. Plan 3 was not available at time of these earlier studies. There has been much testimony and documentation regarding the "state of art" design of water treatment to minimize quantity withdrawn. "State of Art" requires water resource interaction. over time to prove no compromise to quality. There are monitoring requirements and .reference to "Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Section 5.6" and "Neighborhood Water Supply Program." But, lacking specifics, what exactly does this leave as remedy to one's compromised water system? Appendix K, Compliance with LEED Standards, Conceptual Load Estimates, Page 5, 16A — states: "No municipal water supply or wastewater systems will be impacted....." Further in the document, a table identifies Pleasant Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System as a municipal system. Pleasant Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System shares the aquifer of the proposed development. It is a stable system with high quality of water. Most importantly - - it is a state regulated Class A, not-for-profit cooperative with 1.33 residential/one commercial hookup capacity — mostly built out. System fees address ongoing maintenance with existing technology. Its water rights are senior to those proposed. This system is not prepared to secure additional high tech water treatment or additional wells if the aquifer is damaged in quantity/quality by the Statesman development. Time won't change that. A water right for bad water is worthless and could create a crisis locally, and at the county and state level if the Pleasant Tides/Pleasant Harbor Water System becomes compromised. Please consider teeth to monitoring (neighbor inclusion in test report distribution) and teeth to remedy Statesman fixes at its expense) should the aquifer become compromised. This would make it far easier for me and perhaps for others to be fully supportive. Sincerely, Pam Myhr 360 225 5741. cc -Tqz' cc Ic 5 -a t From: david marshall <dvdmrshll@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:54 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Attachments: Pleasant Harbor Resort Letter.docx March 21, 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Honorable Board Members, FANN I urge you to allow the Resort to move forward with the next phase and apply for permits to begin construction. The changes that have been made to the project scope over the years have answered all the concerns that have been raised. The only basis for opposing the project now is opposition to any development whatsoever, which is contrary to the approved zoning plan and the best interests of those of us who live in the South County. My family have been property owners in the Olympic Canal Tracts for more than 50 years and my wife and I have finally been able to move here permanently. I have three reasons to support the project: 1. Water Quality. The project will provide a state of the art sewage disposal system that will include all the current septic systems on Black Point. Given the current closures of the Duckabush and Dosewallips deltas to summer shellfish, this alone is reason enough to move forward. How better could you help protect the water quality of Hood Canal at no cost to the County? 2. Tax Base. The South County is dirt poor. The Brinnon School District would be a big beneficiary of the increased tax base, not just of the Resort property itself, but the increase in value of other properties in the area because of their proximity to the amenities of the Resort. 3. Jobs. The initial construction jobs will be temporary, but a few years of increased availability of those jobs is better than the nothing that is locally available now. The ongoing employment needs of the Resort may be primarily service related and entry level; but the people in the South County need that job training to get a foot in the employment door, and hopefully, a step up the employment ladder. Please let the project move forward and give the South County the boost it needs. Thank you, David Marshall 81 Canal Lane Brinnon 98320 206 406 8046 dvdmrshll nhotmail. com March 21, 2018 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort I urge you to allow the Resort to move forward with the next phase and apply for permits to begin construction. The changes that have been made to the project scope over the years have answered all the concerns that have been raised. The only basis for opposing the project now is opposition to any development whatsoever, which is contrary to the approved zoning plan and the best interests of those of us who live in the South County. My family have been property owners in the Olympic Canal Tracts for more than 50 years and my wife and I have finally been able to move here permanently. I have three reasons to support the project: 1. Water Quality. The project will provide a state of the art sewage disposal system that will include all the current septic systems on Black Point. Given the current closures of the Duckabush and Dosewallips deltas to summer shellfish, this alone is reason enough to move forward. How better could you help protect the water quality of Hood Canal at no cost to the County? 2. Tax Base. The South County is dirt poor. The Brinnon School District would be a big beneficiary of the increased tax base, not just of the Resort property itself, but the increase in value of other properties in the area because of their proximity to the amenities of the Resort. 3. Jobs. The initial construction jobs will be temporary, but a few years of increased availability of those jobs is better than the nothing that is locally available now. The ongoing employment needs of the Resort may be primarily service related and entry level; but the people in the South County need that job training to get a foot in the employment door, and hopefully, a step up the employment ladder. Please let the project move forward and give the South County the boost it needs. Thank you, David Marshall 81 Canal Lane Brinnon 98320 206 406 8046 dvdmrshll@hotmail.com effbocc --e-) From: Sent: To: Subject: MERLE <mdfeff@comcast.net> Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:25 PM jeffbocc Pleasant Harbor Development Improvements Merle Frank here; We visit the Pleasant Harbor facility annually and want to go on record as supporting the proposed development as is now proposed. It will be an improvement over what now exists and economically be advantageous without putting undue stress on resources. It will go a long way to improving the economic viability of the development. qFAAING % leffbocc !L From: GEORGE D PATTI <georgeholmgren@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:21 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Pleasant Harbor Marina Subject: Pleasant Harbor To whom it may concern: We support the development of the Pleasant Harbor Marina project. As dedicated, responsible boaters and members of yacht clubs and power squadrons, we are looking forward to enjoying the beauty of Hood Canal and the community activities proposed for the development. We feel this would be good for the community of boaters, and the communities in the region. Patti and George Holmgren 102 East Road Tacoma 253-274-0451 fit((/C Charnas From: JT Cooke <JT@houlihan-law.com> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:45 AM To: Patty Charnas Subject: Pleasant Harbor WTTP Hi Patty - I understand that there are questions about the place -holder for the WWTP (Appendix I to the Development Agreement). The reason for the placeholder is that Pleasant Harbor cannot prepare detailed engineering plans and designs until the County approves development regulations that outline the allowed density. I provide a brief background of the regulatory process and approvals Pleasant Harbor will be required to go through to obtain state approval of the WWTP and use of Class A reclaimed water. This is an expensive process and Pleasant Harbor cannot prepare an accurate plan (and expend the funds necessary to do so) unless it has assurance of the density that will be allowed. The key, however, is that Pleasant Harbor, through the Development Agreement agrees to design and construct a WWTP to service the resort that will produce Class A reclaimed water. Wastewater Treatment Facilities—Wastewater treatment facilities are regulated by the Washington Department of Ecology. Chapter 173-240 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) addresses the design, operation and maintenance of WWTP. Prior to constructing a WWTP Pleasant Harbor must: o Submit engineering plans, designs and specifications to Ecology for its approval (WACT 173-240-030(1)); WDOE then reviews the plans to insure that the WTTP is properly designed so effluent does not pollute waters of the state and are consistent with good engineering practices (WAC 173-240- 040) State law imposes a detailed set of requirements for an engineering plan (WAC 173-240- 060). The engineering plan is premised around how much wastewater the WWTP will treat which is why we are unable to prepare the plan. The calculation for the amount of wastewater generated by the resort is dependent the density allowed in the development regulations. o Construction, operation and maintenance—In addition to detailed review of the engineering plan, state law also requires a construction quality assurance plan (WAC 173-240-075), an operation and maintenance manual (WAC 173-240-080) and mandates that the WWTP be run by an operator certified by the State (WAC 173-240-100). o Violating the provision of this chapter is subject to criminal and civil enforcement. (RCW 90.48.140). Reclaimed Water—The production and use of Class A reclaimed water is regulated by the Washington State Department of Health and Ecology. Chapter 173-219 (just updated in 2018) of the Washington Administrative Code addresses the production and use of reclaimed water. o Permit—A Permit is required to generate and use reclaimed water (WAC 173-219-070). The permit must identify terms and conditions determined to be necessary by the lead agency, for the protection of public health, the environment, and to implement this chapter and chapters 90.46, 90.48, 70.118, and 70.1186 RCW as applicable." WAC 173-219-270. o Like the process for WWTP approval, Pleasant Harbor will have to submit an engineering plan, operation and maintenance plan and must also comply with monitoring, recording and reporting obligations. o Violations are also subject to civil enforcement. RCW 90.46.130. appreciate the concern with use of the placeholder, but as you can see from the summary above, Pleasant Harbor must meet stringent regulatory requirements to design, construct and operate a WWTP that produces Class A reclaimed water. The cost to go through the approval process and produce a wastewater treatment plan that accurately reflects operations is expensive and cannot be completed until Pleasant Harbor has agreement with the County regarding the allowed density. 96cc RECEIVED l2collsq'EA P! i r prr 6 2018 3A'-IAV klar-- My name is Barbara Jo Blair and I am a member of the Chinook Nation an e Connections Grou at Qj ji 7i' . g P I have been following the Black Point Master Planned Development closely for the last year. You say the development is a land use issue and the developer has his rights. I stand on the side of Tribal and Environmental Justice and believe that Tribes have rights too: Treaty rights to fish, hunt and gather in their usual and accustomed places granted to them by the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point. My concern is that if allowed to build an 890 unit complex using the proposed water treatment system, the already hypoxic Hood Canal could be a dead zone where not only tribal but commercial and recreational shellfish concerns would be unsustainable. In the current plan, the geologically unique and culturally significant kettles will be used as part of the water treatment system. After listening to comments at the meeting of the Jefferson County Water Resource Committee, I question the design and am concerned that the water quality of the Hood Canal will be seriously degraded using that plan. It is my understanding that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has applied to the State of Washington to designate the kettles an historic site like Tamanowas Rock. Until more is known about that status, I hope the development will be on hold. Thank you, ow j GT, WA 9 3/e ct effbocc REA, 6, From: Conley, Mike L [CTO] <Michael.L.Conley@sprint.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:46 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: mikeconley1947@gmail.com; Doyle Jester Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Comments I live part time at 390 Pleasant Harbor Road in Brinnon and my comments are that this area needs jobs and more social activities and this Resort would provide both. This upscale addition to our area is the opportunity of a lifetime to make Brinnon a destination point rather than a pass through point. I would hate to think that people who live in an area with ample services and activities would want to deny Brinnon the same opportunities that they enjoy. Mike Conley 541-543-3771 Mikeconley1947@gmail.com This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. C (- -60 C( ( Julie Shannon T) C T\ Nt) From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:36 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Black Point Development From: Mike &Eloise Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:35:53 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Black Point Development David Sullivan March 26,2018 To Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners We are FOR the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons 1.The MPR will enhance the aquifer on Black Point by A . Having all sewer go thru a treatment plant and inject only clean water into the the aquifer B. Maintaining the kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area C. With the recharge of the clean water, the wells will not be deep enough to have saltwater intrusion. 2. Taxpayers will benefit with an addition of Medical Clinic, Fire coverage EMT coverage, which is in the plan 3. The traffic on Highway101, will increase some. There will be maybe an addition of 150 cars per day with only 800 units added to the Black Point resort. This will certainly not make much of a stress on the highway. 4. The jobs in the Brinnon area are very few, Today this adds to people needing aid. With a new building project there will be JOBS available. The jobs will be of equal pay to the market. 5. Environment will be enhanced by the Black Point Resort with the management of the aquifer and the sewage treatment plant. The shellfish beds, the wetlands and the wildlife. The Golf course will be an added source to use the treated water to maintain a recreation the Brinnon doesn't have. 6. Conditions set for the development have been adjusted and enhanced t meet all request by the Tribes, the County and by the State of Washington. Thank You Michael Langenbach and the silent Brinnon Group 51 Canal Lane Brinnon Wash EAMINeffbocc From: Barbara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:24 PM To: jeffbocc; Michael Haas; Patty Charnas Subject: Documents Submitted as Comments on Proposed MPR at Pleasant Harbor Attached are documents submitted for the comment period on the Pleasant Harbor MPR. You have received all of these documents before, but not during this official hearing period. Please let us know if you cannot open any of the documents. Silver Tip Solutions.pdf im waterworksConsultantsWaterReview (1).pdf 1 Water budget analysis for Black Point Peninsula and the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Course June 3, 2010 Dr. Christina J. Bandaragoda 1425-5014191 christina@silvertipsol.com Llyn Doremus Waterworks Consultants 360-296-8084 llynadele@gmail.com Executive Summary The Pleasant Harbor Resort and Marina is proposed for construction on Black Point Peninsula; the 220 acre facility would dramatically change the land surface of the 710 acre peninsula located in Hood Canal. A data -based water budget was calculated for the Black Point for current forested conditions and for the changed land cover and water usage conditions proposed for the Resort. With the construction and operation of the Resort, 60 acres will be converted to irrigated golf course, 37 acres to buildings and paved impervious surfaces, 17 acres to lined irrigation pond water storage, 60 acres will remain in native forest cover, and we assume the remainder of the 46 acres will be used for bioretention or rain gardens.. The changed land cover will modify the existing water balance that distributes annual precipitation to the processes of evapotranspiration and groundwater infiltration. Evapotranspiration (ET) was calculated for daily timesteps using climate conditions (monitored at Quilcene) and limited by the available water precipitation and ponded surface water). Water ponded in wetlands, bogs and fens at the ground surface infiltrates to recharge groundwater at a rate limited by the soil infiltration capacity of the Black Point till sediments after the daily ET demand is met. With Resort development, impervious surface and landscaped areas will generate surface water runoff. The water budget we calculate, based on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Resort project plans, includes surface water runoff, changes to the evapotranspiration rates and the affects of groundwater pumping. The removal of trees from 160 acres of the site will modify evapotranspiration rates, causing ET increases in summer months and decreases in winter months. To supply the commercial and domestic water needs and the landscaped areas water demand, groundwater will be pumped from the aquifer. We estimate that groundwater recharge will be reduced by as much as 50% as a consequence of. the groundwater pumping (for irrigation and human consumption), changes to the evapotranspiration rates and generation of surface water runoff from impervious surfaces landscaped areas. With the decrease in recharge to the groundwater, we expect the aquifer to be steadily depleted, given the proposed development plans. Any decrease in aquifer recharge increases the potential for seawater intrusion along the shorelines of the Black Point Peninsula. The EIS and development plans do not use a realistic value for infiltration, which results in an underestimate of surface runoff and overestimate of aquifer recharge. We estimate that the annual amount of surface water could be over 400 acre -ft with the proposed land cover changes; twice as much as what could be contained in a 60,000,000 gallon lined pond. Any untreated surface water runoff from landscaped surfaces can be expected to transport nutrients to Hood Canal, degrading the already depleted dissolved oxygen conditions. 2 1.0 Introduction Black Point Peninsula borders Hood Canal within Water Resource Inventory Area 16 (WRIA16; Sections 15 and 22 of T25N, R2W). Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is proposed for development on 220 acres of the peninsula. This constitutes approximately one-third of Black Point, which is currently moderately or undeveloped mature forest. Black Point is within the coastal Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone of Jefferson County, WA and is designated as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. This water budget analysis explores the two following questions about the proposed development: How much surface runoff quantity can be expectedfrom land uses that may require water quality treatment? How does the aquifer recharge and drawdown change with the proposed development compared to current recharge? Using plans and estimates from previous studies (Subsurface Group, 2006; 2020 Engineering, 2007) as well as daily climate data, we analyze the potential water supply and demand for the proposed resort development as a function of seasonal weather conditions, in order to estimate changes to Black Point peninsula hydrology given the proposed development. This work addresses the insufficient scope of recent studies Subsurface Group, LLC, 2006; 2020 Engineering, 2007) to 1) accurately calculate Evapotranspiration, a major component of the overall water balance which controls current and potential future water supply 2) the seasonal effects of groundwater pumping for irrigation requirements, and to 3) present a refined water budget estimate for current and proposed resort development land cover conditions. An important difference between our estimates and other studies (Subsurface Group, LLC, 2006; 2020 Engineering, 2007) are related to the limitation of the annual recharge to 23 in/year plus four inches of soil moisture holding capacity (Morgan and Jones, 1999). This value has also been used by the USGSt for regional aquifer system analysis of Puget Sound (Vaccaro, et al., 1998). By comparing the current forested conditions water budget with the modifications to the water budget from the proposed development, calculated on a daily timestep using climate, data collected in the Black Point vicinity, we show that the water budget estimated by Subsurface Group LLC (2006), developed using annual averages, does not account for the decrease in recharge and increase in surface runoff expected with the proposed land cover change. The current or undeveloped water budget can be expected 1 United States Geological Survey to change dramatically under the proposed developed conditions. The mature forest land cover water use is subject to seasonal limits of water supply, and produces minimal surface water runoff. In contrast, the planned irrigated landscaping artificially alters the water budget by providing unlimited water supply to the landscaped vegetation demands via groundwater pumping, and the developed impervious and landscaped surfaces produces surface runoff in excess of what can be controlled by engineered ponds and bioretention gardens. 2.0 The Water Budget The water budget, or water balance, is important for understanding how changes to one component of the hydrologic cycle will affect other components in the system. In all systems, when more resources are available than are used, there is a surplus; when more resources are needed than is available, there is a deficit. In natural systems, vegetation develops over long time scales in balance with the available resources. Engineered hydrologic systems are generally developed to overcome a deficit of water during dry summer – high demand summer months. The long-term effects of the changes are subject to a range of uncertainties. But by definition, land development and the associated land cover change, alters the water balance by changing the seasonality of supply and demand. 2.1 The Current Water Budget The current water budget (ooWB) can be assumed to be in balance (changes in WB on an annual average equal 0), since the demands on the system have developed dependent on the available water resources and infiltration capacity. We use an infinity sign to signify the long-term balance that has developed for the natural system, in contrast to an altered or developed land surface. There is no excess surface water runoff, because there is no stream or creek which conveys surface water runoff or channelization that has evolved on the land surface. The annual average water budget for the current system is therefore defined as: WB = Rainfall – Evapotranspiration – Groundwater recharge (1) In Equation 1, the amount of rainfall either cycles back into the atmosphere through evaporative and vegetation use, collectively referred to as Evapotranspiration, or the rainfall infiltrates through the soil to recharge groundwater. On a monthly timescale, there is a potential for high rainfall winter months to create surplus water that is ponded on the ground surface in wetlands, bogs, and fens and then slowly infiltrates (or evaporates). Equation 2 describes the adjustment to the water balance in the winter caused by an increase in rainfall. There is a decrease in evapotranspiration due to cooler temperatures, and increase to groundwater recharge at the maximum rate defined by the 4 soils infiltration capacity (Groundwater recharge.). Increases and decreases in each of the components of the water budget are shown with up and down arrows (respectively), with a positive (+) water balance (or surplus) shown for the winter. Equation 3 depicts the summer water balance as defined by a decrease in rainfall. There is an increase in evapotranspiration due to warmer daily temperatures, a groundwater recharge rate limited by the soil infiltration capacity and the available water (Groundwater rechargem. jk jj ). A negative (-) water balance or deficit is shown for the summer. Summer water deficits result in unmet water demand by the vegetation, since both evapotranspiration and recharge are limited by the available water. WB Wille, = Rainfall T - Evapotranspiration .), - Groundwater recharge„,, (2) 1WB summer= Rainfall . - Evapotranspiration T - Groundwater rechargema. avauawe (3) Taken together, winter and summer water budget (Equations 2 & 3) are in an annual balance (Equation 1), where the annual precipitation, the capacity of the land surface to hold excess water in wetlands, the water use by vegetation, and the groundwater recharge function together to balance the system. 2.2 Water Budget for the Proposed Resort Development The water budget ( AWB) estimated for the developed resort will depend on change to the land cover and water use. Here we use the delta symbol to signify a change to the annual water budget compared to Equation 1. The demands on the current water budget depend on alteration of the land surface due to resort development, which will modify water ponding, or saturated surface water holding, infiltration to groundwater, and surface runoff quantity. The natural undisturbed soil surfaces, with high ponding capacity, are proposed to be reduced from 220 acres of mature forest to 60 acres of mature forest. Additional bioretention gardens with high infiltration capacity are also proposed, but we are not aware of the exact plan and number of acres of bioretention gardens and their planned capacity. Impervious surfaces (planned for 37 acres of the resort) will generate surface runoff. The addition of this Surface Runoff variable to the water budget (Equation 1) is shown in Equation 4. AWB = Rainfall – Evapotranspiration – Groundwater recharge – Surface Runoff 4) Evapotranspiration from the developed resort is expected to be reduced in the winter with less forest transpiration, and increased in the summer with more grass evapotranspiration than current forested conditions. This is explored further as shown conceptually in Equations 5 and 6. The decrease in winter evapotranspiration will result in an increase in surface runoff. Simultaneously, the groundwater recharge will be reduced because of the change in land cover and the associated reduction in surface water holding capacity compared to undisturbed soils of the mature forest. In the winter, we can expect a water surplus due to reduced evapotranspiration and reduced soil moisture capacity (Equation 5) compared to the current conditions (Equation 2). An increase in summer evapotranspiration supported by irrigation pumping will be used to supply the full potential evapotranspiration water demand of the landscaped grass. Because of the increased evapotranspiration demand, less water will be available for groundwater recharge in the summer, and impervious surfaces will continue to generate surface runoff during rain events. In the summer, we can expect a water deficit due to the increase in evapotranspiration, runoff and associated groundwater pumping (Equation 6) compared to the current conditions (Equation 3). The annual average water budget for the proposed system in the winter and summer is defined as: AWB winter = Rainfall t - Evapotranspiration ,j,.l, - Groundwater rechargemax•(, Surface Runoff t (5) AWB r,,mmer = Rainfall .), -Evapotranspiration *Tlt- Groundwater rechargemax avaflables Surface Runoff'(` (6) Equations 1 through 6 provide the conceptual framework for how land use changes affect multiple variables simultaneously. The best way to understand how these variables operate in concert, is to use observed climate data to estimate average values for each component of the current and developed water budget. In the following sections, we estimate on a daily timestep, and then average by month, how the land cover changes due to the proposed resort development will increase the winter surplus, and increase the summer deficit. This level of detail is required to understand whether the proposed changes to the peninsula water budget will be adequately addressed by the proposed engineering solutions to protect the Black Point aquifer from drawdown and the risks of saltwater intrusion, as well as protect Hood Canal from increased surface water runoff and the associated water quality degradation from of the surface runoff. 3.0 Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration is a key element of the water balance whereby water is converted from liquid to vapor phase. Evapotranspiration (ET) is the combination of soil and vegetation processes where water is removed from the ground surface and transmitted to the atmosphere. Depending on the land cover and stage of vegetation growth, water is removed from soil and water surfaces by evaporation as well as transpired by trees or crops. Potential ET is the amount of water that can be evaporated and transpired given an unlimited supply of water. Normally ET is limited in summer months by the water availability, which is termed Actual ET. Actual ET is affected by 6 climate conditions of rain (or irrigation water), temperature, wind speed, humidity, air pressure, and solar radiation. Evapotranspiration estimates presented in this report were calculated using the ASCE2 standardized Penman -Monteith ET equation (Jensen et al, 1990). The available weather data used for calculation of evapotranspiration includes 1) daily total solar radiation, 2) average wind speed, 3) minimum daily temperature, 4) maximum daily temperature, 5) minimum daily relative humidity, 6) maximum daily relative humidity, and 7) precipitation recorded in Quilcene starting in 2006 and continuing to present day for this report, analysis ended March 31, 2010). Solar radiation is a required input parameter for the ASCE standardized Penman -Monteith ET equation. This method for calculated ET was recommended by the 1999/2000 ASCE Task Committee on Standardization of ET (Walter et al., 2000). The FAO Penman Monteith methods (Allen et al, 1998) used in the Environmental Impact Statement (Subsurface Group, LLC, 2006) to calculate ET predate the ten year old ASCE recommendation. Although climate data has been collected at the Quilcene station since 2001, solar radiation data was only available for 2005-2010. This five-year dataset provides the parameters necessary to more accurately estimate the water balance variable of ET, used in Equations 1 through 6. The evapotranspiration rate of approximately 24 inches per year reported in the EIS (Subsurface Group, LLC, 2006) and Water Supply Bulletin No. 54 (Grimstad and Carson, 1981), represents the ET of a grass land covered surface. It does not account for the seasonal differences in water demand (transpiration) of forested land cover that are currently unmet in the summer. In this study, the transpiration of mature forest was estimated using the observed transpiration of a mature Douglas -fir forest in a maritime climate (Bosveld and Bouten, 2001), where they reported a minimum transpiration rate for nighttime and dry conditions and a maximum peak daytime and wet transpiration rate that equates to an annual transpiration range of 20-50 in/yr3. The soils used in developing this reference transpiration estimate were well -drained on ice -pushed sandy loam and loamy sand textured river sediments (Typic Distocrepts), similar to those present on Black Point Peninsula. About 90% of the fine root length can be expected to be found in the topsoil to a depth of 16 inches (Olsthoom, 1991). Figure 1 illustrates how the annual average rainfall and ET varies under current forested conditions and developed grass -covered conditions throughout the year. The x- 2 American Society of Civil Engineers 3 These values for water use by Douglas -Fir forest was confirmed by author of the referenced article, Fred Bosveld, personal correspondence, 05/10/2010. axis begins in July so that the winter months are centered in the plot. Using the Quilcene dataset (2005-2010), the average monthly rainfall (Figure 1, blue line) ranges between I 1 inches /month in the winter and 1 inch/month in the summer. The potential forest transpiration (Figure 1, solid dark green line) demand is consistently between 2-3 inches/month. In the summer, water demand is partially met by available surface water stored in wetlands near the surface. But once the ground surface dries out, there would not be enough water available to meet the forest transpiration demand; instead, the Actual forest ET is the estimated water demand (Figure 1, dashed dark green line). In the winter, 2 inches/month is consistently used by the forested vegetation, whereas the landscaped grass demand (Figure 1, solid light green line) is close to 0. This difference in the seasonal water demand between the forest ET and the landscaped grass ET has implications for generation of surface water runoff. The reduced grass ET demand in the winter contributes to a change in land cover from forest to grass increases the surface water runoff (or water budget surplus) in the winter. The summer water demand for the irrigated landscaped grass (Figure 1, solid light green line) peaks at a monthly average of 4 inches/month. Unlike the deficit water availability that causes the difference between potential and actual ET for forested conditions, we can assume that the landscaped grass potential ET, the maximum demand, will be met by irrigation. The difference between the peak demand in July of grass (4 inches/month), compared to the minimum water availability from rainfall (at less than I inch/month), we assume will be met by the surface water stored in the planned 17 -acre lined pond and supplemented by groundwater pumping. Using the Quilcene dataset (2005-2010), the average annual rainfall estimate for the Black Point Peninsula is 47.5 inches/yr. Of this annual average, 24 inches/yr is consumed by forest ET (actual). The annual water demand for grass ET would be 19 inches/yr. . Whether the surplus rainfall, or rainfall in excess of ET demand, will recharge the groundwater or become surface water runoff, depends on the developed land cover conditions of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort and Golf Course and the infiltration rate of the underlying soils. 12 Rain 10 Grass s 8 Potentia! Forest ET C0 Actual Forest ET 6 mrWc 4 2 0 _ 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Month Figure 1. The average monthly change in available rainfall, mature forest transpiration and grass evapotranspiration demand. 4.0 Groundwater Recharge and Surface Water Ponding In order to estimate the effects of removal of mature forest from the proposed development site and replacement with cultivated grass, irrigated landscaping, and impervious surface, the EIS (Subsurface Group, LLC, 2006) presents an estimate of aquifer recharge derived by subtracting annual ET and change in groundwater storage from annual precipitation. If it is assumed that the water budget balances between annual precipitation and the water quantities consumed via ET, surface water runoff and groundwater recharge Equation 4 can be expressed as: A Groundwater recharge = Rainfall — ET — Surface Runoff (7) A positive change in groundwater storage, implies that excess rain is recharging the groundwater aquifer. A negative change in groundwater storage would be expected to lower the water table. Missing from the EIS water budget analysis is the surface water storage effects of ponding on groundwater recharge, which occurs when the precipitation accumulated at the ground surface exceeds the maximum soil infiltration capacity. Equations 8 (current water balance) and 9 (developed site water balance) depict adjustments to Equation 7 to account for the surface water storage ponding affects. Rainfall and ponded surface water J accumulate at the ground surface under current soil conditions of the undeveloped site L) (expressed in Equation 8 as Surface Storageu) when the quantity of ponded surface water exceeds the amount that infiltrates at the maximum annual groundwater infiltration rate of 23 in/yr , or 0.063 in/day (Morgan and Jones, 1999; Vaccaro et at. 1998). This rate is also used as the annual rate for surface water infiltration through bioretention gardens designed for high infiltration capacity. Because there is no surface water runoff occurring from the site under current forested conditions, we have assumed that the ponded surface water storage capacity of the undeveloped site is sufficient to store all accumulated surface water until it is either evapotranspired or infiltrated. For the developed resort site (D) conditions, the soil ponding capacity is assumed to be less than that of the current forested conditions due to grading and filling; this is represented in Equation 9 as Surface Storageo. With the decreased soil infiltration capacity from the resort development, a greater amount of water accumulates at the ground surface, exceeding the surface water storage capacity. As a consequence, surface water runoff is generated, and is included in in Equation 9. Groundwater recharge = Rainfall + Surface Storageu – ET (8) A Groundwater recharge = Rainfall + Surface StorageD – ET –Surface Runoff 9) To incorporate the affects of surface water storage (ponding) into our water budget, each of the components of the water balance was calculated on a daily timestep for the entire year using groundwater recharge estimated as the amount of water that infiltrated daily from the available surface water storage (rainfall and ponding) after the ET water demand was subtracted. The maximum infiltration rate was set at 23 in/year for mature forest (Morgan and Jones, 1999; Vaccaro et al., 1998). Water that ponded at the ground surface in excess of the soil infiltration capacity for the daily timesetep was carried over to the next day's timestep calculation. If the amount of surface water storage present exceeded the next day's daily ET uptake, water infiltrated to recharge groundwater for that day. For the current forested conditions, the surface water storage from ponding estimated to be held in bogs, wetlands, or kettles ranged from 0-5 inches in the summer, and from 10 to 35 inches in the winter (illustrated by the blue line; Figure 2). For landscaped grass, the ponding ranges from 0 to 2 inches year round. A significant component of the ET demand for the landscaped grass is assumed to be met by irrigation, which is intensively managed to minimize surface water ponding. Our groundwater recharge estimates are greater than those presented in the EIS for the current forested conditions because we account for the high infiltration capacity of the forest soils (Morgan and Jones, 1999; Vaccaro et al., 1998), as well as the capacity of 10 ponds and wetlands to store and infiltrate surface water. Correspondingly, the impacts to groundwater from the conversion of forest to landscaped grass cover generate a greater groundwater deficit than presented in the EIS, due to the reduction in groundwater recharge associated with the groundwater pumping required to irrigate grass in summer months and the reduction in ponding capacity. 40 35 30 25 U 20 15 10 h 1~ 1150, Figure 2. Forest and landscaped grass ponding depths. Forest Ponding Grass Ponding Figure 3 shows the monthly annual average recharge in units of acre -ft per month comparing recharge under the current conditions of 220 acres of mature forest (Figure 3; blue line), and recharge for the proposed resort development conditions with land use modifications as listed in Table 1 (Figure 3; teal line). With 60 acres of forest remaining untouched, 60 acres of developed golf course, and 37 acres of impervious surface, there is only 46 acres remaining that we assumed would be developed into the bioretention gardens required for the planned management of the stormwater generated from the impervious surfaces. Table 1. Resort land cover areas Acres Land Use 60 Golf Course 60 Mature Forest 37 Impervious surface 17 Lined Pond 46 Bioretention (assumed) 220 Total Proposed Development The maximum available land surface is 46 acres that could be engineered for managing the 146 acre -ft of average annual water that will precipitate on 37 acres of impervious surfaces, based on the planned areas for the resort golf course, forest, impervious surface and lined pond areas (as listed in Table 1). With a 23 inches/year rate infiltration rate, 46 acres of bioretention gardens would have the capacity to infiltrate 72 acre feet of water annually (or a maximum of 7.5 acre feet of water per month given 12 inches of ponding, and minimum values of 2.5 acre -ft in August and September. 2020 Engineering estimated that rainwater harvesting from the 37 acres of impervious area would generate 132 acre feet of surface water annually (given the 55 inches average annual precipitation recorded at Quilcene). We have estimated 146 acre feet average using 2005-2010 rainfall data. If the entire impervious area runoff of 146 acre -ft was to be directed to bioretention gardens, in addition to 182 acre -ft of rain falling directly on bioretention gardens, there would a total surface water input of 328 acre -ft of water. Of this total surface water input, only 74 acre -ft are used by ET, and 72 acre -ft can recharge given an undrained filtration capacity limited by the underlying soils (23 in/yr) and a 12 inch ponding capacity. For the 83 acres of impervious surface and bioretention gardens, this leaves a remainder of 182 acre -ft of annual surface runoff occurring primarily between October and March, that is not addressed by the current plans. Figure 3 shows the average monthly rainfall on 37 acres of impervious surfaces (blue line), the bioretention garden recharge capacity assuming 46 acres of bioretention gardens with a maximum capacity of 7.5 acre -ft (green line), and the resulting surface runoff of rainfall in excess of the bioretention recharge capacity (brown line). The annual average surface runoff from impervious surfaces totals 146 acre -ft which will need to be captured and treated to avoid contaminated surface water runoff to Hood Canal. Bioretention capacity, if used in the development, will be limited by the rain falling directly on the gardens. Without 12 filtration and drainage systems, there will be no excess capacity to capture and store runoff from impervious surfaces.. 80 70 60 5o 40 a 30 20 10 0 7 8 9 10 it 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Month Water Input Bioretention recharge Surface Runoff Figure 3. The average monthly estimated groundwater recharge of bioretention estimatedfor managing the rainfall on 37 acres of impervious surfaces for the proposed development land cover. Figure 4 compares the monthly average groundwater recharge for the existing conditions of 220 acres of mature forest with recharge for the developed site mixed land use (as listed in Table 1). For the existing forested site, groundwater recharge ranges between 22 and 35 acre -ft per month, for a total of 351 acre feet per year recharge. For the developed conditions, monthly average recharge rate ranges between 10-25 acre -ft given the mix of land uses, for a total of 230 acre -ft per year. Subtracting 69 acre -ft of commercial and domestic groundwater demand°, results in an annual recharge balance of 160 acre -ft. Table 2 lists sources of recharge from the proposed developed mixed land use where 99 acre -ft recharges from the forested land, 69 acre -ft from the landscaped area, and 72 acre-feet recharges through the bioretention areas. Comparing the current recharge rate of between 300-350 acre feet/year, with the data -based estimates for developed conditions, 150-200 acre feet/year, shows that the recharge for the developed resort will be 45% of the current recharge. Irrigation water demand is assumed to be taken primarily from lined pond storage. The actual demand is explored in the next section. 13 40 35 30 s 2s 0 20 u 15 to 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 month Current Groundwater recharge Proposed Recharge forest + Golf Course + Bioretention) Figure 4. The average monthly estimated groundwater recharge under current forested conditions exceeds the estimated recharge for the proposed development land coverfor every month of the year. Table 2. Annual groundwater use estimates and groundwater recharge for the developed resort land cover Groundwater Source or Use Water + Water - acre -ft) acre -ft) acre -ft) Recharge from forested land 96 cover Recharge from landscaped 64 areas Max recharge from 69 bioretention gardens Commercial & Dom. Pumping 69 Total Recharge 160 Subsurface Group, LLC (2006) interprets the connection between ground water level and precipitation to generate a significant rise in groundwater elevation with precipitation events5. Groundwater elevation increases occurring one to two days after precipitation events leads the authors to the conclusion that off-site water (such as the 5 Page 7 of 19 in EIS. 14 Duckabush River or drainage from the mainland) are the source for the groundwater level increases, as rainwater cannot be expected to infiltrate 100 vertical feet in a 24-48 hour time period. This explanation assumes an unsaturated or dry soil profile, and that all precipitation events could be expected to have the same response. Alternate explanations that merit further evaluation include the presence of perched water tables or saturated soil profiles, with groundwater response based on wet versus dry antecedent conditions. If the water level response is linked to water held at intermediate levels in the soil profile, the effect of land cover change and seasonal changes in water level response would be more extreme than is currently observed. 5.0 Water Use Estimation The difference between surface water availability and water demand can be expected to vary on a year to year basis depending on the annual rainfall. Figure I shows the average monthly water demand for forest and grass evapotranspiration which in reality varies from year to year, and throughout the year, as shown in Figure 4. Most rainfall occurs in the winter months (Figure 4; blue line) and the peak ET water demand Figure 4; red line) occurs in the summer months. The timing and the magnitude of the variations in rainfall and evapotranspiration also change from year to year. Figure 4 shows the rainfall and ET variations for the sixty acres of landscaping planned for the developed resort. Using the 2005-2010 Quilcene weather data, the 60 acres of irrigated landscaping would require an amount of water represented by the difference between the rainfall (blue) and the ET (red),when the ET rate exceeds the amount of precipitation received per month (the red line has a higher value than the blue line). If there is insufficient water available to meet the landscaped grass ET demand (the periods when the red line has a higher value than the blue line) the difference is supplied by the irrigation requirement (Figure 4; green line), which is at a peak every year around July. 15 is 20 is 10 5 0 0 o g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q CLOJz '° ? a Z ^ 2 ' y° Z A Z Rain Potential Grass reference ET irrigation requirement Figure 4. Monthly time series of observed rainfall, calculated ET, and the resulting pumping requirement given four year of observed weather data (2006-2009) To calculate the daily irrigation requirement shown in Figure 4, the precipitation amount and evapotranspiration demand were estimated on a daily timestep. An 85% sprinkler irrigation efficiency was assumed for the 60 irrigated landscaped acres, which resulted in an annual average estimate for irrigated water use of 62 acre -ft (ranging between 44 and 74 acre -ft per year), depending on the weather (rain, temperature, and solar radiation). If 59 acre -ft of reclaimed water (from the 65 acre -ft of commercial and domestic water available from groundwater pumping) is stored in a lined pond, an additional 10-20 acre -ft per year may need to be pumped from groundwater to supply irrigation demand during low precipitation (non -average) years. This is less than the 108 acre -ft annual irrigation estimate by 2020 Engineering for the Golf Course and the FireSmart program6. To estimate the amount of domestic pumping for each month we used the 2020 Engineering (2007) assumptions of 890 units with 32 gal/day water usage per person, with 85% occupancy in the peak season, 50% occupancy in the mid season, and 30% occupancy in the low season. The 28 acre -ft annual estimated commercial usage was divided evenly throughout the year. 6 It is unclear which acres will be treated with the FireSmart program; so this additional demand was not included. They may be irrigating the 60 acres of mature forest, or irrigating the 47 acres of what we are assuming to be the bioretention garden footprint required to capture impervious surface runoff. 16 Figure 5 shows the monthly averages for groundwater recharge and pumping for current and developed land cover (also shown in Figure 3), along with the pumping allocated to supply the irrigation demand, and the cumulative impacts to the groundwater aquifer from the resort development and operation. Monthly pumped amounts (to supply irrigation demand, commercial and domestic consumption) are shown to illustrate the relationship between monthly average estimates of the groundwater pumping requirement Figure 5; red line) and groundwater recharge. The combined impact to the groundwater aquifer from pumping and reduced groundwater recharge due to the changes in the land cover and associated resort landscaping is illustrated by the thicker navy blue line recharge -pumping) . Note that the summer aquifer balance is in deficit given the higher commercial and irrigation demands during those months. Comparing the existing groundwater recharge under current conditions (royal blue line) with the groundwater recharge predicted under the developed site conditions (light blue line) reveals that the combined resort development land cover and water use will generate a significant reduction in groundwater recharge to the aquifer for every month of the year. 40 35 30 25 L c 20 E 15 10 u 5 to 0 S 10 15 month Current Groundwater recharge Proposed Recharge forest + Landscape + impv.Surface) Groundwater Pumping (Irr & Comm & Dom. Demand - Reclaimed) Recharge -Pumping Figure S. The monthly average water budget variables affecting groundwater recharge in the proposed development, compared to the estimated current groundwater recharge. Table 3 lists the average monthly rainfall and corresponding rainfall harvesting from 37 acres of impervious surface, and 17 acres of direct rainfall to the lined pond. 2020 Engineering( 2007) estimated 60 acre -ft of water supply from direct rainfall on the pond and our total is slightly higher at 67 acre -ft. The pond storage from direct rainfall 67 acre -ft) plus the 59 acre -ft of reclaimed water makes a total of 126 acre feet or approximately 41 million gallons on average needed for annual storage or treatment 17 capacity. This 41 million gallon storage capacity is based on an annual average rainfall of 47 inches/yr; but a pond designed to capture surface runoff should be sized large enough to retain more than the average rainfall amount each year. For example, in 2006, the annual rainfall was 61 inches. A pond sized at 60 million gallons would be inadequate for capture and storage of the rainfall and reclaimed water for that year, and for other years of higher than average rainfall. Table 3. Monthly average rainfall and the resulting total volumes of impervious surface runoff and direct rainfall inputs to pond. Impervious Surface Pond 6.0 Comparison of Current and Developed Resort Water Budget To evaluate the changes to the Black Point Peninsula hydrology that may result from the development of the Pleasant Harbor Resort and Marina, we compared the water balance for the existing Black Point Peninsula (mature forest conditions) with the developed and irrigated land cover (proposed for the resort development) using climate data collected at Quilcene, starting from when the solar radiation data was available March 2005- March 2010). The difference between rainfall and ET demand was calculated for current site conditions using a seven day running average where the ET 18 Rain 37 acres 17 acres Month in/month acre -ft acre -ft 1 7.0 21.5 9.9 2 3.3 10.3 4.7 3 4.1 12.6 5.8 4 3.1 9.6 4.4 5 2.8 8.5 3.9 6 1.7 5.3 2.4 7 0.7 2.3 1.1 8 1.0 3.2 1.5 9 1.1 3.5 1.6 10 3.2 9.8 4.5 11 10.3 31.8 14.6 12 9.1 28.0 12.9 Total /yr 47.5 146.5 67.3 6.0 Comparison of Current and Developed Resort Water Budget To evaluate the changes to the Black Point Peninsula hydrology that may result from the development of the Pleasant Harbor Resort and Marina, we compared the water balance for the existing Black Point Peninsula (mature forest conditions) with the developed and irrigated land cover (proposed for the resort development) using climate data collected at Quilcene, starting from when the solar radiation data was available March 2005- March 2010). The difference between rainfall and ET demand was calculated for current site conditions using a seven day running average where the ET 18 was limited to the available rainfall. The developed site golf course grass water balance estimates include ET calculated for grass and adds groundwater pumping for irrigation required to meet grass water demand; grass potential ET ranges between 0.1 to 4 inches/month. The mature forest water demand (for the remaining 60 forested acres) ranges between a minimum of 1.5 to 2.5 inches/month. Available water remaining after meeting evapotranspiration demands was treated as recharge up to a maximum infiltration rate equivalent to 23 inches/yr (0.063 inches/day). If additional water was remaining after recharge, this water was added to surface storage ponding in the forested condition. The storage that accumulated was the sum of excess surface water accumulation? plus the storage available from the previous day. The surface storage ponding was limited to two inches on the 60 acres of golf course grass. Figure 6 shows how the monthly average rainfall is currently divided between forest transpiration, and groundwater recharge for the 220 acres in the current forested condition. About half of the available water evaporates, while the other half infiltrates and recharges the aquifer. There is a seasonal shift where there is more ET and less recharge in the summer, and more recharge and less ET in the winter. With the current land cover, there is an annual average of 3518 acre -ft of average annual recharge. Figure 7 shows the resulting increase in surface runoff and decrease in recharge with the development land cover condition of 60 acres of mature forest, 103 acres of landscaped grass (golf course plus bioretention), 17 acres of pond, and 37 acres of impervious surface (Table 1). With this land cover, we estimate a total annual average recharge of 1609 acre -ft after commercial and domestic pumping, and supplementary irrigation pumping. 7 Excess surface accumulation is the sum of water available after meeting ET demands and after infiltrating to the maximum daily infiltration capacity. a 351 acre -ft is the annual average using data from water years 2006-2009 (10/1/2005-9/30/2009). 362 acre -ft is the annual sum of the monthly average using data from 3/23/2005-3/31/2010. 9 160 acre -ft is the annual average using data from water years 2006-2009 (10/1/2005-9/30/2009). 172 acre -ft is the annual sum of the monthly average using data from 3/23/2005-3/31/2010. 19 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Current Forest Demand 0 Current Groundwater recharge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 month Figure 6., The distribution by month of rainfall used to meet ET demand and recharge groundwater in mature forest conditions. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 month Surface Runoff GrassET Forest ET M Estimated Recharge Figure 7. The monthly water distribution between the water balance components is shown for the resort development land cover scheme of 60 acres of mature forest, 103 acres of landscaped grass, 17 acres ofpond, and 37 acres of impervious surface. 20 With the developed site land cover, considering impervious surfaces and landscaped grass, there is less surface ponding capacity and increased surface water runoff during the high rainfall winter months. This surface water runoff reduces the annual average recharge as it drains overland from the site instead of infiltrating to recharge the aquifer. We estimate that the surface runoff from landscaped grass is190 acre -ft annually, which will require water treatment for removal of herbicides and fertilizers. The surface runoff from impervious surfaces generated is 146 acre -ft. Surface runoff from impervious surfaces (in excess of bioretention capacity assuming 47 acres of built gardens) and surface runoff from landscaped grass, totals 330 acre -ft per year on average. This surface runoff occurs primarily in the winter months. Depending on storm patterns, the monthly surface runoff may range between 1 acre-ft/month in the summer to 64 acre-ft/month in the winter. The total amount of water requiring management in the development is shown in Table 4. Table 4. Volumes of water requiring surface water management or treatment in the proposed development. 21 acre -ft gallons Landscaped grass surface runoff 155 50,553,247 Surface Runoff from impervious surfaces and direct rain on gardens in 139 45,146,516 excess of capacity Lined pond size requirement to contain direct rain and reclaimed 127 41,289,398 water Total quantity requiring water requiring management 442 136,989,161 21 Table 5 summarizes the water budget for the current conditions of 220 acres of mature forest. The annual average rainfall volume from 2005-1010 was 743 acre -ft; 435 acre -ft was used to meet ET demand, and the remaining water volume recharged the groundwater. Depending on the timing of rainfall throughout the year, the result of using a daily data -based approach show the current aquifer recharge may range between 300- 350 acre -ft per year. Table 5. Water Budget results for current conditions 2006-2010. Acres Land Use 220 Mature Forest Rain ET Recharge 743 435 1 308 In their resort plans, 2020 Engineering (2007) presents a water balance summary in Figure 2-3 Water Cycle concept flow diagram) that calculates an average annual rainfall of 1031 acre feet per year; 491 acre feet of which is allocated to groundwater infiltration. An additional 136 of the accumulated surface water runoff, precipitation onto storage ponds and reclaimed water is stored at the ground surface (257 acre feet) in storage ponds. The pond storage capacity described in the 2020 Engineering report is 125 acre feet, leaving approximately 132 acre feet of surface water generated annually beyond the planned storage capacity. Given the water uses listed for the 257 acre feet of surface water storage (golf course irrigation, 90 acre feet, fire smart irrigation 18 acre feet; evaporation from the storage reservoir, 13 acre feet; and aquifer recharge, 136 acre feet of excess surface water proposed to recharge groundwater. These values are listed by land use and water source in Table 6a as the EIS water budget. The very low infiltration rates of the till sediments below the proposed Resort site make the actual mechanism for transport of this quantity of surface water into the ground unrealistic. Figure 2-3 of the 2020 Engineering report shows this 136 acre feet as recharging groundwater through a "box" extending from the ground surface to the ground water that is supplied by overflow from the storage reservoir. In addition, the estimate of 491 acre feet of groundwater infiltration for the site, is also unrealistic and beyond the till sediment infiltration capacity. Surface water cannot actually be infiltrated into the ground through a box; the low infiltration capacity of the till sediments (23 inches/ yr) mandates that an area of approximately 65 acre feet of ground surface is required for infiltrating this quantity. The current resort configuration does not include land designated for surface infiltration only. Without a realistic means of groundwater infiltration, excess surface water will runoff, with the potential to transmit contaminants to the surrounding surface waters of Hood Canal. The estimate of high quantities of surface runoff are supported by the data -based water budget shown in Table 6b using annual averages of the daily data and calculations described earlier in this report. The annual average recharge by infiltration with the proposed land use (Table 1) would be approximately 229 acre -ft. To give a comparable 22 annual rainfall amount to the EIS, we also show results in Table 6c using the same data - based methods, but for 2006, a year with rainfall similar to the long-term annual rainfall estimate. Using 2006 rainfall, the annual recharge would be approximately 259 acre -ft. In Table 6a, the EIS estimate and development plans, the total surface water input is the sum of 1131 acre -ft of rainfall, 90 acre -ft of irrigation for golf course grass, and 18 acre -ft for the Firesmart program; the total is 1249 acre -ft. In Table 6b, the data -based surface water input is the sum of 743 acre -ft of rainfall, 59 acre -ft of irrigation water plus 18 acre -ft for the Firesmart program; the total is 820 acre -ft. In Table 6c, the surface water input using 2006 data totals 1068 acre -ft. Although there was higher rainfall in 2006 compared to the average, it fell primarily in the winter. An additional 4 acre -ft would have been required for golf -course irrigation based on summer rainfall amounts and temperatures. Table 6a, 6b, 6c. Water Budget Comparison between estimates presented in this report and in the EIS (Subsurface Science LLC, 2006). The unaccountedfor surplus in both the current and developed site EIS water budgets indicates that unaccounted for water storage is occurring in the water management scheme. Table 6a. EIS Water budget Acres Land Use Total Source 60 Golf Course (irrigation) 60 Mature Forest (Firesmart) 37 impervious surface 17 Lined Pond 46 Bioretention Total Proposed 220 Development Rain ET Recharge Ground water Pond Pumping Pumping Pond Containment 1131 S08 491 65 90 90 18 18 132 13 1239 521 4911 65 1081 132 23 Table 6b. Data -based Water budget (this report) Acres Land Use Recharge Total Source 60 Golf Course 60 Mature Forest 37 impervious surface 17 Lined Pond 46 Bioretention Total Proposed 220 Development Rain ET total) Recharge Ground water Pumping Pond Pumping Pond Containment 743 impervious surface 17 65 69 63 59 101 64 18 59 0 18 119 96 30 18 0 0 1068 146 2S91 6S 29 0 77 fig r 326 229 65 77 146 Table 6c. Data -based Water budget (this report)for 2006, a water year with comparable rain as the EIS annual rainfall estimate Acres Land Use 46 Bioretention Total Proposed 220 Development Rain Total Source 60 Golf Course 60 Mature Forest 37 impervious surface 17 Lined Pond 46 Bioretention Total Proposed 220 Development Rain ET total) Ground water Recharge Pumping Pond Pond Pumping Containment 987 65 63 104 69 63 18 141 115 18 0 0 146 30 0 80 74 1068 355 2S91 6S 81 146 The summary results of the water budget using data from Table 6 are shown in Table 7 for annual surface runoff , annual increase to pond storage, total excess water requiring management, and estimated addition to aquifer. Using the EIS and development plan water source and use values, there is 192 acre -ft of annual surface runoff that is not addressed in their plans. This is derived using an unrealistic infiltration rate and unexplained excess recharge into a box discussed earlier in this report. Using data -based values (2005-2010), the annual average surface runoff for the proposed development may be 330 acre -ft or up to 520 acre -ft on a high rainfall year (i.e. 2006). 24 All methods and assumptions show that there will be annual increases to pond storage, not a long-term balance. Management of pond overflow is not discussed in development plans. The total excess water requiring management will be 203 acre -ft per year using development plan values, but will likely be in the range of 370-555 acre -ft per year. Irrigation requirements can be met, for the most part, using the volume of water expected to be reclaimed by domestic and commercial use. The rainfall excess expected to generate surface water runoff on the proposed Resort has not been given adequate study or planning. Table 5 and the related discussion show that the current recharge is likely ranges between 300-350 acre -ft per year. The EIS and development plan water source and use values, when looked at with the water budget approach, show that they expect to recharge the aquifer more than current conditions, 426 acre -ft after pumping requirements. This demonstrates that the infiltration rates they assume are unreasonable, as they have not proposed any engineering solutions that are expected to increase the overall infiltration and recharge capacity of the 220 acres compared to current conditions. It is more likely, given the 23 in/yr infiltration and recharge capacity Morgan and Jones, 1999; Vaccaro, et al., 1998) and a data -based water budget approach, that the proposed development will reduce the annual recharge to between 160-200 acre -ft per year. This represents more than a 50% decrease in annual recharge. Table 7. Water Budget Comparison between estimates presented in this report and in the EIS (Subsurface Science LLC, 2006). The unaccountedfor surplus in both the current and developed site EIS water budgets indicates that unaccountedfor water storage is occurring in the water management scheme. Water Budget Output Data - Rain -ET - Recharge + Pumping based Data - inputs based EIS 2005- inputs inputs 10 2006 Components from Table 5 Annual surface runoff 192 330 520 Rain -ET - Recharge + Pumping Annual increase to pond storage 11 41 36 Containment -Pumping -ET Total excess water to manage 203 371 555 Runoff + Pond Overflow Estimated addition to aquifer 426 164 194 Recharge - Pumping 25 7.0 Conclusions The Pleasant Harbor Resort and Golf Course consultant reports (Subsurface Group, LLC, 2006; 2020 Engineering, 2007) describe that storm water and sewage effluent from the development will by contained in closed systems. Water demand scenarios divide the 220 acre development into 123 acres of landscaped grass (and assumed bioretention), 37 acres of impervious surface, and 60 acres of mature forest Table 1). From the 37 acres of impervious surfaces, water is proposed to be collected and reintroduced to the aquifer, primarily through the use of bioretention or rain gardens. Irrigation demand is proposed to be met primarily by a lined 17 acre pond which will hold direct rainfall and reclaimed water. Evapotranspiration losses from the pond surface are estimated at less than 1 percent of the annual pre -development water budget (3 percent by 2020 Engineering, 2007), and recharge is assumed to be maintained over the year. Using daily calculations of water budget variables based on local climate observations (2005-2010), we used a data -based approach to calculate a water budget that accounts for the seasonal distribution of rainfall and associated supply and demands of the current forested land cover and proposed mixed use land cover. By directly calculating the evapotranspiration demands, and limiting the infiltration based on a appropriate soil infiltration capacity rate, we were able to more directly estimate not only the recharge, but the surface runoff. Surface water quality degradation in the waters surrounding Black Point will result from water running off of landscaped surfaces,containing fertilizers and landscaping chemicals, if it is not captured and treated. Of the annual average of surface runoff, 155 acre -ft from landscaped grass that may require treatment for fertilizers and pesticides and 139 acre -ft from impervious surfaces which will also require treatment. This represents water in excess of bioretention garden capacity (assuming highly permeable landscaping is built). A 17 acre lined pond is proposed to be used to contain on -pond rainfall and treated domestic waste water. This lined pond is planned for a storage capacity of 40,000,000 gallons in an average year and upwards of 60,000,000 gallons for higher than average precipitation years to prevent overflow of reclaimed water given maximum annual rainfall conditions. The average annual surface runoff has not been addressed by the proposed development plans. We estimate that a total of 140,000,000 gallons (420 acre -ft) will need to be managed annually. The annual average groundwater recharge is, for the current forested land use, approximately 300-350 acre -ft. The recharge estimated for the proposed development site plan for the Pleasant Harbor Resort and Golf Course is approximately 160-200 acre - ft. This represents 45-50% of the current groundwater recharge compared to current 26 conditions. The development plan estimate of 426 acre -ft is based on unrealistic infiltration and recharge rates. Because the proposed development plans do not adequately account for the seasonal variation of annual rainfall, the resulting seasonal changes in surface runoff and recharge and not adequately addressed. If the drawdown of the local aquifer or discharge of untreated stormwater or wastewater into Hood Canal is unacceptable, then the proposed design fails to meet environmental protection and restoration goals' 0. With the continued long-term reduction in aquifer recharge, the groundwater levels can be expected to drop and salt water intrusion to occur in wells located along the Black Point Peninsula shorelines. t0 2020 Engineering, January 31, 2007, "Water Resource Management: A Sustainable Water Resource Management Plan", Prepared for Statesman Corporation. Page 5. 27 Use of this report Silver Tip Solutions, LLC. has prepared this memo for Gerald Steele and his agents for use in the understanding of the hydrologic conditions of Black Point Peninsula. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction or design of water engineering systems. The results presented in this report relate to the probability of hydrologic conditions only on the Black Point Peninsula and not any other watershed or system. There are possible variations in hydrologic conditions that may not be represented in this work. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of hydrologic conditions. We recommend that Gerald Steel and his agents continue to support the collection of data and consultation services to evaluate whether future conditions differ from those anticipated. Incorporation of updated climate, streamflow, groundwater, and water use data into the water budget and hydrologic modeling system used in this work may result in different results, conclusions and interpretations than are presented in this report. 28 References 2020 Engineering. 2007. "Water Resource Management: A Sustainable Water Resource Management Plan", Prepared for Statesman Corporation. January 31, 2007 Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D.Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. "Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements." Irrig. and Drain. Paper 56, Food and Agr. Org of the United Nations. Rome. 300 pp. Bosveld F.C., and W. Bouten, (2001), Evaluation of transpiration models with observations over a Douglas -fir forest, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 108, 247-264. Grimstad, P. and R.J. Carson. 1981. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Eastern Jefferson County, Water Supply Bulletin No. 54, Washington Department of Ecology. 125 pp. Jensen, M.E., R.D. Burman and R.G. Allen, Editors, 1990. Computer Program Supplement to ASCE Manual 70: Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements. Morgan, D.S. and J.L. Jones, 1999. Numerical Model Analysis of the Effects of Ground -water Withdrawals on Discharge to Streams and Springs in Small Basins typical of the Puget Sound Lowland, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2492, 73 pp. Olsthoorn, A.F.M., 1991. Fine root density and root biomass of two Douglas -fir stands on sandy soils in The Netherlands I. Root biomass in early summer. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 39,49-60. Subsurface Group, LLC. 2006, EIS Groundwater (Ver 1.6).doc, Project No. SG0601-02, "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort - Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis". June 26, 2006 Vaccaro, J.J., Hansen, A.J. and M.A. Jones, 1998. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Puget Sound Aquifer System, Washington and British Columbia, Regional Aquifer -System Analysis — Puget -Willamette Lowland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1424-D. Walter, I.A., R.G. Allen, R. Elliot, M.E. Jensen, D. Itenfisu, B. Mecham, T.A. Howell, R. Snyder, P. Brown, S. Echings, T. Spofford, M. Hattendorf, R.H. Cuenca, J.L. Wright, D. Martin. 2000. ASCE's Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation. Proceedings of Watershed Management & Operations Management. 29 Waterworks Consultants 4017 Willowbrook Lane Bellingham, WA 98229 360-296-8084 Memo To: Gerald Steel From: Llyn Doremus Date: July 17, 2009 Re: Technical review of: Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort — November 20, 2008 (SDEIS) Recommendations for Additional Hydrogeologic Testing at Black Point Background The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is planned for construction on the Black Point Peninsula in Hood Canal. The peninsula is surrounded by salt water for more than 75% of it's shoreline. At least 15 wells are located along the Black Point eastern and northern shorelines that are at risk of seawater intrusion. Hood Canal is known to have a serious problem with depleted dissolved oxygen content, which has resulted in what has been termed a "dead zone". The dead zone creates conditions where a wide range of sea life that requires dissolved oxygen in the waters of their environment cannot survive. The depleted oxygen condition is known to result from enhanced activity of bacteria and algae that is promoted by discharge of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) dissolved in surface and groundwater to Hood Canal. The two conditions: seawater surrounding the Black Point Peninsula and the potential for seawater intrusion to degrade water quality in shoreline wells, and extreme sensitivity of Hood Canal biologic health to the release of nutrients generate a very delicately balanced hydrogeologic environment in which the Resort is proposed for construction. The Resort water supply for residential, commercial and irrigation purposes has been proposed through a combination of rainwater capture, reuse, reclamation, infiltration, and groundwater withdrawal processes. While the general scheme of the supply system has been outlined in previous documents, the specifics of how each of the components will operate has not yet been accurately defined. The potential for negative impacts of the various supply system components on the delicately balanced hydrogeologic environment is high. A sophisticated understanding of the Black Point hydrogeologic system is mandated to assess potential for degradation from the proposed water supply scheme to dissolved oxygen levels in Hood Canal, to seawater intrusion into the Black Point aquifer, and for the design, maintenance and operation of that system to function without degrading the Black Point aquifer and Hood Canal. These comments address the hydrogeologic characterization presented in the report: Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort by Subsurface Group, LLC. November 20, 2008 (Report) with respect to the information necessary for characterization, design and operation of a water supply system that does not degrade the Black Point aquifer. The accuracy and completeness of the Report assumptions, information and conclusions are assessed, and recommendations for additional testing to fill in the information gaps in the Report are listed. Hydrogeologic System Groundwater moves through the sediments and rock, which, along with the other water moving through the system, defines the hydrolgeologic system of a specific site. Sediment tends to form in layers, which can be visualized as a "layer cake" type configuration. Sediments and rock layers with a large percentage of void spaces typically transmit water more quickly, which is termed a high permeability hydrogeologic unit. Sediment layers that are more dense, with tiny void spaces are termed "low permeability" or "impermeable". Low permeability sediment layers impede downward migration (infiltration) of groundwater, and tend to accumulate water on their upper surface. This is normally how unconfined aquifers form. The permeability of an aquifer is usually determined by conducting a pump test. With the exception of the single pump test of the American Campground well, and the marginal data generated from that test, there is no data presented on the aquifer properties of the various hydrogeologic units on the Black Point Peninsula. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING The Report describes results from a pump test conducted in the American Campground well for 48 hours to assess the permeability and other aquifer properties in the well vicinity. The data generated by the test was found to be insufficient to assess the aquifer properties, because the drawdown in Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 2 the monitoring wells was almost undetectable. Pump testing should be conducted in all of the wells that are proposed for water supply purposes. The pumping rate used should be equivalent to the rate at which water is proposed for withdrawal for the water supply needs of the resort (at a minimum 75 gallons per minute to provide the 121 acre feet annual use projection), because of the likelihood that individual wells may be relied upon for the full volume for the resort water demand when problems with water level drawdown and seawater intrusion occur. The tests should be run for sufficient duration (minimum 72 hours) to derive measurable drawdown curve in at least one of the monitoring wells, so that reliable aquifer properties can be calculated. The direction of groundwater movement is defined by the groundwater gradient. Groundwater moves from locations of high water elevation level to low elevation discharging eventually to lower -elevation surface water bodies. The groundwater elevation pattern often mimics the ground surface topographic elevation pattern. Downgradient (lower groundwater elevation) locations manifest the affects of groundwater movement and withdrawal in higher elevation locations. It is important to understand the directions of groundwater movement in order to assess the magnitude and distribution of ground water level decreases associated with groundwater withdrawal (pumping from wells). In particular, reduction in the groundwater levels in shoreline areas increases the risk of seawater intrusion into water supply wells. The Report presents an interpretation of groundwater flow direction towards the center of the peninsula and then to the east (discharging into Hood Canal). The groundwater surface elevation contours are illustrated in Figure 4 of the Report, and suggest that a groundwater high point (at MW -2) dominates groundwater flow direction on the entire peninsula. That single data point (MW -2 water level elevation) is disproportionally valued in interpreting the groundwater flow directions. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING Groundwater levels should be measured in every accessible Black Point Peninsula well on the same date, so that a groundwater elevation contour level map can be constructed that is reliable for use in interpreting the direction(s) of groundwater movement. A better understanding of the direction of groundwater movement will support a better interpretation of the groundwater withdrawal impacts to private wells on the Black Point Peninsula and seawater intrusion risk. Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 3 Diagrams of the Black Point Peninsula hydrogeologic system are presented in the Report Figures 11, 12 and 13. Much of the site is covered with dense, low permeability till. About one third of the site has additional sediments deposited on top of the till that are higher in permeability and allow water to migrate more quickly through them. Water that migrates downward through these higher permeability sediments might slow down and accumulate in a "perched" aquifer upon encountering the underlying low -permeability till. There is no evidence of perched conditions at this site presented in the Report. Basalt bedrock is shown in Figures 13 in wells located on the northern part of the site. The contribution of groundwater flow transmitted through bedrock to the Black Point aquifer is not well characterized in the Report, nor is the bedrock permeability, or the hydraulic connection between bedrock and the overlying unconsolidated sediments. With the exception of the single pump test of the American Campground well, and the marginal data generated from that test, there is no data presented on the aquifer properties of the bedrock or unconsolidated sediment hydrogeologic units on the Black Point Peninsula, or on the hydraulic continuity between unconsolidated sediment units and the bedrock underlying them. Further pump testing (as previously described) is necessary to better define aquifer properties of the hydrogeologic units and the hydraulic continuity with bedrock on the site. Water Budget A water budget uses estimates or measurements of each component of the hydrologic cycle to assess the entire movement of water through a specific hydrologic system annually. For the purposes of characterizing the impact of the proposed water management scheme on the the Black Point Peninsula aquifer and hydrogeology, the water budget should encompass the entire Peninsula. To prevent or at least minimize detrimental impacts it is essential that the components of the water budget are defined as accurately as possible. A typical equation for a water balance is as follows. Ppt = E + Q + dS9 + dSs Where: Ppt = annual precipitation E = annual evaporation plus transpiration (evapotranspiration) Q = stream flow or surface water runoff dSs = the change in quantity that is stored as surface water for the year negative for a decrease in the water quantity in surface storage) Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 4 dS9 = the change in the water quantity that is stored as groundwater for the year (negative for a decrease in the groundwater storage, indicating a drop in groundwater levels) Surface Water Flow Although surface water is not flowing onto the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort site, the quantity of water discharged from Black Point Peninsula as stream flow impacts the water budget for the Peninsula. Accurate stream flow measurements help reduce uncertainty in other portions of the hydrologic budget that are more difficult to estimate. Stream flow emitting from the lake in the eastem-central portion of Black Point Peninsula, as well as any other stream flow on the Peninsula needs accurate assessment in order to calculate its contribution to the water budget, and its influence on the other components of the budget. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (QJ Stream flow emitting from the lake on the eastern -central margin of the Peninsula, and flowing to the east shoreline should be monitored to assess the rate of surface water runoff from the Peninsula. Surface Water Storage Surface water is typically stored in lakes and wetlands. To better understand the changes in surface water storage that are ongoing under current conditions dSs), and that may be expected from the proposed use of kettles as water storage facilities, the water stored in Lake (on the eastern margin of the Peninsula) should be monitored for changes in lake elevation. It is likely that the lake is in hydraulic continuity with groundwater, and receives groundwater discharge. A better delineation of lake level variations, and their relationship to precipitation quantities and timing, and groundwater levels will improve the understanding of how groundwater moves through the Peninsula hydrogeologic system. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (dSs) Monitor lake level elevation over the period of a year (concurrent with other monitoring data collected). Precipitation Precipitation provides water that supports the various water uses and hydrologic components. Annual precipitation at this site is poorly understood because of the variability in precipitation along the north south extent of Hood Canal, and the lack of monitored data collected in the Black Point Peninsula or Brinnon vicinity. Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 5 RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (Ppt) Precipitation should be monitored on the Black Point Peninsula for an entire year. In addition, the data available from the NOAA approved weather station at location AS461 on the west side of Hwy. 101 across from Pleasant Harbor should be analyzed. See Attachment 1 hereto. Groundwater Storage Groundwater that is stored in an aquifer is the amount of water that is added to the aquifer over the course of the year (termed recharge) minus the amount withdrawn or discharged from the aquifer. Recharge to an aquifer derives from precipitation that infiltrates into the ground. Discharge from an aquifer typically goes to stream flow (Q), or it may be pumped for water supply or irrigation purposes, or, in this case, includes flow into Hood Canal to diminish salt water intrusion into the fresh water supply. The difference between the amount recharged and the amount discharged is the change in storage (dSg). Quantification of recharge is an important factor in assessing the storage changes in groundwater, as is quantification of the discharge. Recharge of an aquifer results from vertical infiltration of precipitation that falls on the ground surface overlying the aquifer. Aquifers are more rapidly recharged when the sediment overlying the aquifer is of "high permeability" and when there is high annual precipitation. Consider if the precipitation that infiltrates to recharge the aquifer is half (50%), the standard assumption when data is not available to calculate actual recharge rates. For this site the annual precipitation rate is not well known, which makes the annual recharge rate even more difficult to assess. Table 3 lists 55 inches for annual precipitation in Quilcene (the closest site monitored). Half of this is 27 inches, or 2.3 feet. For this 220 acre site, this provides an annual recharge of 504 acre feet (significantly less than the 783 acre feet claimed in the Report on page 17). The presence of low permeability till will slow down groundwater infiltration, and likely reduce the rate of groundwater recharge to the aquifer even further than estimated using these assumptions. There will be substantial additional evapotranspiration caused by the watering of the golf course and other vegetation in the hot months of the year. This has not been adequately considered. RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING (dSg) Groundwater levels in the three monitoring wells (MW -1, MW -2 and MW -3) should be monitored for at least one year, to determine the variation in groundwater elevation. Precipitation should be monitored on the site for at Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 6 least one year to determine the actual precipitation received annually concurrently with other monitoring data collected). Analyses of recharge quantities and rates should be done using monitored data, and presented in the calculation of the water budget for the site. A separate set of calculations should be done assuming serious drought conditions — perhaps an estimated 500 -year drought. Quantification of groundwater discharge is calculated using measurements of changes in groundwater elevation, stream flow measurements, pumped quantities from the aquifer, and precipitation measurements. It is important to delineate the groundwater flow direction and to delineate locations of groundwater discharge, to more accurately assess the annual amount of groundwater discharging from the aquifer. The change in groundwater storage calculated amount (dSg) relies upon an accurate estimation of annual groundwater discharge and its relative value with respect to the annual recharge amount. Additionally, discharge of groundwater from beneath the proposed resort to Hood Canal, that contains contaminated landscaping chemicals especially nitrate and phosphorus) poses a significant risk to the environmental health of Hood Canal. Evapotranspiration The information presented in the Report on estimations of evapotranspiration 24.1 or 24.2 inches per year), need to be presented with data, formulas, tables, and assumptions used in those calculations, as part of the comprehensive water budget estimation. Summary of Recommendations for Additional Testing To better understand the hydrogeologic response to the proposed water supply management scheme in this relatively sensitive groundwater environment, each of the components of the hydrologic cycle should be more accurately quantified. In addition, the aquifer properties must be better defined to design a supply system that does not overstress the aquifer. The following tests are recommended in order to gather that information. Aquifer properties Aquifer testing — pump tests should be conducted for a minimum of 72 hours in any wells that might be proposed for water supply purposes (American Campground Well, Pleasant Tides Coop Well (Sam Boling Water System/Black Point Water Company) and MW -2). Pump tests should be conducted for long Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 7 enough to generate a measurable drawdown in at least two monitoring wells in the vicinity. Pumping rate at the Pleasant Tides Coop Well should include the 300 gpm for existing water rights plus the proposed new withdrawal. Pump testing at MW -2 should include installation of a monitoring well, at a location that is as close as existing wells are to the eastern shoreline, in line with the MW -2 well. Chloride testing of water pumped from the aquifer should be done when the MW -2 is pump tested. Pump testing at the Pleasant Times Coop Well should include monitoring for water level drawdown and for chloride at the other Black Point Water Company wells, the Babare well, the Tudor well and the other Pleasant Harbor Beach Tract Owners wells. Seawater intrusion Chloride content in groundwater should be determined in samples collected from wells pumped adjacent to the marine shoreline over the duration of the pump tests. At a minimum one sample should be collected prior to initiation of pumping, another after at least 12 hours of pumping and a third shortly before pumping is stopped. More samples provide more confidence in the data collected, and the interpretations derived from that data. Chloride concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/I indicate wells at moderate risk for seawater intrusion, with 200 mg/I being the trigger for high risk, according to Island County's Seawater Intrusion Policy (a copy is included with these comments as Attachment 2). Groundwater movement Groundwater levels should be measured in every accessible well on the same date, so that a groundwater elevation contour level map can be constructed that is reliable for interpreting the direction(s) of groundwater movement. A better understanding of the direction of groundwater movement will support a better interpretation of the groundwater withdrawal impacts to private wells on the Black Point Peninsula and seawater intrusion risk. Water Budget The presentation of the water budget in the Report makes it impossible to assess the individual components of the water budget, their relationship to each other, and what data was used to derive them. A comprehensive explanation of the water balance calculations must be provided. This should include: water budget equation used Values for each component the equation Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 8 data, calculations and assumptions used to derive each value In particular the following components need better delineation. Precipitation Precipitation should be monitored on the Black Point Peninsula site for the duration of a year (concurrent with other monitoring data collection). Recharge Groundwater levels should be monitored with continuous electronic logs in the three monitoring wells, and reported for the duration of a year to assess the range of groundwater level variation, and the recharge resulting from precipitation events. Precipitation monitoring should coincide with groundwater level monitoring periods. Precipitation should be used to evaluate the changes in groundwater levels associated with precipitation events (i.e. recharge) Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration calculations, and the data and assumptions used in those calculations needs to be presented in report form. Streamflow Stream flow emitting from the lake on the eastern margin of the Peninsula, and flowing to the east shoreline should be monitored to assess the rate of surface water runoff from the Peninsula. Lake Level Monitor lake (located in the central -eastern portion of Black Point Peninsula) level elevation over the period of a year concurrent with other monitoring data collected. Water Supply and Groundwater Impact Analysis, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Technical Review and Recommendations 9 qFARINGR CO?J From: Barbara Moore -Lewis <brinnongroup@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:36 PM To: jeffbocc; Michael Haas; Patty Charnas Subject: Documents Submitted as Comments on Proposed MPR at Pleasant Harbor Attached are documents submitted for the comment period on the Pleasant Harbor MPR. You have received all of these documents before, but not during this official hearing period. Please let us know if you cannot open any of the documents. FSEIS sum maryBOPG(5)1227(16 2).pdf Z PC Letter to BOCC 7-6-2016 RE Pleasant Harbor M... BRINNON MPR OPPOSTION GROUP ISSUE SUMMARY Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort FSEIS The FSEIS proposes a Master Planned Resort (MPR) on a 231 acre site. There are 5 options: 1. 18 -hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort amenities, 31 acres of natural area, and 2.2 million cubic yards of earth moved. 2. 18 -hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56608 square feet of commercial space and resort amenities, 80 acres of natural area, 2 million cubic yards of earth moved 3. 9 -hole -golf course with 3 hold practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space and amenities, 103 acres of natural area, and 1 million cubic yards of earth moved. 4. No Action Alternative Scenario A: Continuation of exisiting conditions with site's current land use designations No Action Alternative Scenario B: Redevelopment of the site under existing land use designations with single family residential uses and a 9 -hole golf course. We would recommend No Action Scenario A at this time until the following proposed mitigation is accomplished. When appropriate, this summary will break out the plan into issues when construction is in progress and issues after construction is complete. Issues presented apply to both of the action choices. Construction for this particular project is projected as being at least a 10 year process! There is no guarantee that the construction won't last longer, as the approval process for it has stretched out. Problems during construction include out of town construction workers and contractors, unstable ground, county and taxpayer debt and increased taxes, traffic bottlenecks, more trucks on the road, and chemicals and drugs sent into all Black Point wells. FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION ORDINANCE 01-0128-08 lists a It is unclear the way the FSEIS is The developer to prepare a number of conditions about written whether the conditions separate document listing the actions the developer needs to of the ordinance are being met. conditions from the ordinance propose in the FSEIS In several instances, such as and the ways they are being allowing other residents access addressed in the FSEIS. This will to resort wells when there is salt allow both the public and local water intrusion in the private government to track compliance well, the FSEIS appears not to with the conditions. meet the conditions. Although the marina is included Developing marina under Developer to revise FESIS to in the MPR area and ordinance, existing site plan without local include all relevant plans for construction, traffic, water government or citizen review marina included in the MPR. usage, and waste water and input. Both local governments and the treatment for that site are not public have the right to know the described in this document. The actual impacts of the additional FSEIS covers 231 acres of the development. development and the Development Agreement covers 256 acres of development,. Local governments and citizens cannot understand the entire impact of the development with only part of the information about it. There are 2 "no action" There are insufficient details Developer to prepare FSEIS scenarios in the FSEIS. These about the no action scenarios in document to include full details scenarios are not developed in the FSEIS to be able to make a of no action scenarios. the document in the way the reasonable comparison of three options for building the options. resort are developed. It appears that no action scenarios were not actually being considered. FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT DSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION ECONOMIC ISSUES State taxes are 9% of sales. 6.5% The developer and a few Developer to identify true costs goes to Olympia and 2.5% comes business owners are the only of infrastructure and public to Jefferson County. Taxes ones who will experience services during and after received can be spent anywhere economic benefit. Local construction and arrange to pay in county, while the brunt of government and all county those costs, above what is paid traffic and fire district costs are taxpayers will experience higher in taxes, to local and county born by south county. We will taxes/fewer services. government. A study in Oregon pay levies attached to property of similar destination resorts taxes for school, fire Developer does not pay found that the standard model department, and sheriff costs. sufficient taxes to cover costs of for a golf -course subdivision - Full tax revenue will not be infrastructure and public services oriented destination resort available until Phase 4 and Full needed by the resort itself, presents local governments and Build Out, while the costs will be resort members, and resort taxpayers with a substantial net present during the whole employees. burden (in the millions of dollars) construction period. that will result in either higher Draft development agreement overall taxes or a decrease in the specifically says that the county quality of basic services. will not ask for more economic mitigation than is in the MOLls. Construction jobs like this are Conditions set for the FSEIS Set a 20% threshold for contracts done by large companies who require as much employment of given to county residents and have out of town sub county residents as possible, as employment of county residents. contractors, and out of county much use of county contractors Developer to calculate actual suppliers. The only jobs typically as possible, and sourcing number of construction jobs available to local people are construction materials from over the 4 phases. minimum wage day laborers. within the county. Profits from the companies and wages from most of the workers The FSEIS states that about 1750 will leave the county. jobs will be created, but this is the number for all four phases and many of the jobs will be the same for all four phases FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS MITIGATION PROPOSED MITIGATION The average median income Creation of substantial number Developer to prepare a report of AMI) in Brinnon is $42,679. The of poverty level jobs in south the services uses by employees number of direct jobs created at county and an increased need with wages below the Brinnon or below 80% of AMI are 223. for taxpayer funded health and AMI and an estimate of the cost Construction and indirect jobs social services. of those services. Developer to with an income of $34,143 equal pay for costs of services to these 342. 83% are considered employees provided by tax poverty level by U.S. Department funded entities. A report of Health and Human Services prepared of minimum wage jobs standards. at Walmart estimated that Walmart costs surrounding 48 jobs are above AMI, communities $13 million in ranging from $36,000 to economic activity and $14.5 52,914 million in lost wages over 20 108 jobs are $10,593 to years. 14,381 121 jobs are from $19,241 to 28,000 2014 Poverty Guideslines of USDHHS: Family of 5: $27,910 Family of 4: $23,850 Family of 3: $19,790 Family of 2: %15,730 FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION Taxpayers will subsidize life In 2013 there were 249 EMS calls Developer to prepare analysis of safety services for about 800 Brinnon residents. true costs of life safety services Add the estimated 2000 resort and to make provisions to pay residents and there will be about for those services to local 620 calls a year. The MOU with government entities. the fire department is for 3,333/month. This is not Developer to present plan for enough to hire another EMT. trained EMT staff. The inadequate funding can go for 10 years or more. Also, local Developer needs to describe role fire department is responsible and training of private security for all training costs and upkeep that will replace county sheriff of used ladder truck Statesman staff. What will be their will provide ... all meaning higher authority? Will they be able to local taxes for fire department. handle traffic accidents/fatalities and other emergences involving The developer says if the resort resort residents and/or Brinnon has trained EMT staff, they will residents? be available to surrounding community. For police, the developer will provide a 500 square foot room smaller than a 2 car garage) but no budget to supply and staff it ... meaning higher taxes for all county residents. The Sheriff's Department says no additional county resources will be needed if resort has private security. Taxpayers will subsidize road None Developer to prepare analysis of improvement and repair for true costs of road improvement heavy equipment and repair and make provisions to pay for those services to state and local government entities Internet service to local area is None Developer to pay to upgrade inadequate because of volume internet infrastructure to the of use of existing equipment; same speed consumers receive resort use will compound in the metropolitan areas. internet access problems. FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT DSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION 280 jobs are projected, with the Developer must build low Developer to state how many majority low income or income housing or provide land jobs are part time or seasonal. minimum wage. It's not clear or money for it. Developer subsidize rents for how many of these jobs are part low income workers in the time or seasonal. housing constructed or present evidence that wages will allow these workers to rent this housing. If employees have their own housing, developer will pay for this housing the same as for employees who rent from the developer. Developer to pay for costs of services to these employees provided by tax funded entities. Developer will provide a 500 Developer to use local medical Developer to prepare analysis of square foot clinic for use by and hospital resources but to true costs of life and safety medical personnel; use by resort provide mitigation only for services and to make provisions members only. resort members. to pay for those services to local government entities, including local hospitals and medical services subsidized by local taxpayers. MOU with Brinnon schools No estimate of real revenue Developer to prepare report on specifies $2 per tee time to go to from tee times. No dedicated income to Brinnon school and on schools and scholarships to be fund for scholarships; no details scholarships to Jefferson County given to Jefferson County school of who will be eligible. children. For example, are home children. schooled children eligible? Money needs to be placed in dedicated account before construction begins that will cover scholarships FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION TRAFFIC Data used for the traffic study is The Loss of Service data is from The developer to do an up to totally inadequate. Highway 101 2000. The actual car trip count is date traffic report with data on the east side of the Olympic from 2006. The data does not from 2014 or later. This will Peninsula is the only non toll count accidents that do not include all accident reports direct connection to the 1-5 occur at intersections (leaving between Olympia and 104. (The corridor and is used for all major out collisions with animals, Peninsula Daily News reports shipments of goods, as well as McDonald Cove, and the tanker that tourist trips increased 25% for residential and tourist traffic. truck that exploded on the during 2014 and the Olympic When serious accidents occur, Duckabush hill. Consultants paid National Park has similar data). 101 is shut down for long by the developer have Developer to present adequate periods of time, affecting both consistently minimized both the mitigation for current traffic. commerce and quality of life. effects of unsafe driving and Developer to pay for mitigation There are serious economic, unsafe driving conditions on 101 for projected additional traffic. health, and safety costs for the in their reports and in response entire Peninsula. to comments on their reports. Heavy equipment on highway, Developer says earth will be Developer to present evidence increasing congestion and moved within resort area that the earth moved from the accidents because it will be used for site qualifies for construction use construction materials; no and provides data on the evidence gravel fits amount that will be moved on specifications the site vs what will be moved on the highway. Developer proposes mitigation for increased truck traffic and pays for mitigation. Machinery used will be scrapers, None Developer to present report on excavators, bulldozers, wheeled noise impact on other Black front loaders, a portable Point residences and to propose screening plant, feed -hopper, mitigation. Developer to pay for portable gravel crusher, finishing mitigation. crusher, water trucks, conveyor belts systems, and vibratory/sheep-foot compactor rollers. This will be 1200 feet away from the closest existing residence. FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION There will be up to 4100 added Buses will run to Seatac and Developer to do traffic analysis daily trips from resort traffic on visitors will take a route to resort with recent data on traffic state and local roads; there was that includes lengthy ferry volumes and with all accident a 25% increase in tourist traffic waiting and heavy Seattle traffic data. Developer will calculate in 2013 alone on the Peninsula; instead of the easier ; traffic road improvements needed there will be bottlenecks in volumes calculated with out of from accurate traffic data and Hoodsport date and incomplete data make provision to pay for those improvements. Developer to hold local meetings discussing traffic improvements with local residents before proceeding. Developer to provide proof of estimates of bus usage. The increased traffic along Hood Buses will run to Seatac and Developer to do an analysis of Canal will increase the nitrogen visitors will take a route to resort the environmental impact of the problems and dead zones in the that includes lengthy ferry increased traffic on the health of Canal. waiting and heavy Seattle traffic Hood Canal, using current instead of the easier ; traffic science, and propose mitigation. volumes calculated with out of date and incomplete data. WATER The water rights were awarded, For each phase during the 10+ Developer must test the existing but additional wells were never years of construction, adequate well and provide adequate data drilled. A pump test was water must be proven. on drawn down rate and attempted on an existing well, available volume. Developer but was aborted after must show adequate water equipment failure, so draw down supply not only for resort but for rate and available volume was all Black Point wells, existing and never proven. Usage amounts future. Computer models which have not and will not be have been used are not determined until full build out, acceptable. with the caveat that for each phase during the 10+ years of Developer must define what construction adequate water mitigation will be provided if must be proven. volume is not sufficient and the aquifer is depleted for all wells. FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION The water supply well is Yearly monitoring Require the developer to test developed below sea level and the water supply well monthly will always be susceptible to salt for salt water intrusion and to water intrusion or cause submit the reports to the county intrusion to the wells along the health department. south and east coasts of Black Point. This is not a well used for testing salt water intrusion The salt water intrusion samples Yearly monitoring Require the developer to test all are taken from 3 Statesman water supply wells monthly for wells that are not located where salt water intrusion and to salt water intrusion is likely to submit the reports to the county happen health department. The developer is required by the Restrictive Neighborhood Water County health department to ordinance conditions to provide Policy that requires 3 years decide if well has salt water access to the resort water monitoring of private wells intrusion. If so, developer gives system by any neighboring before a claim can be made and access to resort system at parcels if saltwater intrusion the developer to decide if claim standard county hook up and becomes an issue for them. is valid. monthly usage rates. Statesman's tests for salt water Yearly monitoring Require the developer to test intrusion are to be collected the water supply monthly for salt quarterly, but to be submitted to water intrusion and to submit the Department of Ecology once the reports to the county health a year. This means residents department with neighboring wells may have to wait up to a year to start the process of proving salt water intrusion is due to the water use of the resort. The pumping plan for the supply None Require the developer to submit well will influence salt water a pumping plan that will intrusion minimize salt water intrusion in resort and neighboring wells. 10 FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION There is one aquifer on Black Water studies are done by Developer to do actual water Point, recharged by rainwater. computer modeling. studies on the property to be The resort wells could deplete developed and to prove the the aquifer. availability of water for all residents. Include wells that already have salt water intrusion not in DSEIS). Require a bond to compensate other residents if aquifer is depleted. Developer to prepare report about how resort will be mothballed or environment restored in case of aquifer depletion. Developer to provide a bond to cover costs of mothballing and/or restoration. There already is salt water Put up a bond that would cover a intrusion in Black Point wells; desalinization plant. resort wells could cause more salt water intrusion not only in adjacent wells but in resort wells as well. It is unclear how much water is Forcing waste water down wells Developer to do water plan with projected to be used. Figures to recharge the aquifer. consistent numbers that fits with from 70 to 175 (standard usage) historical supply and not are in the document. recharging the aquifer in this way. The aquifer is recharged by None Developer to present a plan for rainwater. There are extensive drought years, taking into changes to the land that will account the changes in the affect the amount of permeable landscape to be made by moving land. There is no information on at least 1 million cubic feet of how low rainfall years would dirt and rock. Developer to affect the assumptions of the demonstrate that recharge rates water model. Because will be as projected in DSEIS. everything is based on a computer model, there is no real proof that recharge will take place as described with the development of the land. Recharge may be significantly less. 11 FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION Statesman has put several This is in conflict with the DOE Developer to rewrite restrictive conditions on what an conditions on the water rights, Neighborhood Water Policy in individual well owner has to do including Statesman conditions concert with owners of local to prove their potable well water that they can demand additional wells so that local owers' was lost due to Statesman's evidence that they are at fault. If concerns are answered. County actions. the developer does accept fault, health department to facilitate the owner may hook up, at this rewrite. Statesman's cost, to their water system and then they will have to pay for its use. This is also in conflict with the conditions DOE placed. The utility district created for the Sometime in the future the The developer to clarify fee operation of the Water System entire Sewage Treatment Plant structure of utility district, and Sewage Treatment Plant has will have to be replaced. Owners including hook up fees and to make enough profit to cover of private wells that are monthly fees for owners of maintenance and future compromised by the water use private wells who use the utility replacement of deteriorating of the resort and want to hook district system. equipment. up to the resort water system will have to pay unspecified fees. WASTE WATER No Class A water treatment None Prohibit the developer from system removes soluble contaminating the aquifer with chemicals. This means that the chemicals left from the water medications people use daily will treatment or require water not be removed from the water. treatment that removes all Statesman plans to use the chemicals. water in irrigation, fire suppression, and to recharge the aquifer. The water will be forced down wells into the aquifer, where it will contaminate any water drawn from the single aquifer. 12 FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS MITIGATION PROPOSED MITIGATION OTHER All stormwater runoff from new FSEIS does not indicate how they Mitigation can help with pollution generating impervious are going to treat the water. stormwater runoff, but not surfaces must be treated before eliminate it. Developer to discharge to on or off site prepare report on ways to llocations to comply with Stormwater Management mitigate the stormwater runnon. Manual for Western These can include Washington. stormwater filters (which go onto the stormwater entrances and filter out oils and other pollutants; they should not be used by themselves for they don't always work), tarps (which will trap water while all the earth is being moved; this will help keep the water from running off and giving the construction workers time to filtrate the water into storage containers to be cleaned). and controlling the erosion controlling how workers are move the soil around the work site may save water from running off into the Hood Canal). 13 FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS PROPOSED MITIGATION MITIGATION Moving soil releases the stability Storing stormwater in holding Developer to provide evidence of the ground. Moving at least 1 pond or allowing it to go into the that plans in the DSEIS treat million tons of earth at the site Canal. Various methods of stormwater to remove will affect the stability of the treating pollutants in water. pollutants are realistic. ground. It will also affect the The BMPs (Best Management stormwater, all surface waters Lack of information on chemicals Plans) for golf course from rain and snow. This is herbicides, pesticides, or maintenance needs to be runoff that does not collect in fertilizers) that will be used for explained in detail. the ground. The plan to move golf course grass maintenance or stormwater to a retention pond. any discussion of how the That pond will let the water sink developer plans to protect into the aquifer, transferring the groundwater or stormwater pollutants of construction to the runoff from the use of these aquifer. Less stability of the site chemicals. will cause more stormwater to run off, be absorbed into the aquifer, or go in Hood Canal. Pollutants include oils, antifreeze, and other liquids from construction equipment, pesticides, and fertilizers. Natural wetlands in the resort Destroying wetlands will destroy Developer to revise plan to leave area will be cleared and used as the natural systems now intact wetlands as wetlands. The kettle retention ponds. These and the wetland will no longer with the wetland needs to be left wetlands are pollutant removal be able to help in natural as it is because this will help the systems and clean the ground filtration of stormwater. project to clean some of the water. stormwater runoff that will be Wetlands mitigation plan has not caused by this project. been done. Developer to do wetlands mitigation plan before approval of DSEIS. Biosolids will be sent to Shelton No proof of agreement about Developer to prepare a report on for processing disposal of biosolids. Inadequate biosolids, including proof of a information on amount of plan to dispose of them and an biosolids. Increased truck traffic estimate of truck traffic that will for the biosolids. Unclear if this be generated. is included in the traffic analysis. Mason County PUD #1 has Lacking in details about PUD Developer to present agreement agreed to supply power for the services to be supplied and how with PUD for public review, first phase. they will be funded; no mention including possibility of rate of possible rate increase for all increases for all rate payers. rate payers in PUD #1 from increased energy usage. 14 FSEIS ISSUE INSUFFICIENT FSEIS MITIGATION PROPOSED MITIGATION The Geoengineer's Fish and The FSEIS does not provide The developer to prepare a Wildlife report states that adequate detail to determine if report on Stream A that gives Stream A is considered (Type F) the habitat is sufficient and if the more detail and supports the fish bearing until it reaches a stream is properly Type F or Type of stream. hung culvert, which prevents fish Type N. The FSEIS does not take passage and makes the stream into account WAC 222-16-031 non -fish bearing (Type N). An and Section 13 of the Forest impassable culvert alone cannot Practice Board Manual in be used to justify classifying a determining the Type of Stream stream as Type N waters (WAC A. 222-16-031 and Section 13 of Forest Practice Board Manual). The Wetland Delineation Report has further details about the stream, including that it has a gradient barrier of over 20%, but this still does not preclude the water from upstream being typed as Class F if the habitat is sufficient. 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 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. 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 6`s, 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. 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. Black Point between two estuaries Hood Canal 2 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: 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. In 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). 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. 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. 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. 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#01-0105-09) 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. 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 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. In 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 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 20`s, 2016 (later extended by the BOCC to July 11`, 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. It 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. In 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 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 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 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: and 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." 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. 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#01-0105-09 The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC careful consideration of the following: The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golf course 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 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; 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. 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.g. 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 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 of the proposed regulations. In the interest of completing the technical process agreed upon in the April 18`s 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 LNP 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. 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, qP - Cynthia Koan, Chair Jefferson County Planning Commission cc: Philip Morley, Patty Charnas, Planning Commission Desk Letter approved at 7/6/2016 PC public meeting: In Favor: Cynthia Koan, Chair (District 1) Lorna Smith, Co-chair (District 2) Mark Jochems (District 2) Tom Giske (District 3) Opposed: Richard Hull (District 3) Kevin Coker (District 1) Abstaining: Mike Nilssen (District 3) Absent: Gary Felder (District 1) Matt Sircely (District 2) Jefferson CouD a d of ounty Commissio }r V E f effbo f rson. a.us) I oppos r1afgr ctloi k Po r f ing reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting wafer from sewage treatment back into the aquifer, destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, and drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Additional Comments Signature Printed Name `A UPl I/-- H 4/19 0E S 7t) ZAddress A 40C\) From: QlAd Neuenschwander <dnneuen@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:56 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Close Public Comment on Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as of April 9 Greetings I urge you to close public comment on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as of the close your hearing on April 9. There have been years and years of opportunity for interested parties to express opinions. In my mind, an attempt to keep the public comment period open amounts only to an additional delaying tactic. David Neuenschwander 360.765.3151 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Commissioners, Anhy Visser <andy@connectionseap.com> Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:19 AM jeffbocc Locate Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Public Hearing at 6:00 pm Monday April 9, 2018 - IN BRINNON! Thank -you for your service. Please seriously consider this request. Many of us in Brinnon are wondering if the hearing for the MPR development agreement could be held at the Brinnon Community Center instead of the Pt. Townsend Courthouse. The issue concerns Brinnon residents. I know it would be appropriate to make it easier for Brinnon residents to attend and comment at our own community center. I hear that a Vancouver Washington agent claiming to represent an entity called the 'Brinnon Group' has shown up repeatedly to question and slow down this project. I am sure the agent is making a good living and resources from 'who knows where' are paying her. I have never spoken to any South County citizen who seems to know who comprises the Brinnon Group' and I have lived here for over 12 years. I appreciate and value input from resident citizens who speak for themselves. I have serious doubts about whether a paid consultant from Vancouver really is the voice of our community. I would much rather hear directly from voting citizens and holding the meeting here will certainly facilitate that. Thank you for your consideration. Andy Visser 395 Lee Way Brinnon, WA 98320 andy@connectionseap.com Phone: 712-540-7448 effbocc 1 t s " From: Kay an Doug <eagleshore08@embarqmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: April 9th Black Point Resort Hearing Commissioners, I would like to second the recommendations of Mr. Coleman and Mr. Visser concerning the location of the upcoming meeting dealing with the future of the Black Point Resort project here in Brinnon. Without repeating the full text of Andy Visser's communication it would be more appropriate to hold this meeting near the homes of those that will be most directly affected. If it is viewed that the Brinnon Community Center would not have the capacity to hold this meeting the Brinnon School gymnasium may be another possible location. Thank your consideration and response to this request. Doug and Kay Peterson Brinnon 360-796-0550 I CA) effbocc . From: Joseph Kocks <bucmanl4pt@icloud.com> ' Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:28 AMMisv To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor project Jeff, I am in full support of this project. I have reviewed all the materials/records and PH has done all the necessary due diligence to satisfy all concerns. Please help move this project forward. Respectfully, Joe Kocks 253-304-3652 C( ( C,& jeffbocc Cb From: Paul deschamps <paulgragg@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 11:40 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: planned resort Re: Black Point/pleasant harbor-- I was asked to offer my opinion on the pending development as I keep a boat at the marina. I live in Scenic Mason Co. by Case inlet. Brinnon and the immediate 3 mile radius, with the exception of Whitney's and the Goeyduck Restaurant, is a dump and needs ALL the help it can get. The planned development at Black Point is 3 steps in the right direction. Paul G. From: dudleyrobin@gmaiI.com Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:04 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon Resort Dear commission: I'm concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The health of Hood Canal is important to me. The project would also worsen traffic on Highway 101. But mostly it's the almost certain degradation of the natural environment — an effect that any child could predict, no matter what any consultants or "experts " might say — that concerns me. Obviously, hundreds of housing units in or near Brinnon will negatively impact the health of Hood Canal. Obviously, a golf course of any size will negatively impact the health of Hood Canal. Please do not let this project go forward. Thank you for your service to our beautiful county. Best wishes, Robin Dudley 529 Franklin St. Port Townsend 208-244-8900 I C l effbocc From: Steve Belinda Graham <sgraham002@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:30 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MPR Support Letter Commissioners, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the Pleasant Harbor Marina Development proposed within the community of Brinnon. Brinnon is a small community and a number of residents struggle to find employment and quality housing. The proposed development will allow for a number of jobs for residents of all skill levels. Although I believe many of the jobs may be part-time and seasonal, it provides opportunities for students or seniors looking to supplement their income. In addition, some of the housing stock within Brinnon, like many other areas of the County, is older and in need of costly repairs including septic systems. The proposed development will provide some workforce housing which is needed in Brinnon. I know the proposed development will not resolve all of Brinnon's economic issues, it is a step in the right direction that might spark other economic development opportunities to ensure our community is viable for current and future generations. The County has been reviewing this proposal for over a decade and based on the numerous studies and modifications to the development proposal the Developer has made adjustments to the proposal to mitigate the impact to the environment while maintaining a project that is financially feasible to construct. Balancing economic opportunities with environmental responsibility is important and I believe this proposed development achieves that based on the good work of all those Developer, Planning Commission, County Commissioner, residents, and various organizations) who have contributed to the development of this proposal over the past decade with their insights and comments. I urge the Commission to take action, resist paralysis by analysis, and approve the project to move forward. Our community has waited long enough for housing and jobs. Sincerely, Steve Graham, Brinnon Resident Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:07 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Proposed Black Point development- Save the Kettles! From: Marny Kittredge Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:04:51 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: Proposed Black Point development- Save the Kettles! Dear Commissioners, I am writing regarding the proposed development at Black Point in Brinnon. I am hoping the commissioners are united in their opposition to the Black Point development. Any positive outcomes, which I believe are few if any, would be at the expense of the local infrastructure, environment and quality of life. As a firefighter/EMT, having worked throughout South County, our Departments are maxed out now. It would be a huge strain on them, not to mention the excessive traffic on a narrow 2 lane road. The kettles are a very special, unique environmental asset which should be saved not filled. The few low wage jobs would not warrant the cost to the community. Let's not let corporate interest override community integrity and needs. Thanks for your service! Respectfully, Kit Kittredge Dr. Keith Meyer effbocc`, From: mrslauraking@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:59 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support of Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Report We have owed a boat slip and have a boat in Pleasant Harbor Marina for the past 24 years. We support the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan to allow increased employment and expanded education for the Brinnon local community. The pros of this development greatly outway the cons. We encourage the county commissioners to move forward as rapidly as possible to bring new life to our community. According to the plans the environment and surrounding community has been fully protected from exploitation. Please consider our input as being highly supportive of this posiitve project. If you wish further comments and/or information please contact us at mrslauraking@aol.com Sincerely, Dr. Richard King Laura King B- 5 Pleasant Harbor Marina Brinnon, Washington From: Doris W. Unruh <dwunruh@cablespeed.com> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 7:56 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Resort GL tiwY r.w I support the plans for Pleasant Harbor Resort. I hope the resort receives approval. Doris W. Unruh Virus -free. www.avast.com 1 c jeffbocc a From: Craig Durgan <durgan@olympus.net> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 8:37 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbour Resort Dear BOCC, I believe the resort in Brinnon known as the Pleasant Harbor Resort should be approved. As you know it has been a 10 year wait for approval. We need jobs, economic development and a more robust tax base. Approving the Resort will work toward that goal. Best Regards, Craig Durgan Port Ludlow From: Sent: To: Zo (CN Robert Burns <bob98365@gmail.com> Saturday, March 31, 2018 7:57 AM jeffbocc Hello I do support the Pleasant Harbor Resort and as it will help the county to become economic viable and I want it to happen as soon as possible it will be a good thing for the county and the people of the county thank you Robert Burns From: Terry DuBeau <permaterry@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 12:34 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Board of County Commissioners: It is Friday night of my spring break and I can't fall asleep because I am thinking about this resort and it's potential impact on Jefferson County. Washington is part of the thin green line that is currently protecting a very fragile environment. In 2006, twelve years ago that environment look much different than today. I wonder how as commissioners you wish your family, friends, and neighbors to remember you? What stories will you tell with pride to your grandchildren? If this resort gets approved as is ... it won't be this one. There are three issues you cannot honestly deny the truth of. Hwy. 101 is already a congested nightmare in the Brinnon area. This resort will add more traffic. After the first fatality directly related to increased traffic how will you feel? Someone will die. It may be a family, a motorcycle rider or a vehicle avoiding an elk. More congestion on that narrow road equals death. Are you prepared to live with that ...for some condos and a golf course? The kettles are unique and they are nature's way to keep the water in that environment refreshed. They do something we humans can't replicate.... we call it an aquifer. Why would you fill that in? That is insane. They are also important as sacred sites to the local tribe. When you mess with sacred sites you are opening up ancestral energies. When they bulldozed the graves at Standing Rock ... the trouble really began. These may not be graves but they are sacred and as white people we don't understand or begin to appreciate them. Finally, the Salish Sea well, she is dying. The Orcas are trying to tell us this along with the salmon, and all the other canaries. The benefits of this resort are not balanced by the potential for deadly traffic, messing with the karma of sacred sites and adding more pollution to our own water. So, before you go to sleep tonight... think on your legacy. Do you want to be the commissioners that allowed this to be built it or the ones who had the wisdom and foresight to say no? We can do better for the earth, for the Salish Sea and for our Indigenous neighbors. Thank you for serving and thank you for listening. Sincerely, Terry DuBeau PO Box 1133 Port Hadlock, Washington. 406.274.7606. CA A jeffbocc From: lois hammond <Ijhammond55@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 4:40 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort in Brinnon Jefferson County Commissioners: Please be advised that I support the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort in Brinnon. Our county desperately needs growth, jobs, and revenue. From what I have observed, this carefully and intelligently planned project will deliver all of these requirements. Without sensible growth and commercial revenue our schools and vital services will wither and die. Please do the right thing and approve this development. It is a win, win, win for Jefferson County. Sincerely, Lois J. Hammond Port Ludlow, WA Pro From: Steve Belinda Graham <sgraham002@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 8:26 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support Letter for Pleasant Harbor Marina Resort Commissioners: In 2017, you declared a housing crisis within Jefferson County. Today, you have an opportunity to take action towards a remedy. The Pleasant Harbor Marina development proposes approximately 33% of their development toward year-round residents. Increasing the housing stock helps to stabilize the housing market by adding to the limited supply. This proposal also offers short-term vacation rentals which will provide an alternative to VRBOs which shrinks the available housing stock for year-round residents, increasing housing cost for both ownership and rental. Jefferson County has vacancy rates at less than 1 %, more than 50% of all households are "cost -burdened" and half of those are "extremely cost burdened" (paying more than half of their income on housing alone). This development will not resolve these issue but it is a step in the right direction. Approval of this proposed development sends a message to your constituents that our Commissioners are not just declaring or talking about a housing crisis but through their actions working to resolve the issue. The second benefit to the proposed development is jobs. Construction jobs, seasonal jobs for our youth and senior looking to supplement their income but not work full-time, and full-time jobs for those of all skill levels needed to keep the resort managed and maintained year-round. I believe the environmental impacts should not be overlooked and that through responsible planning, development can be accomplished while respecting the environment. I would like to believe that the 10+ year review and study(s) have been to ensure an environmental responsible development. However, a time comes when a decision is needed. I believe based on the County's economic condition coupled with the housing crisis, the time is now. I respectful request you vote to approve this very important project in our Community. Sincerely, Belinda J. Graham, Brinnon Resident c 5W 1 C7 1'effbocc From: Bekah Ross <rebekahrossl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 7:05 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Hal Beattie Subject: Comments on Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) (Opposed) Comments of Rebekah Ross and John "Hal" Beattie: We own property on Hood Canal immediately adjacent and to the west of the Developer's Property. We oppose the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development for many reasons, including the following: 1. Well Water Issues We have a well that has, for the past 20 years, supplied us abundant, clear drinking water. We are concerned about the resort pulling water from the aquifer such that our well will run dry or suffer saltwater intrusion. We are aware that golf courses use a tremendous amount of water. This is particularly true in our area, which can have a drought in the months of July through September, the months in which the highest number of visitors would be expected. (Indeed, in order to protect our aquifer, we plant drought -tolerant landscaping on our own property). Use of the kettles to store water, part of the prior plan, is apparently is no longer on the table due to other mitigation now in place. In Appendix O, there is supposed mitigation for this concern. However, the proposed mitigation is far from sufficient. Appendix O defines a "Neighboring Well" in relevant part as follows: Neighboring Well' means any municipal, community or individual water supply well on Black Point that is not located on the Developer's Property, located between the Developer's Property and Hood Canal and that exists as of the effective date of the Development Agreement." Presumably, our well is included, as part of the Developer's Property wraps around to the North of our property, and our property is between that section of the Developers Property and Hood Canal. However, there may be other private wells that are not included. We propose that the language be changed to add "or within .5 miles of the Developer's Property". If there are studies that show the size of the aquifer from which the Development would draw, perhaps a number other than .5 miles would be suitable. Further, Appendix O defines "Baseline Standard" in relevant part as follows: Baseline Standard' means:... (ii) for individual wells, obtain approval from Ecology and the Director of DCD (in consultation with the Environmental Health Director) for sampling at least one individual well located waterward of the Developer's Property in each direction to the East and South of the Developer's Property. Then, the Developer shall provide to Ecology and the Director of DCD the results from samples from the selected individual wells not less than 30 days prior to the start of construction. Prior to construction, the Developer also shall provide Ecology and DCD copies of the last three annual reports filed by the Pleasant Tides Operator." This definition does not make any sense. (Taking out the qualifiers, it's stating "standard ... means ... obtain... ") It should say something like: "for individual wells, the result of testing of sampling of at least one well located to the East and one well located waterward of the Developer's Property. Such sampling and testing of individual wells shall be obtained at the Developer's expense and the Developer shall provide to Ecology and the Director of DCD the results from samples from the selected individual wells not less than 30 days prior to the start of construction." I'm not aware that any particular approval is needed from "Ecology and the Director of DCD (in consultation with the Environmental Health Director)" to sample an individual well if the homeowner approves the testing. Because there are few wells that fall within the definition of Neighboring Wells, and because neighbors may be concerned that the Developer might choose non -representative wells for sampling, the following language should be added: "The Developer shall pay for sampling and testing services for any Neighboring Wells at the request of the owners of such wells". Section (5)(d) Replacement Water Required for Affected Neighboring Wells, states in relevant part: If Initial Mitigation Measures do not address the Potential Threat, the Developer shall provide a replacement water source for affected Neighboring Wells if it the Potential Threat is caused by the Pleasant Harbor Wells." This does not clarify who will determine if the Potential Threat is caused by Pleasant Harbor Wells. If the Developer denies that the Potential Threat is caused by it, then this sets the stage for an expensive lawsuit by neighbors, such as ourselves, who have had our domestic water supply compromised. It seems logical to assume that if there is saltwater intrusion or failure of our well that has served us for decades, this would be due to the Developer drawing so much water to keep its golf course green and for the domestic water use of hundreds of visitors that there is insufficient water remaining in the aquifer for other long-term neighbors. The language "if it the Potential Threat is caused by the Pleasant Harbor Wells" should be deleted. In the alternative it should be replaced with "unless the Developer is able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole cause for the Potential Threat was a cause other than the Development and/or the Pleasant Harbor Wells. The Developer shall indemnify owners of Neighboring Wells for all reasonable costs associated with the determination of the cause of the Potential Threat." The section goes on to say: The Developer, in its sole discretion and at its sole cost, may: (i) Allow connection to the Pleasant Harbor Water System; or, (ii) drill a substitute water supply well to replace the affected Neighboring Well." This section assumes that a drilled substitute water supply will supply clean water. However, if the aquifer has saltwater intrusion, this might not be a solution. It may be necessary to deliver water by truck if the aquifer fails and the Developer does not have a sufficient water treatment system. Furthermore, it is troubling that an agreement between the Developer and the County should reference other property owners having to release claims. If we are satisfied that the Developer has resolved our water issues forever, then we would not have a claim. However, the provisions apply only if the Potential Threat is discovered in during the termination of the Development Agreement. If, 25 years down the road, there is another Potential Threat, the neighboring properties would have no recourse. As a practical matter, we would also have no recourse if the Development is not successful. If there is saltwater intrusion, and the development fails, the Developer should still be responsible. The only means to assure the Developer will meet its responsibility is to requirement it to post a bond sufficient in amount to cover all contingencies. 2. Other Water Issues We are concerned about wastewater that likely would contain chemicals associated with golf course maintenance, such as pesticides and herbicides, and chemicals and wastes associated with high density human habitation. We are concerned about wastes and runoff associated with the construction phases. We are concerned about both contamination of the aquifer, and the fact that Hood Canal is unable to effectively flush contaminants that inevitably would reach it sooner or later. The current owners may have the best intentions to protect Hood Canal and the aquifer. However, mistakes and accidents happen, and systems fail. The sheer quantity of contaminants associated with a golf course and and hundreds of residences adjacent to the fragile Hood Canal is a recipe for disaster. 3. Traffic Float plane delivery of guests should not be allowed and this should be expressly stated in the Development Plan. Nesting ospreys, bald eagles, great blue herons and other marine birds and mammals now existing on Black Point would be negatively impacted by the noise of such flights. Float plane traffic would be particularly troublesome if it were allowed in the compact Pleasant Harbor. However, even if the planes were to land in Hood Canal, marine mammals, waterfowl, and boaters, as well as neighbors such as ourselves, would be impacted by the noise of planes. In a presentation to the community, the Statesman Group representative said they no longer planned float plane traffic. Despite this, I note that the Statesman Group website still advertises that the development would be accessible by 20 minutes by float plane. Thus, the representation of the Statesman representative cannot be believed. Accordingly, a prohibition on float plane traffic should be part of the Development Plan. Also the public boat ramp and associated parking now easily serving the community (except for the very short shrimp season) will be overwhelmed if even a fraction of the residents of the resort use it to launch their boats. This is just one of the ways that the staggering size of the planned resort will harm the quality of life of this small community. Traffic on 101 will be a nightmare. Especially if the turnover of the residents at the resort takes place on weekends, as is often the case for this type of resort. We have not found in the Development Plan any proposed mitigation that addresses the increased traffic along Highway 101, particularly during peak summer months. We frequently bicycle into Brinnon for our mail, and see other bicyclists and pedestrians on the shoulders of 101. This portion of Highway 101 poses challenges, as the shoulders are very narrow. Fortunately, with the amount of traffic we have now, we generally feel safe. However, if there were a steady stream of traffic going both directions, this would be quite unsafe. This is one of the things that make the large-scale proposed Development inappropriate for this rural area, and that cannot be mitigated away. 4. Effects of High Density Development on Neighbors We believe that it would be impossible to adequately mitigate the multiple negative impacts if a development on the scale of the Statesman Group proposed development were allowed to proceed. We are also concerned that even if the current developers in good faith believe their project will have minimal negative impacts, there is no guarantee that they or their successors (whoever they might be) will meet these goals. In fact, we rather expect the project to fail (after it wrecks the rural character of Brinnon), as there is a small window of months in the year when visitors would be interested in staying in Brinnon, and because of market saturation in light of the planned resort hotel and improved facilities in Blynn within a couple years. See "Jamestown Tribe targets 2020 for hotel tower; full resort plans taking shape in Blyn", Sequim Gazette, Oct. 11, 2017. http::'www.sequiingazette. com;'newsjamestown- tri be-targets-2020-for-hotel-tower-full-resort-plans-taking-shape-in-blyn- With our county's limited resources, we are doubtful that there can or would be constant monitoring or the will/ability to shut down the project if it turns out the goals are not met. Unless the Developer posts a bond sufficient to cover all the costs our community will incur if it fails to meet its obligations, the Developer could walk away, leaving the rest of us to bear the costs. In sum, the Statesman Group proposed development is not consistent with the current comprehensive plan's goals, particularly those related to rural character and preservation of the natural environment, and it could cause lasting harm to its neighbors. Rebekah Ross John "Hal" Beattie 1 effbocc From: Clayton Swanson <tarboosh@embarqmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 9:07 AM To: jeffbocc It's time to finally approve this project. It will help the Brinnon area and community extensively. 1 c The BRINNON GROUP is committed to the preservation and enhancement of bothsoci,,l and natural communities in and around the rural village of Brinnon. It came into being in response to a threat posed by the Statesman Group ---a corporate builder whose intrusive presence promises to overwhelm the unpretentious little town. Its application to build a Master Planned Resort (MPR) onside the Hood Canal was recently approved by Jefferson County's Board of County Commissioners. mAR 3 0 20IR' MPRs are corporate -built retreats wherein well-to-do homeowners share golf courses, open space, and other amenities in common. They are very often gated; or, by other more subtle means, made to appear off-limits to outsiders. A single class of wealthy transients typically inhabit*WRs, which have been described by social critics as "hollow villages- with everything for rent and half the houses empty in winter." Insular in terms of social class and place, they stand in stark contrast to the cities and towns of which they are a part. The Statesman Group calls its MPR by the name Pleasant Harbor. Having failed in attempts to steer those in charge away from such a development, theBRINNONGROUPasksthatyouoverturnthedecisionbyJeffersonCounty Commissioners to approve Statesman's application for a Master Planned Resort (MPR) on the basis of the evidence outlined below. The BOCC included in its notice to approve Statesman's application a list of "findings" and made site-specific Comp Plan amendment approval contingent upon certain conditions being met. We will show its findings to be questionable, its conditions vague, and; more to the point, its underlying analysis ---from start to finish--- tragically misguided and incomplete. 1 -The findings a) The County found that, since the Brinnon MPR was conceptually identified and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan on 1 May 2002, assumptions upon which the decision was based "have not generally changed" and that they "continue to be valid." This is very much like saying "We once knew what we were doing and haven't learned much to change our mind on the subject since." Truth is, we should have known better in 2002, and we should have learned a great deal since. Nowadays, experienced professionals and thoughtful citizens are acutely aware of the irrevocable damage this type of development visits upon immediate and extended natural settings. Yet County Commissioners remain optimistic, believing as they do that we can successfully mitigate agai'ist such damage during and after build -out. We know, for example, that intensive development alongside Puget Sound remains THE major cause of contamination to that once pristine body of water. A well -researched report commissioned by the Governor told us so. Given its proximity to waters of the Hood Canal, Statesman's Pleasant Harbor development is bound to negatively impact waters that, down the way, empty into the Sound. a W 2 We know, for example, that development, once begun, will jeopardize the ecological integrity of both shoreline and adjacent lands. The Statesman group, as is customary, will promise the world" in order to get their way. Yet the fact remains: every increment of cleared land will likely cause some degree of degradation or loss. It's been suggested that a very small disruption can cause major losses in terms of ecological value. Best available science suggests that it is "not possible to fully protect ecological functions and values from the effects of intensive development." With this in mind, Washington's DOE adopted new guidelines for implementing the state's Shoreline Management Act, calling for "no net loss" of ecological function. State hearings boards have interpreted this requirement as setting a standard --yet development in critical areas continues unabated while restorative efforts barely get past study stage. So, in large part, says ecologist John Lombard in his "Saving Puget Sound: A Conservation Strategy for the 21" Century." The developers of Pleasant Harbor will move nearly two million cubic yards of soil during cut and fill operations in preparation for development. The construction of close to one=thousand housing units, an 18 -hole golf course, hard -surfaced roads, and driveways will significantly compromise the environmental health of the natural setting. At the same time, the makeup and flow of water across the land and into adjacent waters ---during construction and afterwards ---will add to the adverse effects recounted above. Though Commissioners warn against the use of fertilizers and pesticides, these will be put to use. Poisonous residues are bound to make their way across the site to shoreline. Though Commissioners believe that mitigation can work, experience tells us that attempts to ;t mitigate damage are bound to fail. This has been amply demonstrated whenever and wherever development has occurred. b) The County found that, "based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment may reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County." Note the word "may" in the statement. Were Commissioners afraid of a close reading of the evidence? A close reading would show that about half the respondents saw economic benefit coming out of development. These respondents, it should be noted, paid little or no attention to social and environmental issues of great consequence. The other half said y no." Theirs was a more well-rounded critique. c) T ie County found that "the proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan." We "find" differently. A Master Planned Resort designation "subverts the following objectives as outlined in Appendix C of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Under "Land Use/ Rural Element, General land Use" the Comprehensive Plan says we should "permit only land uses which are compatible with the rural character of the County" and that "Rural Village Centers"—of which Brinnon is one ---"should continue to provide a mixture of housing types, commercial activities, and recreation and open dy. ;1 space." Under "Residential Use" the CP ifwsti ` d vistas be preserved and hazards avoided" and that "areas for the development of low income/senior housing are provided." According to the Comprehensive Plan, rural character is described as "undisturbed land" or. "very low density residential development." A sophisticated planner might describe rural village character in terms of a loose organization of public and private places, low density, vernacular theme, and quietly unpretentious in its relatively undisturbed natural setting. The Pleasant Harbor development is something else. It is the corporate presencepersonified. It is Vogue and Esquire and Fortune Magazines rolled into one. It is high style, exclusive, and very expensive; it stands in stark contrast to its natural setting, as well! as the village to which it turns its back. It is surely out of place in rural South Jefferson County. Statesman's proposal is no different from others of its ilk. Once the landscape has been radically altered, there's little or no chance for resuscitation. Rural character can only serve as phony afterthought once the required amenities have been put in place. The home-grown" ethos unique to rural communities and the natural diversity unique to the' rural setting is supplanted by well -manicured golf courses and lawns, upscale muni -malls, look-alike dwelling units, hard -surfaced roads and driveways, drainage ditches and retention ponds, raised wooden walkways, security devices systems, and entry/exit gates are the name o the game. Of necessity, MPRs must significantly transform the natural an man-made landscape if they are to be successful from a profit -centered point of view. Formula -built and operated, who can honestly believe that they might blend into Brinnon's comfortably unpretentious rural setting? d A wide range of options in terms of housing type and price is out of the question in developments of this sort, as prevailing custom recommends a play -it -safe narrow focus. Inasmuch as MPRs are built as privately owned and operated vacation communities, a wide range of commercial and cultural activities are classed as non -essential ---as is conoem for ongoing enterprises in the village proper. As to hazards, there can be no question that, in terms of runoff alone, a shoreline -built MPR is bound to put both shoreline and adjacent waters at severe risk. We should have known this when the land was first designated ---and appreciated the fact every day since. Then, too, amany-fold increase in traffic entering and exiting US 101 is a hazar# f dp erves consideration, yet the County has little to say on this subject. 41 5 .4 Under the Housing Element, the Comprehensive Pian says we should "encourage the construction of affordable housing" and "provide areas for development of a variety of low-income and elderly housing." According to preliminary planning documents submitted by the Statesman Group, a miniscule percentage of affordable housing is contemplated, across and down highway 101. The Open Space, Parks, and Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan says -that "Natural open spaces and recreational development should be one of the primary uses of land adjoining shorelines." Yet shorelines in and around Jefferson and ' 4 f adjacent counties are the very places that MPRs covet—for reasons much tcoobvious to list. We only aid and abet privatization when we devote much time and attention to those ! who would usurp, "promises" aside, what little remains of our undeveloped shoreline. Such a discontinuity between aim and outcome was once and continues to be the rule of the day. Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan it says "GroundwaterUnd,r theresources, aquifer recharge areas, surface waters, and shorelines should be protected from residential wastes, non -point source pollution, erosion, and storm water runoff; The maximum residential density should depend upon the amount of land needed to protectwastewaterDevelopmentshouldminimizetheimpactanon-site well and to dispose of d landscaping on aquifer recharge areas" andofroads, infrastructure, buildings, anp g Provisions for public access to shoreline areas should be increased." ; r tw._ No on-site well or complex of wells, would support reside" densities of those plate* for the Point. That is why Statesman is frantically buying up water rights whenever and f , wherever they can procure them ---on site and off. Wastewater disposal is another problem. It will not be solved on-site except as a last resort—in which ase it from could sink the project. Non -point source pollution, erosion, and storm water runoffdevelopment, as already mentioned, are the major causes of degradation to the waters ofPugetSoundandelsewhere. The problem will persist as long as intensive development is allowed to occur adjacent to shorelines. There ofdevelopersabsolutely h an outcome, given the destructive habits o pend the propensity of property owners to do what they do.. Stat,,sman's MPR, by necessity large in scale, is bound to degrade the naturalenvi, onment no matter what precautions we, mired in ignorance and awash in pretension, take. We are just beginning to appreciate the complicated web of interactions operating inthemostrudimentarynaturalsystems. So how in right mind can we justify MPRdesignationonthelandunderconsideration? The answer is, quite simply, wecan't- In sum, the proposed site-specific proposal to amend is, in many ways, NOT consistent with the goals and policies of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan. d) The County found that the proposed site-specific amendment "will not result inprobablesignificantadverseimpactstotheCounty's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated and will not . place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities." . Note the words "probable significant." Who do they think they're kidding? It's hard to 0' believe this to be true since services to the community have been and continue to be substantially cut without the addition of a 256 -acre development in Brinnon. Unless, of course, the Statesman group agrees to address the named impacts ---which in 63c they are being asked to do. This bring- up and interesting pint. Is it wise to assign res onsibilitiesthathavetraditionallybelongedtothecommunitytothe, private sector? We think not. L e) The County found that "the subject parcel is physically, suitable or the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to," among others, "provision of utilities." Watr is a utility ---and, as we know, it is in short supply East of the mountains. How can it be said that there will be no "probable significant adverse impacts" consequent to what is essentially a privately engineered and publicly condoned raid on Brinnon's water resources! An 18 -hole golf course and well over a thousand hcusgs will be no little draw upon Brinnon's limited supply of fresh water. Statesman needs water in order to proceed ---and, with money to burn, it's targeted precious communal resources. Assuming their needs are met, will there be enough water to "go around?" How, long before it runs out? We cannot know the answer to these questions, yet experience tells us it will be more sooner than later. We know that not long ago a corporate builder "permitted" to supply water to its development in Port Ludlow, misjudged availability and, at present, is frantically chasing extra water rights to meet contractual obligations. They'll do what must be done ---that is, invade communal resources to save their private necks ---which is exactly what Statesman must do in order to proceed from application to final approval at Pleasant Harbor. Again- how long before they run out? Exp.rience tells us that, in shoreline communities, salt water is bound to contaminate well; in time as more and more groundwater is pumped to the surface. What's to prevent such an outcome once the Pleasant Harbor development is complete? This is not to mention the elevated risk o certain cancers linked to the use of pesticides and fertilizers commonly used on golf courses and, or that matter, on grassy lawns. There is not way to mitigate against such contamination. Mitigation, though commonly invoked, represents a failure to do the right thing in the first place. When all is said and done, it's more hope than reality ---as any ecologist worth hid tell you. In support of Statesman's application, the County observes that Master planned resorts are,governed under distinct statutory provision within the GMA---saying "these are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development LAN>IRDs). They point out that "new (bold type) MPRs may constitute growth outside of urban growth areas." Interesting to note: Clallam County Commissioners were, not long ago, rebuked by the GMA Hearings Board for land use designations deemed non-compliant or invalid, the result of actions by the Dry Creek coalition of homeowners. Jefferson County Commissioners have slyly gone well out of their way to insulate themselves from such a suit. The BOCC made formal approval of Statesman's application or an MPR contingent upon ,.. a list of "conditions. Many of these thrust upon the developer responsibilities that 40 i e) The County found that "the subject parcel is physically, suitable or the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to," among others, "provision of utilities." Watr is a utility ---and, as we know, it is in short supply East of the mountains. How can it be said that there will be no "probable significant adverse impacts" consequent to what is essentially a privately engineered and publicly condoned raid on Brinnon's water resources! An 18 -hole golf course and well over a thousand hcusgs will be no little draw upon Brinnon's limited supply of fresh water. Statesman needs water in order to proceed ---and, with money to burn, it's targeted precious communal resources. Assuming their needs are met, will there be enough water to "go around?" How, long before it runs out? We cannot know the answer to these questions, yet experience tells us it will be more sooner than later. We know that not long ago a corporate builder "permitted" to supply water to its development in Port Ludlow, misjudged availability and, at present, is frantically chasing extra water rights to meet contractual obligations. They'll do what must be done ---that is, invade communal resources to save their private necks ---which is exactly what Statesman must do in order to proceed from application to final approval at Pleasant Harbor. Again- how long before they run out? Exp.rience tells us that, in shoreline communities, salt water is bound to contaminate well; in time as more and more groundwater is pumped to the surface. What's to prevent such an outcome once the Pleasant Harbor development is complete? This is not to mention the elevated risk o certain cancers linked to the use of pesticides and fertilizers commonly used on golf courses and, or that matter, on grassy lawns. There is not way to mitigate against such contamination. Mitigation, though commonly invoked, represents a failure to do the right thing in the first place. When all is said and done, it's more hope than reality ---as any ecologist worth hid tell you. In support of Statesman's application, the County observes that Master planned resorts are,governed under distinct statutory provision within the GMA---saying "these are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development LAN>IRDs). They point out that "new (bold type) MPRs may constitute growth outside of urban growth areas." Interesting to note: Clallam County Commissioners were, not long ago, rebuked by the GMA Hearings Board for land use designations deemed non-compliant or invalid, the result of actions by the Dry Creek coalition of homeowners. Jefferson County Commissioners have slyly gone well out of their way to insulate themselves from such a suit. The BOCC made formal approval of Statesman's application or an MPR contingent upon ,.. a list of "conditions. Many of these thrust upon the developer responsibilities that 40 traditionally belong to county government. Most are so vaguely stated as to be meaningless. ' 2 The Conditions for. Approval a) The County asks that the developer "negotiate memoranda of understanding or memoranda of agreement to provide needed support for the Bannon school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services, housing, police, publiehe4W parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such' agreements will be .. encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip Owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking." The above is the aforementioned and infamous Condition for Approval (63-c). We presume that these memoranda will take the form of impact fees payable to the County. Washington law authorizes local governments to charge these fees to defray some but, specifically, not all the costs of development. Though a help, impact fees rarely pay enough. These are one -shots and, though they may seem god -sent to a Jefferson County now as always short of cash, they will soon prove to be small change when the full costs of development come down the pike, . One can't help wondering why Jefferson County Commissioners paid so little attention to the needs of the people of Brinnon for so long a time ---that is, until a corporate developer: from out -of -country came onto the scene. Now they'll abandon precious shoreline to outsiders in order to reap sone -time windfall—no matter what the future holds in stare i, ry As above and below, County Commissioners will address their responsibilities ---by t07 ` avoiding them rather than meeting them head-on. ` b) The Conditions for Approval say "Any and all environmental analyses, impacts, plans, and monitoring procedures pursuant to State requirements are to be left to the developer -- the County merely approving or disapproving a named person or group. Written understandings are to made and delivered by the developer to a variety of interested parties regarding archeological issues, site integrity during construction, tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and educational opportunities. The County asks the developer to offer jobs to local contractors and individuals seeking employment and to prefer local applicants "provided they are qualified, available, andw competitive in terms of pricing." It asks Stateman to "prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from within Jefferson County." We can hope for such, but experience tells us that corporate builders will be quick to invoke a handy proviso rather than suffer a reduction in profit. c As a Condition for Approval, Commissioners say, "The developer shall provide affordable housing roughly proportionalforMPRworkers... rou ro ortional to the number of jobs created that are 80% or less of the Brinnon ar av 'ag yxour se tele will be rental units and, once the project is complete; t Is'no reason to believe that Statesman won't be tempted to upgrade the units to sell as additional condominiums. , Many of these conditions are so poorly defined as to be near meaningless. The words "to 7 GG 7) GG )) GL )) GGi the greatest extent, as appropriate, when appropriate, strive to, dentify techniques," "encourage to work with," "prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and competitive in terms of pricing," "prioritize the sourcing of construction materials" invite misinterpretation ---and, worse coming to worse, legal challenge. d) As a Condition for Approval the Commissioners say, "the developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area average median income(AMI). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.g., no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the number of jobs crea.ed that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon AMI. toper may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of i onsite housing development." The alternative described in the last sentence, above, allows the developer to preserve the pricey upscale look and feel of his Pleasant Harbor MPR and avoid the "mixture of housing types," including low cost rentals, as called for in the Jefferson County'; Comprehensive Plan. He'll, of course, be loathe to mix things up as this would seriously ' jeopardize his profit picture. The County, on the other hand, might have done well to reject Statesman's segregated rather than communal approach to development from the start.. e) As a condition for approval the Commissioners say, `GStormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet the requirements of zero discharge into Hood Canal... utilizing best available science. Zero! Who's kidding who? We already know that best available science suggests that it is "not possible" to fully protect ecological functions and values from the effects of intensive development. Studies show elevated risks to humans, other animals, and plants linked to the use of pesticides and fertilizers commonly used on golf courses et al, where, in the case at hand, . Statesman is required "to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site," and pass this information on to the public. A water collection and testing monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor "will be developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site- ` c action." So, what if the inevitable happens and trace, percentages, , pf,ertilize s7 Pesticides, and herbicides are found in declining groundwater ta61 s 04i shpreline waters? Who will bear responsibility for such an outcome? And how will site :be addressed? As to Marina discharges, Commissioners say "these shall treated by a system that reduces contamination to the greatest extent possible." This is like saying nothing at all. s If wells neighboring Statesman's MPR fail, are periodically inoperable, or suffer from saltwater intrusion, the Commissioners require Statesman to provide access to its own water system and, in these events, reserve additional recharge wells for this purpose. As has already been said, water hereabout is'a scarce commodity. The injection of an - MPR the size of Pleasant harbor is bound to make matters worse ---much to the detriment. of long term residents who will be the first to suffer under the pressures brought on by massive development. 3 The Underlying Analysis . It used to be that our elected representatives and we—the citizens ---determined the look ; and feel of our communities. Nowadays, financially stra local vert nts increasingly rely upon the homebuilding industry, overwhelmingly dominated by corporate builders, to do their work or them. Hat in hand, we bow and scrape so as not to frighten them away, while they ruthless transform rural lands and rural communities into pre-packaged "company towns." One wonders why the community of Brinnon received so little attention from Jefferson County officials until a developer from out -of -country saw opportunity knocking. The waterfront landscape will forever be transformed—from natural scrubland to rich man's Shangri-La. In return, he's been asked to respond to the needs of the community in terms so vague as to be meaningless. To our mind and the minds of many others whose letter are on file, Statesman's approach to development runs counter to the vision many of us have regarding future development in our relatively well-preserved natural setting. Seems to us that our threesome of County Conmissioners have gone well out of their way to appease a corporate builder who wound usurp much land, fresh water, and shoreline for the benefit of a small group of investors. They do this in the one-dimensional belief that tourism will do much to build the economy in Jefferson County. "At what cost and to what effect," we ask. The "community" of Brinnon will not be "saveid' y by a c i the likes of Statesman's Pleasant Harbor. If built, Pleasant Harbor will sit as an anomaly in our midst. Unconnected, apart. We, full-time residents committed to a community; they, flitting transients wandering from place to place. Is this scenario ---brought to us by the makers of Pleasant Harbor --the best Commissioners have to offer? We think not. We hope not. It's well past time to set Statesman adrift. There are other, much better alternatives --and it's well past time to pursue them. 11 r 9 _ + Basis of e , r' -e !., I]fithorvied Predicament o' mankind e ra c,fa f ly Ha,- h.la ea:dy C.ortie Yesterday glee!, art4J. The —voidance ol"Trr;.th tticrul :E,rrviror r ental Policy .Act of 1969 (NEPA) 0c;: '2 4d the purposes of the Act were- "To declare a national policy which E i11 nc:coui'aF:;iv productive and enjoyable harmony between nm and his en-vironmerit, to n :t tw: t harts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere d.. stir rtlate ffie healtls and wel are of man- to enrich the underst€.nding of the ecological b st(t ks and natural resources important to the Nat on l? A re'll irei, atneng other things, that every r ` ' ' h> ion for future legislation of o leer (edezal action "sigrificar dy affecting the qual4, of to human environment" must MCIl .ids; 4a detailed staternent ori the environrneaital ;'ofthe proposed action, rxirticularty its adverse environmental effbM , it, and the: long-term r .sc ur e 1lrnrnitnl:nrs it would entail, I., would result in too much festst U,nivc envirormental impact were to be ' such an n ironment,al i np3c! Wilemerxt (EIS) making thj4dent h i by higher authority. But a lrris vus oily implicit, and before long the filii, of to become defined as;a x:a u»rxtt IMIII.Oal3ce after which habitat exploitation:10 was to remain the: roan With 1n ecoliz gical pa.i-adigm, we cava r Moat that filing essentially K e:t eu a MS's aid them trying somehow tq;wta t in a still exploitive 4-.:cka t tlFb fLture'l will not .suffice. A ma6 mcg diarlge in direction is galled 0 AlterNet: Teaching Democrats 'How to Fight': PCCC's Adam Green & Stephanie Taylor Page 5 of 7 Colorado, and Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, to sign a letter to be circulated to/their colleagues, making the same request. "Instead of saying, 'Will you leadT, 'Wili'you be first 'on this issue?', it became, 'Will you follow?' 'Will you sign that letter over there?' And,immediately, people started signing. And within week, we got 120 members of `Congress on the record -- about half the ocratc caucus." Then they got Michael Bennet, Colorado' or senator, to circulate a similar letter in his chamber. Further cementing the.xela ' ships that made the lette e, PCCC helped raise 35,000 each for Polison for the 20 term el ons, Green says. While any politlwill for the public option fell intf ace of the fight over abortion cov a fomented by the U.S. Confer eCatholic Bishops, PCCC found a el it aims to repeat with the "W' ou follow?" letter. PCC s strategy also encompasses ng quick -to -launch simple Web sites del ted to a single issue or topi often involving a petition. One morning, Green sa s, he And Taylor were ha ' g coffee, and she said to him, "I want the public Op 'on.' So we launched W&antThePublicOption com " T-aylof says, laughi For one press event, petitions gathered through,thatsite -- and via Credo Ao6n and the Democracyf it America sites - were printed out, adding u reams of paper, to be delivered, the office of Senate Majority Leader '` eid by then -Rep. Alan Grays91A1 the progressive firebrand. Peti i,tfeliveries to Congress don't o ily make news. But the perfect storm of having a very quotable member o e House throw down a gauntlet to the Senate drew a lot of big media Alter was there -- who got a nice payoff when Capitol Police, just following con ssional policy, refused to let Green and o? 1ep r leaders carry the petitions into a building, so Grayson stepped forwardt them himself. Yr Since then, P9CC rac d'up another important victory that almost replaced a Republican° ""bent in New Hampshire'§,. Gond congressional district. PCCC threw in big behind Annie Kuster, seen a underdog in the Democr% ,.primary, in her face-off against Katrina Swett who bears two brans n Dem tic politics, as the wife of former Rep: Dick Swett adaughter of e Rep. Tom Lantos. Kuster's finishA '"t Ch ass was unexpec close -- the margin was 1 percent -- g Gpwd and Taylor a taste s they're convinced lie ahead.` The Kuster campaign was part of PCCC's n Seat Pr ;which Green Taylor say is at least as important, if more s launching primary -c allenges to incumbent Democrats (as in the alter e.nge to Blanche Lincoln). In races all over the country, Taylor says, m are vying for open slots on the ballots, and PCCC aims to get into those early to support the most progressive candidate in a Democratic primary. (In Kuster's case, PCCC was on the ground six months ahead of the establishment Democratic party.) htti)://www.altemet.org/module/printversion/149790 2/7/2011 My name is Christina Davis; I own property on the Upper Lazy C. This property has been in my family for over 50 yrs. I am pro Pleasant Harbor Resort. If this were to be built I could move back home and be able support myself. As it is now, I can only visit the place I love. I have heard allot about this project, and I only see good things happening if this were to happen. I have only positive things to say about the up coming project. Please consider voting yes, and bring Briinnon back to life. APR 0 2 2018 FFERSON COUNITY MISSIONERS Christina Davis P.O. Box 901 Phillipsburg, MT Lot 266 Lazy C Ranch C 1c V) From: Scott Hogenson <hogie57@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 11:06 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment, Pleasant Harbor MPR Good morning. I am writing to offer my unqualified support for the Pleasant Harbor MPR near Brinnon, and ask that the Board of County Commissioners approve the plan at its earliest opportunity. The Pleasant Harbor MPR provides the Board a golden opportunity to further solidify Jefferson County's position as the preeminent destination in western Washington. In the process of doing so, it would create nearly 2,000 much needed jobs in the Brinnon area and provide an infusion of millions of dollars during the construction phase of the project and beyond. Jefferson County would further benefit from the Pleasant Harbor MPR through the expansion of the tax base that accompanies the development. Between new sales tax revenue and growth in property tax revenue, the country would be able to improve the services it provides to all the people of Jefferson County. Whether it's schools, fire and police, or other such services, the project would help everyone who lives here. The developers have gone far beyond due diligence in safeguarding the environment. They have exceeded the efforts undertaken with the Port Ludlow MPR and our environment here is wonderful 20 years later! We all want to ensure that we take good care of the environment and the Pleasant Harbor MPR does that. I have read a number of environmental concerns regarding this project and share the concerns of those voicing them. However, it is imperative that the Board review such concerns through the lens of empirical, scientific data and not make such important decisions based on emotion or suppositions. Please approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. It's good for our county, good for the economy and good for the environment. Sincerely, Scott Hogenson 51 South Bayview Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Tel. 703-967-6298 cc .< < effbocc, From: kittyladyd@olypen.com Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 1:28 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: letter against the resort at black point i am dead -set against the resort at black point. i have been a full-time resident since 2003., owned my property since late'97, and visited here since '85. we have wonderful community here. to desecrate it with all that entails creating this resort will ruin it. this small community, i don't believe, can withstand all of the different ways this resort will negatively impact it. just taking highway 3.o3. into consideration ... it is narrow, it is full of curves, it is full of accidents... many of them fatal, and there are very few places where it could be widened at all. and the overuse of this highway is not limited to jefferson county ... mason will take a hit also. next, take into consideration the condition of canal water quality with all of the boats with their pollution, the threat of low oxygenation starting at the sound end, and all of the septic systems with their leakages. and then there's the impact of over -fishing all the seafood delights that we enjoy. many of us chose to live here to enjoy the "get-away-ness" of it all, the peace and quiet, the extreme beauty. i realize the tax consequences of the resort for the county is undeniable... BUT AT WHAT COST TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MEMBERS OF THIS AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. no environmental impact statement can ever coverall the impacts to this area. sincerely, diane a. grau 384 Forest Dr Brinnon effbocc`''.'i f From: Karen Sickel <r2cents@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 12:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments regarding support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us I am totally in support of this Master Planned Resort and am totally amazed that we are yet again going through a comment process. Here are my comments to a social media poster who tried to inflame other residents and outsiders to believe her bogus claims about the Pleasant Harbor Resort. My personal comments follow this quote. You may have a legal background and I do not however your comments about the Statesman Corporation not being able to meet their obligations and walkaway leaving the rest of us to bear the costs is way out there. Have any of you ever toured a Statesman project? We have and they are not only beautiful but are concerned about the environment in every possible way. Why is it that you think everyone else but you wants to trash the environment? They have the funds to complete this project along with facilities that our own residents and schools can use. Read up on what it is that they plan to do to mitigate your concerns rather than attempt to inflame the masses to your narrative. You state that the development is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. I beg to differ. The plan calls for a Master Planned Resort. You say it will ruin the natural environment ..... It won't. Frankly, you won't even see it. It is so well planned that unless you have been granted access to the grounds, it will be completely out of view. What about all those nasty places you pass every time you leave home? They are beyond junk cars and piles of trash and other piles of debris - they have Rats and other not so desirable rodents that thrive in those areas. I personally would like to see some higher end properties that create not only jobs but tax revenue that will aid all of us with reduced property taxes and lower levy issues for the fire department and schools because their contribution to those would be enormous we wouldn't have to fund so darn much. As you can tell, I am totally in favor of this planned community. It's beautiful and frankly, we need some of that around here. The last thing we need around here is more low income houses. So many of the latest comments that have been asked have already been asked, answered and solutions found to satisfy the concerns of community members over the last 12 years. It's way beyond time to start this project and begin the permitting phase. Way too many of the "facts" presented in the recent comments about the resort have proven to be not true. And then, many carry those same comments in their posts pounding in the same distorted truth to their readers. It's time for those of us who have remained somewhat silent about the lies and distortions of the actual facts to speak up and reject your narrative. These same "facts" that are now being presented have been the same lies that have been around since this whole thing started. Some of them don't even realize that those topics are no longer an issue." It's time you started listening to residents and not the people from Seattle, Oregon and California who have probably never set foot in our area. It's just their "net of no growth minds" is big and they try and influence you with comments from people who could probably never find Brinnon on the map. The "haters" say that another 4000 vehicles will be in the area. I say PROVE IT! This is a ridiculous statement and it's just not going to happen. The rest of us who love the idea of something nice around here have been far too silent. I remember sitting in a meeting when you approved this project. What the heck happened to that? Why have we gone through more years of these same old steps that were already completed to your satisfaction? The numerous pages you have in the 494 page document you have online that includes some comments had some good old junk science in there as well. The submitted comparisons made to those other communities who had MPR's were nothing like this area and should have never been allowed to be used as an example of what might happen. The demographic data is completely different. 1 Commissioners, let's get off the darn fence and let this project continue. You've milked the Statesman Corporation for so many thousands on your lists of project modifications and change orders that it's amazing you think that cash register will remain open to your grabs for an indefinite amount of time. Let the project go forward and the amount of taxes you will collect will fund all of those things that everyone is so fond of providing to everyone except South County. Let that sink in. What exactly does the county supply to South County???? Even the Road Maintenance crews that mow the side of our county roads only go less than a mile off 101 and then stop. Our own residents have had to trim the damn blackberries because they stretch so far over the road that our cars/trucks get scratched. Road signs are covered and the only ones I see doing anything is our wonderful Mason County PUD and our own residents. I could go on and on but I'm getting off topic. We want the resort and have become sick and tired of your constant delay tactics. I don't give a rip if Port Townsend, Seattle and other distant cities want it or not. They don't live here! I do! We deserve a project that will enhance our area — not one that brings in more people who could care less about the beauty of our area and leave a mess when they travel back to where ever home is. Karen Sickel 222 Sickel Loop Road Brinnon, WA 98320 fr effboccc w j From: Don Coleman <don@pleasantharbormarina.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 9:53 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Patty Charnas Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Attachments: details.txt; April 9 MPR hearing Hello, I sent this message last week and over the weekend learned that it was blocked from receipt. Wanted to send it again to make the statement that for future meetings regarding the MPR a Brinnon location should be considered. Thanks for your time. don My previous message: Hello Commissioners, Many people in Brinnon are wondering if the hearing for the MPR development agreement could be held at the Brinnon Community center instead of the Pt. Townsend Courthouse. The issue concerns Brinnon residents and we all feel it would be appropriate to make it easier for Brinnon residents to attend and comment. Thank you for considering this request. Don Coleman Brinnon Resident From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:01 PM To: downtime79@gmail.com Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Message blocked Your message to PCharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. The response was: 550 Service unavailable; Client host (mail-pf0-fl78.google.comj blocked by cbl.abuseat.org; 24.113.40.109 (pcha.rnas@cJo.Jefferson.wa.us:bl.ocked,effbocc@co_jef.ferson.wa.us:blocked) Leffbocc M From: Don Coleman <downtime79@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:01 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Patty Charnas; Garth Mann; Diane Coleman; JT Cooke Subject: April 9 MPR hearing Hello Commissioners, Many people in Brinnon are wondering if the hearing for the MPR development agreement could be held at the Brinnon Community center instead of the Pt. Townsend Courthouse. The issue concerns Brinnon residents and we all feel it would be appropriate to make it easier for Brinnon residents to attend and comment. Thank your for considering this request. Don Coleman Brinnon Resident c Uicl,l i a -•Ib From: rstlss49@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 2:19 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR Comments Attachments: MPR Comments.doc; MPR Comments.doc My comments on the Proposed Development at Black Point. Thank you, Peter Siefert PO Box 573 Brinnon, WA. 98320 April 2, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Port Townsend, WA. Dear Commissioners: I write to you today to voice my opposition to the proposed MPR at Black Point. My wife and I have owned our home in Brinnon for over twenty years and enjoy the type of rural life and exemplary beauty this area offers. After reading the DEIS of the proposed project I would like to ask you, What if it all goes wrong? What if the Groundwater runoff system does not work as the DEIS states and our pristine waters are subject to Nitrogen, Phosphates and Fertilizer from the Resort and Golf Course, causing Algae Blooms and Dead Zones? What if people are injured from the increased traffic the Resort promises to bring? What if the Wells of the surrounding homes become contaminated by seawater? I could go on and on, but I think you get my message. Are you willing to approve of this project and risk destroying the very reason people come to visit this area. The waters of Hood Canal are in a perilous situation. While many are taking a proactive approach to reversing its decline, in Brinnon we are actually having a debate on approving a project which could potentially kill Hood Canal for years and years. It's ludicrous! Christopher Dunagan wrote in his book Hood Canal, Splendor at Risk "When an ecosystem is pristine, relatively easy steps can be taken to preserve it. When an ecosystem is destroyed, the task of bringing it back is often too complex and too costly to be attempted". It is time for you as an Elected Official to have the courage to take a stand and stop this nonsensical project right now, and not pass it on to some State or Federal Agency to deal with at some later date. This was a bad idea to begin with. It is a dangerous idea now. Brinnon is Brinnon. It is what it is, and that is why most of us have decided to make our homes here. And to all those who claim that most who oppose this project do not live in the area, I ask them to research the Developers locality. They are not even from this Country! Sincerely, Peter Siefert PO Box 573 Brinnon, WA. 98320 April 2, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Port Townsend, WA. Dear Commissioners: I write to you today to voice my opposition to the proposed MPR at Black Point. My wife and I have owned our home in Brinnon for over twenty years and enjoy the type of rural life and exemplary beauty this area offers. After reading the DEIS of the proposed project I would like to ask you, What if it all goes wrong? What if the Groundwater runoff system does not work as the DEIS states and our pristine waters are subject to Nitrogen, Phosphates and Fertilizer from the Resort and Golf Course, causing Algae Blooms and Dead Zones? What if people are injured from the increased traffic the Resort promises to bring? What if the Wells of the surrounding homes become contaminated by seawater? I could go on and on, but I think you get my message. Are you willing to approve of this project and risk destroying the very reason people come to visit this area. The waters of Hood Canal are in a perilous situation. While many are taking a proactive approach to reversing its decline, in Brinnon we are actually having a debate on approving a project which could potentially kill Hood Canal for years and years. It's ludicrous! Christopher Dunagan wrote in his book Hood Canal, Splendor at Risk "When an ecosystem is pristine, relatively easy steps can be taken to preserve it. When an ecosystem is destroyed, the task of bringing it back is often too complex and too costly to be attempted". It is time for you as an Elected Official to have the courage to take a stand and stop this nonsensical project right now, and not pass it on to some State or Federal Agency to deal with at some later date. This was a bad idea to begin with. It is a dangerous idea now. Brinnon is Brinnon. It is what it is, and that is why most of us have decided to make our homes here. And to all those who claim that most who oppose this project do not live in the area, I ask them to research the Developers locality. They are not even from this Country! Sincerely, Peter Siefert j effbocc cl:> From: Roger Crenshaw <drrtc1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:00 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Roger T. Crenshaw M.D. Subject: MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY NEAR BRINNON I VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY NEAR BRINNON. I SINCERLEY HOPE THAT YOU APPROVE THIS MATTER AND ALLOW THEM TO MOVE ON TO THE PERMITTING STAGE. that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. SINCERELY, ROGER T. CRENSHAW, M.D. Roger Crenshaw, M.D. 1325 Pacific Highway Suite 2806 San Diego, CA 92101 619 564 8494 drrtc 1 ggmail. com I From: Susan Crenshaw <crenshawsusan99@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:21 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Dear Jeff: I am in support of this Master Planned Resort. I wish that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. It is "green" and much needed in that area! Sincerely, Susan Crenshaw 1325 Pacific Hwy #2806 San Diego, CA 92101 Crenshawsusan99@gmail.com 7c From: bill morris <wi1mor51@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR Attachments: MPR letter 2.docx Please consider our letter. We have lived up the Duckabush for over 35 years. It would be a shame to lose the rural country life so many of us have enjoyed for all these years. The MPR will not improve water quality, reduce taxes or bring the amenities so desired by people who move here and then want to bring the city with them. Bill and Roxianne Morris Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Board of County Commissioners; March 26, 2018 Planning Commisioners We are writing against the MPR development in Brinnon. We believe it to be a flawed process from the beginning in that the county had NO PLAN and listened to the developer's suggestions. It benefits the developer to great lengths and leaves local residents with a degradation of their rural neighborhood with little benefit to them. The county is seeking revenue but it will be at such a high cost that the overcrowded roads and burden on resources may end up costing them more. It will not necessarily be beneficial to Brinnon and could ultimately, cause the loss of the precious waters of Hood Canal. The MPR is given 890 units; 240 are homes, 216 condos or town homes, 154 hotel rooms plus the 100 low cost units for employees. There are an additional 317 units in the maritime village with 123 units in the golf course SO that is considerably more than 890. That is a lot of water usage in showers and toilets flushing. Wonder how that all will affect the one aquifer on Black Point? This does not sound like it maintains the rural qualities of Brinnon. The 2010 census of Brinnon population is 797. The population of the resort would add two to three the population of Brinnon. This would be during the late spring to summer months when camping, beach use and travel to Brinnon are at its height. Don't forget to factor in the RV slots. RV's are so much fun to be forced to drive behind. This adds more burden to roads and over harvesting of shellfish on beaches. This is an environmental disaster in the making when you add to the wastewater even if treated pharmaceuticals will find their way to the canal) dumped into the waters of Hood Canal. The pollution contaminants from cars, trucks and RV's will most certainly add to the declining health of the waterway. The over population burden on a small rural area will also affect travel on the two main roadways. One concern is the small narrow country road of the Duckabush that is the nearest gateway to hiking the Olympic Wilderness with several trails open for day hikes. This does not give local residence much reprieve from the overpopulation on their rural life. Our experience has been that most seem unable to read NO TRESPASSING or PRIVATE PROPERTY signs as they turn around in my driveway. Highway 101 wrecks close that road for hours and are more likely to turn the Black Point entrance into another Paradise Road wreck area where people make left turns onto a swiftly moving highway. This one though has more obstruction to see traffic clearly due to being at the top of a hill and corner. Another concern is the viablilty of a golf course. There are many many golf courses on the Peninsula from Hansville area, Port Ludlow, two in Port Townsend, Lake Cushman, Alderbrook, two in Sequim and several south in Shelton area. What would the draw be to come to Brinnon to make such a large venture successful? I have not found one resort with the capacity of the MPR; most fall within 200 rooms. (Little Creek 190, Alderbrook 93, Sequim Bay Lodge 54, Suquamish 186, Point No Point 85, 7 Cedars new Hotel will have 315). These have convention centers as well, golf course, and a casino. Is there a need for another golf course?? -I think not and certainly, not at the size of the MPR. I do not feel Brinnon needs to be the site of another Bayshore Motel or become a summer getaway like wintering in Yuma or Sequim. It leaves the full time Brinnon resident not having what Growth Management was to protect -a rural way of life. 890 units seems too large and with little to attract to be viable. Other major concerns have still not been fully addressed. The costs to taxpayers for road improvements and maintenance will add to county burdens and will not be offset by revenues generated. lobs are mostly minimum wage and seasonal with no guarantee that locals will get preferential hiring. Damage to the shellfish beds due to excessive water and chemical usage not to mention sewer drainage from the many showers and flushing toilets. Who will maintain the sewage project if they tie into the public one? Public services for fire and police will also be stretched. None of these are the panacea they are projecting to solve the issues of no employment in Brinnon. The MPR will probably increase our taxes! The impact on the environment is a huge concern. The over population will damage the precious waters of Hood Canal which are already fragile. The increased car traffic will greatly add to polluting the waters. The waste treatment does not remove phamaceuticals and would result in job losses in neighboring counties. The water usage on Black Point could destroy the only aquifer there. There is a habitat lost when the trees and area is changed dramatically. I do not feel that these losses are worth the revenue to the county. The unique feature of the kettles will be lost and should be saved. They represent a unique past of Brinnon not found in many areas. A lady once asked what we thought about the MPR and then shared her story of growing up on Port Ludlow Bay as a child visiting her family cabin by the bay. There were lots of shellfish and today, there are none. They vanished with over population and pollution of various kinds. That is my concern for Hood Canal waters which are fragile today. What will be left? I don't think you can undo this damage once it is too late. The resort will forever change the quiet rural qualities of Brinnon that attract people to move here. The MPR is not the job panacea it represents. Most of the jobs are seasonal and minimum wage. The MPR will pollute, deplete shellfish, overuse the Black Point aquifer, and change the quality of life of this very rural area. We know our life on the rural Duckabush road will be heavily impacted by the steady stream of travelers. The resort needs to have a smaller number of units to deflect the overpopulation demands on such a small area. Over 3000 people on such a small area will destroy its quiet rural solitude, water, and peaceful habitat. By significantly over populating Brinnon for five or six months does not seem to represent the goals of Growth Mangagement whose main goal was to maintain the rural quality of life in Brinnon. It won't be working then -will it? Think of it, over three thousand people in Brinnon and the two lane roads that we have and the detrimental effects of POLLUTION. Won't be fun for those who have lived here for many years seeking peace and solitude. It won't affect you, the commissioners or the people on the planning board but will dramatically, affect people who live on the Duckabush Rd and further south. IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK. It will forever change rural quiet Brinnon and not for the better. And if it fails or developer sells -what then? We strongly ask you to either reject the MRP proposal OR to reduce it's size to under 300 units and save the kettles. Growth Mangement isn't working for Brinnon locals. Is a fast food stop not far behind? Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon Wa 98320 REIAlo-nG, REC From: Jean Peterson <dosewallipsjean@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:59 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon Resort Project Dear Sirs: I am writing to express to you my strong vote of approval for the proposed Master Planned Resort at Pleasant Harbor in Brinnon, Washington. I lived just 5 miles from the target area for more than 25 years, often spent time at Pleasant Harbor, and as the project was first proposed my husband and I carefully followed all phases of the planning. The Brinnon area has many features that will serve to draw people to such a resort. It is a premier gateway into the Olympic National Park with its long known hiking trails in from the south side. The planned resort project has been carefully, meticulously studied from all aspects. They have done all due diligence concerning environmental aspects ... much study and research has been conducted. I am hereby expressing my strong YES vote for gaining approval for this resort and ask that you consider approval soon! Jean M. (Wasell) Peterson 9391 Tracyton Blvd. Bremerton, WA. 98311 From: Sent: Justin Jones <rnd@justinj.com> Monday, April 02, 2018 5:51 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments regarding support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community I am in support of this Master Planned Resort. I wish that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. Sincerely, Justin Jones I Iry i il-.1 I 011"A I I - I I W to From: Miriam Murdoch <mimimurd55@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 7:26 PM To: jeffbocc; Patty Charnas Cr Michael Haas; Planning Commission Desk Subject: MPR regulations In our state's publication "Master Planned Resorts Washington Style", page 9 states " the agency (Office of Community Development) has also called for sufficient buffers and expressed concerns about limiting environmental, fiscal and other impacts on adjacent and rural resource uses, jurisdictions, transportation corridors and state or federal parks and recreation areas. Because MPR's are, by definition, located in settings of significant natural amenities, OCD has cautioned that they must not compromise these amenities and the natural environment. Large scale MPR's may pose a particular threat to the environment. OCD has particularly focused on the need to analyze cumulative impacts of golf courses and resort development on wetlands, protection of endangered species such as salmon, and avoiding fragmentation of wildlife habitats and disruption of wildlife corridors." A resort of this size will cause impacts on rural resources, such as increased traffic on a two lane corridor used by loaded logging trucks, semi trucks carrying goods, already busy summer traffic of RV's, large motorcycle groups, and tourist traffic coming to enjoy the beauty, not to mention run-off of pollutants on to our precious shellfish beds that support a hopefully long term resource and employer. It is not isolated enough to avoid impacts. The Dosewallips campground looked pretty full on St Patrick's day weekend already. With herds of elk regularly crossing 101, I think we have about as much summer traffic as we can handle safely. The Duckabush Road is narrow, and after the pavement ends, is in such poor shape with potholes that develop yearly. Increased traffic to experience our "rainforest" will only make the road worse. In reading the "Goals, Policies and Strategies" portion of the Brinnon Subarea Plan, it repeatedly includes encouraging conservation of the area's rural character and resources. It also states that new development, especially non-residential, should be designed and located in a manner that is consistent with the preservation of the surrounding rural character and fish and wildlife habitat in the adjacent areas. I can't see how a resort of this magnitude and style will do that. Part of the Comprehensive Plan states to "Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of lifestyles that make up the intrinsic character of this community." No offense to the gentleman Garth Mann, but I think he is slightly out of touch with some of the locals. In the July 16, 2016 letter to the BOCC from the Planning Commission, it is said that "We believe in the case of this particular 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. In 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 of the site and the surrounding area" Has this advice been heeded? I know there has been a tremendous amount of effort and finances put into this project. I would hope that you as our elected commissioners will just draw the line and say no to the Phase 3 villas and units and a smaller Maritime Village. Smaller is better. Sincerely, Miriam Murdoch Brinnon, Wa Sent from my iPad C30Q ck effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Jan Robinson <robinsonjan@comcast.net> Monday, April 02, 2018 8:20 PM jeffbocc FW: I need your help - ONE MORE THING Subject: Comments regarding support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community I am in support of this Master Planned Resort wish that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. Sincerely, J Robinson Robinson_jan@comcast.net 1 r :- -Q 9', effbocc" From: Roger M. Foszcz <rvfoz@olypen.com> dr, '40 qo ` Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 8:02 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ('effbocc ,co.jefferson.wa.us) I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by o injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer o destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area o drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Roger M. Foszcz 910 W. 11th St., Port Angeles, WA 98363 360-457-8330 Julie Shannon 1 4;,;, - 1' # . 1, , NP 7 FC From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:53 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor MPR The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 2:52:49 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jefPbocc Cc: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Allison Arthur; kboxleitner; [leach@soundpublishing.com; jt@houlihan- law.com; voice@plvoice.org; Don Coleman Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied The time to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon is now. Approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a simple question of economic justice for Brinnon and everyone who calls Jefferson County home. Families are being forced out of the Brinnon area at an alarming rate. Between 2014 and 2015 the population of Brinnon fell from 767 to 705, an 8.08% decline in a single year. Families are being forced out of Brinnon because there aren't enough jobs. From 2014 to 2015, employment in Brinnon declined at an astonishing rate of 16.76%. More than 18% of the people in Brinnon live below the poverty line - a poverty rate nearly 25% higher than the national average. For those who haven't been forced out yet, average wages in Brinnon are lower than Jefferson County, lower than Washington State and lower than the national average. Even worse, wage growth lags far behind the rate of inflation. The economic hardship forced upon the people of Brinnon and southeastern Jefferson County is a human injustice and a complete failure of compassion by the county government. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can reverse years of economic decline and crushing poverty in the area. Guided by an environmental plan that represents the gold standard of ecological stewardship, the Pleasant Harbor MPR will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs in the construction trades and other occupations, today and for years into the future. The Pleasant Harbor MPR not only brings economic justice to the people who live there now, it will create jobs and prosperity so the next generation can raise their families in southeastern Jefferson County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is a significant expansion of the county's tax base. This $140 million project will generate millions in Jefferson County sales tax and millions more in real estate taxes. The tax revenue generated by the Pleasant Harbor MPR will help Jefferson County provide more and better schools, fire and police service, health care and other critical services to all the people of the county. By comparison, the Port Ludlow MPR was quickly reviewed and approved, resulting in nearly 20 years of economic growth in the area and with a proven track record of sound environmental stewardship. The Pleasant Harbor MPR has languished for more than a decade. That's 10 years of lost economic prosperity for the people of Brinnon, southeastern Jefferson County, and all residents of the county. Economic justice for Brinnon has been delayed far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied and the time for action is now. The county should approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR without further delay. Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespged.com 360-437-0901 z Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:27 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Background Information on the Jefferson County application process for the PLEASANT HARBOR MPR From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 3:26:41 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Allison Arthur; kboxleitner; (leach@soundpublishing.com; jt@houlihan- law.com Subject: Background Information on the Jefferson County application process for the PLEASANT HARBOR MPR Background Information on the Jefferson County application process for the PLEASANT HARBOR MPR A Zoning Ordinance for the Port Ludlow MPR was adopted by Jefferson County on October 4, 1999 Ordinance No: 08-1004-99. (Note: a formal development agreement for the Port Ludlow MPR was executed and recorded on May 1, 2000 (just seven months after the ordinance was recorded) (Note: the Pleasant Harbor MPR application was submitted ten years ago and has still not been approved?) The Port Ludlow MPR development agreement included 1,200+/- acres with a building cap of 2,250 residential units and additional 325 Measured Equivalent Residential Units (MERU) for commercial development including a 37 room Inn, an expanded Marina, a twenty-seven hold golf course, with a new Clubhouse. (Note: this development has at least four fish bearing streams including Ludlow Creek. The agreement permits homes to be constructed within 25 feet of Ludlow Creek!) The Pleasant Harbor MPR only has two non -fish bearing seasonal creeks yet the County is requiring 70 foot set backs? 1 Jefferson County contains 1,804 mit (Square Miles) or 1,154,560 acres. The subject application contains approximately 230 acres or less than 2 ten -thousandths (0.00019%) of Jefferson County's total land area. 2 Jefferson County settles Iron Mountain Quarry's claim for $500,000 In the land -use battle count, Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) won every skirmish it fought with Jefferson County – now a $500,00( settlement for damages because the county was "arbitrary and capricious" in how it dealt with the company. Leader 5/28/14 3 Planning Goal of a MPR for Black Point—The County designated this area for a master planned resort in 2002 (sixteen -years ago). The plan dated May 1, 2002 approved by county commissioners and planning commission, in compliance with comprehensive plan and GMA, designated the Black Park campground property as suitable site for MPR 4 After completion of the FSEIS the Planning Commission was tasked with making recommendations. After 6 months of deliberation the recommendations were forwarded to DCD and county commissioners. DCD reviewed development agreement and regulation recommendations, and after about 17 months presented draft development agreement and regulations. DCD ensured these documents complied County ordinance 01-0128-08. (Note: Why did it take the Planning Commission DCD 23 months to review the FSEIS?) 5 At the 2/21/18 planning commission meeting a document was presented by a committee member with stated objections, and possible solutions, to the proposed development agreement. However, no supporting facts and/or documentation were submitted by qualified experts. 6 Jefferson County 2018 Budget Planning Commission & Community Development 2018 budget $ 517,285 2015 — 2018 Planning Commission $ 191,090 2015 — 2018 Community Development $ 2,434,610 Four year combined budgets total $ 2,625,700 Note: The ten-year budget (2008 -18) was probably in excess of $5,000,000 Note: How much staff time and money has been spent by the Planning Commission and DCD on reviewing the Pleasant Harbor MPR application over the last ten years? How many jobs and how much revenue has Jefferson County lost over the last ten years because they failed to process and approve this project in a timely manner? Time for some accountability from our elected County officials! I am planning on submitting several FOIA request after the April 9th meeting. Also, it has taken the County more than ten years (10) to review : The Developer's Expert Reports through multiple planners. Peer Review Expert Reports Third Party Report Presentations Three (3) different Planning Commissions and four (4) different Planners that have come and gone during the approval process. One group approves and the next group starts over again. Ten years later and the County is still reviewing the application! This Process is broken! Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 home 360) 215-0277 cell effbocc EA k From: Marge Helander <helander@cablespeed.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 10:52 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments regarding support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community I am in support of this Master -Planned Resort wish that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. Sincerely, Margery M Helander Port Ludlow, WA From: Marlene King <king.marlene39@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:01 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community April 3, 2018 TO: Jeffbocc@co.Jefferson.wa.us I am in support of your Master Plan Resort. I wish that you would approve the matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. As a resident of Mill Creek, WA and having a golf course as a center feature of the neighborhood, it is a beautiful addition to the community. We also have a club house for all social events, and eating out with friends and family. Marlene King 14103 - 26th Court SE Mill Creek, Washington 98012-5728 425-337-1316 1 r. A Ep M nz tib `r.JdIG ad From: William J. C. MacAliff <w7jc7@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:51 PM To: jeffbocc It is a wonderful place,the only thing they could have is more handicapped spaces. Only a few at the marina. Best wishes Will & Jobe Do) effbocc , ° PP(, From: Mike & Eloise <langenbachme@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MRP To Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners We are FOR the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons 1.The MPR will enhance the aquifer on Black Point by A. Having all sewer go thru a treatment plant and inject only clean water into the the aquifer B. Maintaining the kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area C. With the recharge of the clean water, the wells will not be deep enough to have saltwater intrusion. 2. Taxpayers will benefit with an addition of Medical Clinic, Fire coverage EMT coverage, which is in the plan 3. The traffic on Highway101, will increase some. There will be maybe an addition of 150 cars per day with only 800 units added to the Black Point resort. This will certainly not make much of a stress on the highway. 4. The jobs in the Brinnon area are very few, Today this adds to people needing aid. With a new building project there will be JOBS available. The jobs will be of equal pay to the market. 5. Environment will be enhanced by the Black Point Resort with the management of the aquifer and the sewage treatment plant. The shellfish beds, the wetlands and the wildlife. The Golf course will be an added source to use the treated water to maintain a recreation the Brinnon doesn't have. 6. Conditions set for the development have been adjusted and enhanced t meet all request by the Tribes, the County and by the State of Washington. Thank You Michael Langenbach and The silent Brinnon Group 51 Canal Lane Brinnon Wash cc CIV 3- effbocc From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR April 9th BOCC hearing April 3, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter from the perspective of a twenty-eight year Port Ludlow resident, with more than fifty years experience as the owner of a real estate development, construction and brokerage company. To date, my company has completed forty-five projects, including the five -acre commercial/multi-family condominium development in Port Ludlow (Oak Bay Road at Osprey Ridge Drive). The County is fortunate that the Developer has had the patience to continue with the Pleasant Harbor project for more than a decade. The proponent has a long track record of developing and operating successful, high quality resorts in other states. Based on their record, I expect this project will be equally successful. The County designated the Black Point area as a master planned resort (MPR) more than sixteen years ago. It is now time for the County to accomplish that goal. After carefully reviewing the current development proposal, I encourage you to approve the plan as submitted. This, by far, is the most environmentally sensitive and comprehensive development plan submitted to Jefferson County. This project will set the standards for future high quality developments that Jefferson County residents expect and deserve. Keep in mind, the significant and far reaching impact this one hundred forty million dollar 140,000,000) development will have on Jefferson County's economy: 1,750* construction jobs, 206* new resortjobs, increased sales and property taxes, creation of more than four hundred new tax parcels and a marked increase in tourist dollars. Jefferson County has repeatedly cited the need to diversify its economy so it is not dependant on industries it has relied upon in the past (i.e. fishing, timber, paper mills, etc.) Tourism is an excellent alternative for increasing the County's economy. Incredibly, the Developer has had to wait for more than ten years, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to process this application. Approval of this development will go a long way towards changing the perception that Jefferson County is anti -development, anti -business and generally anti -growth. Also, a significant increase in the property tax base will certainly be greatly appreciated by the County's voters and taxpayers. You have the responsibility to represent the best interest of all Jefferson County residents, not just small vocal minorities, or special interest groups. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive, Port Ludlow Yi From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:53 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Allison Arthur; kboxleitner; Ileach@soundpublishing.com;jt@houlihan-law.com; voice@pivoice.org; Don Coleman Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied The time to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon is now. Approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a simple question of economic justice for Brinnon and everyone who calls Jefferson County home. Families are being forced out of the Brinnon area at an alarming rate. Between 2014 and 2015 the population of Brinnon fell from 767 to 705, an 8.08% decline in a single year. Families are being forced out of Brinnon because there aren't enough jobs. From 2014 to 2015, employment in Brinnon declined at an astonishing rate of 16.76%. More than 18% of the people in Brinnon live below the poverty line - a poverty rate nearly 25% higher than the national average. For those who haven't been forced out yet, average wages in Brinnon are lower than Jefferson County, lower than Washington State and lower than the national average. Even worse, wage growth lags far behind the rate of inflation. The economic hardship forced upon the people of Brinnon and southeastern Jefferson County is a human injustice and a complete failure of compassion by the county government. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can reverse years of economic decline and crushing poverty in the area. Guided by an environmental plan that represents the gold standard of ecological stewardship, the Pleasant Harbor MPR will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs in the construction trades and other occupations, today and for years into the future. The Pleasant Harbor MPR not only brings economic justice to the people who live there now, it will create jobs and prosperity so the next generation can raise their families in southeastern Jefferson County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is a significant expansion of the county's tax base. This $140 million project will generate millions in Jefferson County sales tax and millions more in real estate taxes. The tax revenue generated by the Pleasant Harbor MPR will help Jefferson County provide more and better schools, fire and police service, health care and other critical services to all the people of the county. By comparison, the Port Ludlow MPR was quickly reviewed and approved, resulting in nearly 20 years of economic growth in the area and with a proven track record of sound environmental stewardship. The Pleasant Harbor MPR has languished for more than a decade. That's 10 years of lost economic prosperity for the people of Brinnon, southeastern Jefferson County, and all residents of the county. Economic justice for Brinnon has been delayed far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied and the time for action is now. The county should approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR without further delay. Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespeed.com 360-437-0901 t ck o , jeffbocc From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:27 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Allison Arthur; kboxleitner; Ileach@soundpublishing.com;jt@houlihan-law.com Subject: Background Information on the Jefferson County application process for the PLEASANT HARBOR MPR Background Information on the Jefferson County application process for the PLEASANT HARBOR MPR A Zoning Ordinance for the Port Ludlow MPR was adopted by Jefferson County on October 4, 1999 Ordinance No: 08-1004-99. (Note: a formal development agreement for the Port Ludlow MPR was executed and recorded on May 1, 2000 (just seven months after the ordinance was recorded) (Note: the Pleasant Harbor MPR application was submitted ten years ago and has still not been approved?) The Port Ludlow MPR development agreement included 1,200+/- acres with a building cap of 2,250 residential units and additional 325 Measured Equivalent Residential Units (MERU) for commercial development including a 37 room Inn, an expanded Marina, a twenty-seven hold golf course, with a new Clubhouse. (Note: this development has at least four fish bearing streams including Ludlow Creek. The agreement permits homes to be constructed within 25 feet of Ludlow Creek!) The Pleasant Harbor MPR only has two non -fish bearing seasonal creeks yet the County is requiring 70 foot set backs? 1 Jefferson County contains 1,804 mit (Square Miles) or 1,154,560 acres. The subject application contains approximately 230 acres or less than 2 ten -thousandths (0.00019%) of Jefferson County's total land area. 2 Jefferson County settles Iron Mountain Quarry's claim for $500,000 In the land -use battle count, Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) won every skirmish it fought with Jefferson County – now a $500,000 settlement for damages because the county was "arbitrary and capricious" in how it dealt with the company. Leader 5/28/14 3 Planning Goal of a MPR for Black Point—The County designated this area for a master planned resort in 2002 (sixteen -years ago). The plan dated May 1, 2002 approved by county commissioners and planning commission, in compliance with comprehensive plan and GMA, designated the Black Park campground property as suitable site for MPR 4 After completion of the FSEIS the Planning Commission was tasked with making recommendations. After 6 months of deliberation the recommendations were forwarded to DCD and county commissioners. DCD reviewed development agreement and regulation recommendations, and after about 17 months presented draft development agreement and regulations. DCD ensured these documents complied County ordinance 01-0128-08. (Note: Why did it take the Planning Commission DCD 23 months to review the FSEIS?) 5 At the 2/21/18 planning commission meeting a document was presented by a committee member with stated objections, and possible solutions, to the proposed development agreement. However, no supporting facts and/or documentation were submitted by qualified experts. 6 Jefferson County 2018 Budget Planning Commission & Community Development 2018 budget $ 517,285 2015 — 2018 Planning Commission $ 191,090 2015 — 2018 Community Development $ 2,434,610 Four year combined budgets total $ 2,625,700 Note: The ten-year budget (2008 -18) was probably in excess of $5,000,000 Note: How much staff time and money has been spent by the Planning Commission and DCD on reviewing the Pleasant Harbor MPR application over the last ten years? How many jobs and how much revenue has Jefferson County lost over the last ten years because they failed to process and approve this project in a timely manner? Time for some accountability from our elected County officials! I am planning on submitting several FOIA request after the April 9th meeting. Also, it has taken the County more than ten years (10) to review : The Developer's Expert Reports through multiple planners. Peer Review Expert Reports Third Party Report Presentations Three (3) different Planning Commissions and four (4) different Planners that have come and gone during the approval process. One group approves and the next group starts over again. Ten years later and the County is still reviewing the application! This Process is broken! Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 home 360) 215-0277 cell If,-- -) 3 effbocc From: Juliet Jones <itsjuliet@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 8:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Resort To whom in may concern, I am in support of this Master Planned Resort wish that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. Sincerely, Juliet Sent from my iPhone From: fff <mckayshrimp@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 9:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon Resort Enough already. Government is strangling development in south Jefferson County. Young people can easily feel discouraged because of a lack of employment opportunities in south county further fueling despondency and dependence on government handouts and drugs. Loosen the strangle hold. John McKay, Brinnon resident of 45 years effbocc LK r From: Andy Visser <andy@connectionseap.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 10:34 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort We believe we have an opportunity to celebrate human THRIVING! We are asking you, our Jefferson County commissioners to consider a final approval for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The Pleasant Harbor Master planned resort was first approved for exploration by our county government 13 years ago. Since that time this project has evolved carefully and slowly into an exciting, ecologically sound development opportunity. There has been a steady drumbeat of negativity surrounding the project and partially in response to the opposition, the project has been fine-tuned with the finest science available. Today, I believe the project will insure the health our beautiful natural environment and the welfare of our citizens. In some ways, as a mid -60 year old resident, I can see wishing our idyllic hidden community to stay sleepy and quiet. However when I visit school and church with my 5 year old preschooler/grandson , I am impressed by the young families creating vibrancy in the school halls, the volunteer parent/teacher organization meetings and the happy voices inside the doors of our Sunday School classes. Young people are the future of our community! Young talent is invaluable to the future of Brinnon only if that talent stays here! I know that my self-centered, comfort seeking ease is not what is intended for healthy thriving communities! This project does not just celebrate the assets of our beautiful Olympic Peninsula setting, it is an opportunity to 'give' back to young people and future generations: Tax income benefits to county and public services, tax dollars for school, Fire/EMS, Sheriff Environmental requirements for MPR make it the best possible option for the property Retain young population in community with growing families Year around employment (from minimum wage to management and professional skill levels) Over 200 full time jobs, with part time and seasonal jobs Larger customer base so local businesses can be profitable (remain open) year around Local service and amenities for our aging population (health, clinic, exercise options, shopping) Incentive for young families and individuals to remain in our community (jobs and activities) Focus on community assets i.e. the work ethic in our families historically nourished in fisheries and forestry Increase tax income for county (and our community) o Construction labor & materials o Property tax income from the developed property o Sales tax from the resort as well and increased sales at local businesses o Lodging tax income Tourism income (gas, groceries, local crafts, recreation activities) Opportunity for local entrepreneurs to provide services or activities, with adequate customer base to succeed A medical clinic and sports center will benefit community Andy & Jolene Visser 395 Lee Way Brinnon acD From: Valerie Schindler <valschindler@windermere.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 9:49 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments regarding support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community Importance: High Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, I am in support of this Master Planned Resort wish that you would approve this matter and allow them to move to the permitting stage. I have commented many times in the past and continue to support moving the project forward — the resort will assist in bringing economic vitality back to the community. The residents and children of Brinnon deserve to have a bright future in this community. Sincerely, 270 Rhododendron Lane, Brinnon, WA 360.301.9911 (direct) 1 Whom It, y Co en: s c M name is Gerald K eke"=ayy ft ft-h d .hlntlittletofBrinnonmyhome. After grade schooi i i y-t x sit from Brinnon to Quilcene to go to high school. During the weekends and summers, I worked for Dabob oyster as a picker. This meant that I wo dotnlhe tides were low, which many times were in the early hours. After work, I would have to drive all the back to Brinnon, a couple of times I was s fell H sieep,in front of the wheel and put myself and others atOyster in Quilcene because there were no suitable jobs in Brinnon-.-- -ro1-16w- in " graduation, I tried to find solid employment near Brinnon, but similar to my high school days, there were simply no jobs to be had. I ended up finding a construction job across the canal, which also incurred a long commute. I quickly realized that there were no suitable jobs in or near Brinnon, therefore I chose a life in the military. This meant I had to leave the quaint little town I grew up in. Me serving in the Air Force was by all means not a bad life choice, in fact it gave me a life I am very happy with. But for all that the Air Force gave me after serving for 23 years, it took me away from the place I grew up, where my family and close friends still live. Today, after a couple of years retired from the service, I still go through classified ads, looking for employment that would give me an opportunity to come back to Brinnon, even if that meant a career change. Unfortunately the employment situation in and around Brinnon is the same as it was 25 years ago; no suitable employment unless I intend to commute. I find this very puzzling, seeing all the development, surrounding areas flourishing, yet nothing has changed in Brinnon or neighboring towns. All I see are ran down or empty restaurants that have changed owners multiple times and the same general store in the middle of town. The simple reason is because there isn't enough there to sustain businesses and so they close. Essentially, there isn't a life blood for Brinnon to flourish, therefore just like a plant with a lack of nutrients, Brinnon is slowly dying off. But then I heard of a proposal for a development project in Brinnon was being brought up for approval (yes I still read the Jefferson County Leader). I also read that there is heavy opposition against the development, with no real logical reasons why. Something like this development could be what wakes this Page 2 of 2 town up a little and bring some well needed employment opportunities for the locals and revenue into the area. I also believe this development would attract the types of people a community wants and needs. Families who will be active in the community, children to attend local school that has teachers and staff who care about the level of education they provide. I see the potential life blood coming back to a dying town from this development's approval. This is truly what the community of Brinnon wants and needs to survive. And this leads me to my last thought about the future of Brinnon. I see that the board who affects the daily lives of those living in Brinnon have no direct connection to Brinnon. If there are no board members living in Brinnon, how does the board truly know what is best for Brinnon? In my opinion, the board that decides what's best for Brinnon should be from Brinnon or at a minimum have one or two from Brinnon. Residents of Brinnon will be able to provide the ground truths about life in Brinnon and give a different perspective that I believe in missing from the current board. I am quite certain that the board who decides for Port Townsend has the majority of its members residing in Port Townsend. Why would Brinnon not receive the same representation as Port Townsend or any other town in Jefferson county? I hope the board reads my submission and at least puts my feelings into consideration while making a life changing decision for so many people that call Brinnon home or in my case.home again. Thank you for your time. Gerald Kleyerr PUalanri e, Hx ?to 79 I4®ro,a: 'PIegSan-r )+A--izbOP, rZI u Uor.+, vJA 9 3 RECEIVE D BOCC APR 0 4 2018 PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington J E -F F E 818 0 N C 0 Ur. Subject: Support of the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort I am in full support of this project. I believe they have done all the necessary due diligence to satisfy all concerns and should be able to proceed forward into the permitting process of this development. Sincerely, Elysah Schryver Quilcene, Washington cC° C1Cr{- f i I am writing this letter to bring up some issues I believe need to be addressed re; Pleasant Harbor Master Plan. My husband and I moved here 30 years ago. Due to the lack of work we were forced to commute. We chose to do so, we love our little town. APR 0 4 2018 Since we have retired and have been able to take the time #o l #r w the 'Of "f Brinnon, and how our community works. We do allot o;vt l 4 fir unity and face the same issues no matter what we do. Lack ofUn ". ,', "'is a' big one and the reason they are unable to move here and make a life is due to no jobs, or anyway to support their families unless they are willing to commute. Our community is getting old; we need young adults that can take over for us. The shrimp fest is a sad but fact of life. There will be none this year. The people running it are tired and there is no one else young enough to take it over. Our town is drying up, and it is all due the fact we have nothing to offer young families to move in. This Master Plan would solve allot of our growing needs. The commissioners need to come down here and see for themselves what is going on. Before they take the words of people who do not live here, heck I would be surprised if they even knew where Brinnon is!!! Which brings up another matter, why are the meetings held in Port Townsend, when it is a Brinnon issue? Seems you have no problem spending our tax money, but will not give us the courtesy to even come here. It would be a great opportunity for the growth of Brinnon, plus the tax revenue the county will receive. Please consider the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan. Pro Master Plan, Angelina and Ben Snyder Pleasant Harbor Roa Jefferson County Board df County CommiSt t` , jeffbocc a(co Jefferson wa us) +, 0 r I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquiiferr on Blac Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer, destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, and drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Additional Comments Printed r, 1%e Btack Point Kettles, a Sacred Site Worth Saving by Lys Burden Port Townsend Native Connections Action Group member koR 05 2018 Black Point is a 710 -acre peninsula, approximately 30 miles south o fidiYlouth of the Hood lanapppy n 'he west shore. It extends about one mile east into the Hood Canal with a landscape of hills, ravines and deep fettles shaped by continental glaciation. View of Black Point's southern shore, the estuary of Duckabush River and the Hood Canal. The peninsula's surface composition was influenced by the wasting and re -advance of the last continental glaciation that took place between 13,000 to 19,000 years ago.l The Puget Lobe Ice Sheet of the Cordilleran Continental Glacier r t extended from the Cascades to the Olympic Mountains and moved as far south as Olympia. It helped carve the Hood Canal thaQ and left massive amounts of deposited material that became the a "' Puget Lowlands. Graphic from Washington Geological Survey The terminus of continental ice lobes often melted or advanced as changing temperatures dictated, and sometimes large blocks of ice separated from an ice sheet and became buried in materials Trapped Ice carried by the r glacier and its meltwater. dutwwash Graphic from Battle Holes Iroquois River Watershed r Kettte lake . oUTZS 1 ht v - h2 e c7iT--Z6zrA of Coo,,4 1— V 6,zt- j2,2 -J0 When these huge buried blocks of ice finally melted, the holes they left behind are called glacial kettles or potholes," if they are smaller. Lakes usually fill these holes, and they are seldom more than 20 to 60 feet deep.3 The Black Point kettles are quite exceptional because instead of forming at the toe of the glacier, where most recessional features are located, these ice blocks fractured from the ice sheet and were buried along its western margin. The kettles are also unusually deep with more than 150 feet of vertical drop and have a narrower profile than usual. (Kettles and kettle ponds are notoriously round.) a5tan oint Topographic map showing the location of the largest kettle on Black Point, called Kettle B by the developer. In June of 2016, we (several members of the Native Connections Action Group) discovered there were kettles on Black Point, through an article about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in the Leader newspaper and the meeting that took place at the courthouse. We were excited by the news and discovery that the kettles are cultural sites of the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Skokomish Tribes, then Quatsap devastated by the next news that they were going to be used Point for wastewater ponds. We were very excited about going to see these kettles, but totally disappointed to learn that they were off limits to the public. The developer had installed locked gates and surveillance to keep people out of this site. Over the next year, the more we learned about these kettles, the more we understood that they were very extraordinary natural sites, ones that should be saved. The whole plan to build a golf resort with hundreds of dwelling units sounded very unwise because of its setting on the banks of the Hood Canal. Tragic hypoxic events are becoming more common, and an urban, high-density golf resort did not seem context sensitive. We wondered about the increase in traffic too, as all those new residents would have to drive at least 30 miles one way for groceries. In August, 2017, after learning that the county planning staff were recommending, even encouraging, the developer of Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort to destroy the kettles by grading them down, using them as fill sites, and then turning them into retention ponds for waste/treated sewage water', we knew more research about kettles in Washington (and nationwide) was in order. These special, sacred sites needed to be saved. 2 Relevant information on kettles in Washington State was obtained from an internet search and at the Washington Geological Survey's online library of published documents. Also, about a dozen topographic and geologic maps, published by U.S.G.S., contained the landscapes where the Pleistocene ice margin existed across the state. These were surveyed for indications of kettle holes or lakes. The map survey turned up a distinct lack of glacial outwash features in eastern Washington, especially kame and kettle topography, an odd observation, as this state has hundreds of miles of ice margin terrain. Then it dawned on us that this missing landscape from the toes of the Okanogan, Columbia and Purcell Lobes may have been obliterated by the size and ferocity of the great floods from Glacial Lake Missoula. The maps did show that the Puget Lobe, west of the Cascades, had quite a few recessional features at its terminus.4 Thurston and Pierce Counties especially have many kettle ponds, small dry pot holes and kettle trains." Island County has whole zones of shallow recessional kettles, most dry and 20 to 60 feet deep. Many of these features have been turned into parks or natural areas (see page 6). As we completed more research, we realized that the big kettles on Black Points are a very unique natural site. We think they are the only kettles on the Olympic Peninsula, and they are dry except for shallow ephemeral ponds in springtime. Most kettles in Washington and across the country are kettle ponds, filled with water, so because these are deep and dry, they are much more significant. Kettle B appears to be the deepest kettle in the state at 150 feet or 15 stories deep. It has very steep forested walls that are very narrow for its depth, making it an outstanding, 12 -acre mini -canyon, also unique to this region. It was the deepest kettle observed on any map, as most of them ranged from about 40 to 60 feet deep. Some had more surface area, but Kettle B was definitely the deepest and narrowest for its size. We discovered that it also contains a "kettle within a kettle," a smaller depression to the north-northwest that is higher, drier and tighter with even steeper walls... very unique, indeed! We note that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has been working very hard to collect the documentation needed to nominate these kettles as a state and national historic site and that the Skokomish Tribe had been quite concerned about their sacred sites in the Black Point area, as stated in their letter of June, 2006. In checking recently with Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist, who works at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, we discovered that Tamanowas Rock had very little artifact onsite (only a shell mound); yet it has achieved protected status, and its protection is a proud achievement for Jefferson County and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. We feel that the Black Point Kettles have equal, if not more merit, as an extraordinary natural area and sacred site that deserves this county's recognition that it is worth preserving now. The power of this landscape and its sacredness to our tribal neighbors deserves more respect and honor than becoming a wastewater pond for a golf resort. PLEASE heed these calls for preservation of the Black Point Kettles! Lys Burden has worked as an interpretative naturalist in Ohio, upstate New York, Florida and Montana. Her formative years were spent in central and northern Ohio, where landscapes are dominated by glacial features from the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered much of the northern U.S. during the late Pleistocene. Her family learned much geologyfrom their geologist parent: navigating topographic maps, visiting geologic features and reading landscapes to interpret their geologic histories. Thus, Lys majored in geology at the University of Montana and has continued a life-long interest in appreciating and interpreting landscapes. She can be reached at 310 Willow Street, Port Townsend, WA 98369, email: WPburden@aol. com. The following LiDAR Map of the Black Point Kettles especially illuminates Kettle B, the large depression in the middle of the image and its associated higher and drier kettle to the northwest. Kettle C is to the south and several other smaller surrounding kettles are of more typical size and shape. Contours are at 20 -foot intervals. q M x-'e'kw.,aryC ea4+mGC0 T.a11 LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) has changed earth imaging. LiDAR combines differential GPS (an inertial measurement unit) with rapid-fire scanning by a laser rangefinder to generate thousands of positions per second with accuracies of about 1 inch (Z, elevation) by l square foot (X, longitude; Y, latitude). Combined, these positions describe the shape of landscape with unparalleled precision. 4 More information and examples of kettle ponds and kettles follow: Portion of the Glacial Landform poster published by Washington State Geological Survey' Another large kettle pond in SE Olympia with a kettle train" along its northern border. Note all features have little vertical relief, as they occur on a fairly flat glacial outwash terrace. Image from USGS Geologic Maps References Lake Ward in Olympia, with a 900 -acre surface area and 60 foot depth is one of the largest kettle ponds in Thurston County. Typical size for kettle ponds in the Columbia Valley east of Bellingham in Whatcom County' 1. Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, Environmental Impact Statement on Water Supply and Ground Water Analysis, page 5 2. http://www.iroquoiswatershed.com/discover-the-iroquois-river-watershed/what-we-know/geology/ 3. hMs://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle (landform) 4. https://www.dnr.wa.goy//publications/ger presentations coe glacial landforms pug_et lowland.pdPbl3i4 5. GM -56, Geologic Map of the East Olympia, 7.5 -minute Quadrangle, Thurston County, Washington 6. https://washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com/2011/05/kettles-in-columbia-valley.html 7. https://www.britannica.com/science/kettle 8. hgps://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/ ladciers 9. http://geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/kettle lakes.html 5 Kettle Trails Map gin z z 20 Coupeville n 9 ® Island County, Washington ° yh yd i VP aMr err,pw •A•....... contact • ... € ' Kettles Recreation Area G R:1- Fort Ebey ya 0 State Parkga 2"'xra a c .." ..._. r. Gunr c Battery a .. r Krr ". ® .xitqi .° t f r r R"ap a. K MAP LEGEND PrirMe araror mt ace ihkmPomk The Pacific Northwest Trail(PNT) suffers continuity ra.t the state Park -- breaks as it makes its way from Fort Ebey to Fort Casey iskne counry ProgeM State Parks. Be aware that signage for the PNT that leads n to the top of the Fort Ebey bluff will dead end on the '• PUHic Northwmi Natlonal5unk Trail southern end of the park with no descent to the beach. r kenk, Traa "" " YgSouthboundthrough -hikers should stay at the beachNob: NU Aa'ses allowad •n trails •. Hiking. biking a equeArian trade within Sw• Pak b>wedaiet. level to continue south towards Fort Casey. Track ae dosed m mgtarlxatl whkks. ``•. Geologic Map of Coupeville Kettles, Island County Aili Of Agdm Qgdme - Qgdm,? Qf 10 Qb Qb— . ! ftml? Q o eQgom- PQ ,Q r Of QgorT>a Q9 me -" Qgoge Qb_ A a i i• (QR; _ Of Of Q s Pgoge a s v _ r r 6p r" 0909e m S is Qgome f. t Qd= . Note - the deepest kettles are at or less than 100 feet deep. 6 April 2, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Board of Commissioners, R ` M JEFFER,50N COUNTY IMISSIONERS My husband and I own a summer place in Brinnon drawn to the area by the beautiful beaches, hiking, parks, rivers, forested areas and fishing. It's a wonderful community but a stagnant community. There has been little growth or change since we moved here twenty-five years ago which means it's slowly dying. When we learned several years ago of the resort being proposed for just south of Pleasant Harbor, our reaction was a positive one. Great... something that would take advantage of this beautiful area and breathe new life into Brinnon. We were disappointed when the project was "back burner -ed" with the economic recession of the past years but have been hopeful that planning and construction would soon begin. This resort would bring jobs and activities to the Brinnon area and build a working, middle class which every healthy community needs. As it is now, we have a strong, group of retirees and a large number of welfare families but very few working families because there are no jobs or opportunities here. You have a chance to make a healthy change. Please support Pleasant Harbor Master Plan. Sandra E. Reed 321 Pleasant Harbor Road Brinnon, WA 98320 r P. F(I effbocc I C c From: Morgan Oslake <oslake@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 8:10 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposition to MPR at Black Point in Brinnon Dear Jefferson Board of County Commissioners, I am a property owner in Brinnon, and am writing to register my opposition to the Master Plan Resort at Black Point. Sincerely, Morgan Oslake ci-.aou j 1 •-( Ln ieffbocc From: Patricia Caddey <trishacaddey@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 12:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Development We are in favor of this development because it will bring jobs to the Brinnon area! Thanks Patricia and James Caddey 223 Edgewood Dr. Port Ludlow, WA 98365 509 551-4321 effbocc .. Prr From: Lori Devine <devine.lori.kay@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 1:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR Project First off, we would like to thank you for serving our community!! As a property owner in the South County, we desperately need this project to move forward. The revenue generated from this project would greatly improve our community. It would create many jobs and improve the lives of all families living in an otherwise dying community. It would be awesome to see the community thrive, with year -around jobs and businesses. The Pleasant Harbor MPR developers are very passionate meeting all community, environmental and Tribal concerns. We feel this would be a WIN-WIN for ALU! Sincerely, Lori & Patrick Devine RECEIVEDu'olic comment 4/9/18 HAPOCORDAPP Q j 2018 I speak on behalf of the Brinnon Group wnho f 4 Zbeencommittedtothepreservationandenha-" -TQ > social and natural communities in and around the Village of Brinnon. We recently came awake in response to the threat posed by a corporate builder, wishing to builds a Master Planned Resort (MPR) nearby ---on the shore of the Hood Canal. Its application -to - build is nearing final approval. MPRs are corporate -built retreats wherein well-to-do homeowners share golf courses, open space and other amenities in common. They are very often gated, or by other means made to appear off- limits to outsiders. A single class of wealthy transients typically inhabit MPRs ---which have been described by social critics as "hollow villages,"with eve4ything for rent and half the houses empty in winter." Insular in terms of social class and place, they stand in stark contrast to the cities 5knd towns of which they are a part. The Statesman Group calls its MPR by the name Pleasant Harbor. You, sometime ago, included in your notice to approve Statesman's application a list of "findings" and made site-specific Comp Plan - amendment approval contingent upon certain conditions being met. We of the Brinnon Group have long felt your "findings" questionable, the conditions vague ---and more to the point, your underlying analysis tragically misguided. See our group's critique of BOCC's findings in a well -researched document --available down -the -hall --- and brace yourselves for a lawsuit. Todd Wexman The Brinnon Group From: Sent: To: Subject: to whom it concerns, Y M <wolfwalkerplaycare@gmail.com> Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:50 PM jeffbocc re Black Pt meet... the roads will not support all the traffic As our homes are sinking toward vashon hi way from rain soaked land and all the extra ferry traffic ups fed x grocery supply trucks buses etc... there would be mass logging trucks, contruction weight and tourists for air B&B BS and I can find a decent place to buy or rent because of them since 2009, from house and land horders since CA 1980s and CC & R HOA bs since 1950!!! keep our lands sacred and Canadians I love off our land for profits. we have contractors in PT busy for 2 years, also. keep Private lands private or preserved. I worked for NOAA testing the waters there and people for puget sound and puget sound alliance water pollUtion. ASI,. 11 a Regards, Yvonne a local resident 62 years at 206.650.4284 httl2://www.brinnon rgroup.or /igetter/ Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 4c '- "( A cb occ From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Coleman Green Mtn Lane, Brinnon Honorable Commissioners, Don Coleman <downtime79@gmail.co Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:42 PM jeffbocc Pleasant Harbor MPR comment I support the Pleasant Harbor MPR project. I've lived in Brinnon for 17 years. I successfully started, owned and operated a recreational dive business running charters in Hood Canal out of Pleasant Harbor Marina for about 15 % years. I'm familiar with ecology of hood canal, recreation opportunities, and economic challenges in the area. In the past I've been employed by Pleasant Harbor Marina for facilities management. Currently I am paid hourly for consulting with facility management and as on-site facilitator for the MPR project. Suggestion has been made to leave the property in its "natural state". The 231 acres is a maze of old paved roads leading to campsites that still have old power pedestals and water connections. This is not natural property to be preserved as it is. The proposed development is the best environmental and economic use of this property. I have worked with the applicant to meet the conditions of the 08-0128-08 county ordinance, mostly working on MOU's and Tribal concerns. The applicant has consistently listened to concerns and modified the plan to meet concerns. It has been incorrectly stated that the applicant "sold" this project to the County. Facts show that the 2002 Brinnon sub -area plan recognized the Black Point property as suitable for a future MPR. The applicant recognized the opportunity and presented his proposal to the County in 2006. The County Commissioners approved the MPR in 2008 with 30 conditions that must be met. The applicant worked for eight more years to meet the conditions and address public and Tribal concerns with changes and improvements. The FSEIS, written by a consultant chosen by the County at the expense of the applicant, was finished late 2015. Planning Commission worked over 6 months, submitting their recommendations for the development agreement and regulation July 2017. January 2018 DCD presented the draft development agreement and regulations to the County Commissioners. We now approach the end of another 60 -day public comment period. The applicant has worked for over 10 years to meet legal requirements and public concern. Opposition has submitted hundreds of pages of "reasons" to stop this project. One example is an Oregon study presented as evidence to oppose the Pleasant Harbor MPR project. The report focus is the effect of more resorts where multiple large resorts exist or are under construction. The report shows central Oregon's Deschutes and Crook Counties currently have multiple resorts with 7,538 total units and an additional 7,844 units under construction (compare maximum 890 units for Pleasant Harbor MPR). The ratio of residential units to short term stay in existing and under construction resorts in Deschutes and Crook County OR. is approximately 70% residence to 30% overnight. Not comparable to Pleasant Harbor MPR resort plan of 35% residential and 65% short term. Clearly, resort development in Oregon is aimed more at full time residence than short term tourism. Demographics, population and economy of the Bend Or. area is not comparable to South Jefferson County, Washington. Comparing impacts of Bend Or. area resorts and the Pleasant Harbor MPR is not valid. Other reports are dated prior to changes that have been made to address concerns. Some who oppose the project suggest leaving the property zoned rural residential. How could an unknown number of private residential parcels with unmonitored use of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, unmonitored surface runoff, and individual septic systems be a better environmental option than this project? There must be some change and growth if the community of Brinnon and South Jefferson County intends to survive. There will always be those opposed to change. Without reasonable growth and employment opportunity our local population will continue to age, and our community will die. As age increases with inadequate support, people will move closer to needed services and our population will continue to decline. This project is ecologically sound, environmentally responsible, economically beneficial. This project is the best possible use of the Black Point property. The applicant has worked diligently over the last ten years to design a resort proposal that will provide economic development and opportunity, that respects the character of surrounding environment, and is sensitive to neighboring communities. Please vote now to allow this project to move forward. Thank you, Don Coleman Brinnon, WA. Don Coleman Cell (206-714-1482) Pleasant Harbor Marina effbocc e From: Lowe, Cheryl B <cheryl.lowe@wsu.edu> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:05 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor MRC Public Hearing Comments Attachments: MRC -Pleasant harbor -final -signed Itr.pdf Dear Commissioners, The Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee would like to submit the attached comment letter regarding our concerns about the Pleasant Harbor MPR. I'll put the original in the mail, but wanted to make sure you had received it by the deadline. On behalf of the MRC, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cheryl Lowe Jefferson MRC and WSU Ext Water Programs Coordinator WSU Extension Office 121 Oak Bay Rd Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Cheryl.lowe@wsu.edu 360-379-5610 x 230 http://extension.wsu.edu/iefferson1 http://www.ieffersonmrc.org 1 Jefferson County Marin Resources Committee To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee Date: April 2, 2018 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPD The Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) serves in an advisory capacity to the County Commissioners as well as providing educational programs, and promoting good stewardship, restoration and protection of nearshore habitats. We have several concerns about the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPD Agreement as it relates to water quality and potential impacts on local marine waters. Several important documents are inadequately defined in the draft Agreement and attachments, and we believe the following concerns need to be addressed before the County signs the Agreement. Here are our concerns: 1. Stormwater: A Stormwater Management Plan describing how stormwater runoff generated on-site will be treated and infiltrated onsite is not available for review. Does one exist? Appendix B only contains Jefferson County Code regarding stormwater. The 2007 FEIS, Chapter 5, section 5.1 (Water Quality Mitigation, for Shellfish, as specified in DEIS at Section 3.2.7) only mentions a construction stormwater plan, which is only one part of an overall Stormwater Management Plan. That Plan should include ongoing monitoring of the stormwater system to ensure that it is working properly with an annual inspection report of stormwater facilities and vaults. 2. Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N): There are several concerns here. a. Parameters: One of our concerns with Appendix N relates to the specified parameters that will be sampled. The current proposal identifies sampling a few physical parameters and fecal coliform. We support WSU Extension Bob Simmons' recommendations for monitoring other potential contaminants that might increase as a result of day-to-day operations of the proposed development. His recommendation includes, at minimum: i. Metals: copper, lead, and zinc ii. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) iii. Petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel range fractions) iv. Pesticides: 1. Insecticides: Organophosphates (Diazinon) 2. Herbicides: (2,4-D, MCPP, Triclopyr, Dichlobenil, Pentachlorophenol) The MRC also recommends monitoring for nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, at least on a periodic basis. b. Sampling Locations: Identified sampling locations include monitoring wells and within Pleasant Harbor. At minimum, stormwater should also be monitored at the outfall locations (and/or proposed infiltration areas) during rain events on a regular basis (at least quarterly). If at any future point the proponent decides to establish any surface stormwater discharges to marine waters, the MRC supports WSU Extension's recommendation for preconstruction and regular (but less frequent) monitoring of sediments at the outfall location(s) using the parameters identified in the table provided in their letter. c. SanitarSurveys: We also stress the need for a vigorous program of regular Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Inspections that meet WDOH requirements. 3. Groundwater Monitoring: a. (Current Agreement Language): "Developer shall sample groundwater for primary and secondary contaminants list in Table 1 of WAC 173-200-040. " ... "Sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable groundwater standards for a period offive years. " It is unclear when the clock starts for the five years of monitoring groundwater. We advise that monitoring requirements be changed to 5 years from full build -out to properly capture any impacts that this development has on the aquifer. In addition, we advise that well water levels be monitored quarterly in perpetuity so that impacts on the quantity of water in the aquifer are understood with enough time to take remedial action to protect the resource and avoid impacting neighboring water supplies. Falling water levels in wells may be an early sign of saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. b. (Current Agreement Language): "The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paidfor by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling ofpollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program. " We recommend that this language also specifies any future developer or property manager, not just Statesman. In addition, what are the offsite locations being referred to? 4. Wastewater Treatment: a. Appendix I— Wastewater Treatment Plan PLACEHOLDER refers to "pages 931-932 of the FSEIS, VOL 3. It was difficult to find this, and when we did, it contained just a Preamble and Executive Summary, and referenced a General Sewer Plan that we were unable to locate on the County website. The Executive Summary provided in the referenced document indicates that treated wastewater would be stored in Kettle B for fire suppression, irrigation, etc. b. The Agreement and associated documents provide conflicting information about the role of the kettles for managing water and run-off. The proposal identifies use of the kettles or one kettle) for stormwater infiltration and also for storing wastewater by lining the kettles to hold water for landscape uses and firefighting. The proposed Agreement is also unclear/undecided about kettles B and C. By what mechanisms can a kettle both store 2 water and recharge aquifers while providing that it will also treat stormwater runoff? Also, if kettles are to be used to infiltrate stormwater, the incoming stormwater should be treated prior to infiltration into the native soils. This could occur in-situ utilizing bio - retention strategies or other treatment methods prior to discharging into the kettle. 5. The MRC supports the Planning Commission's recommendations to carefully consider and require a thorough independent review of the hydrologic function and relationship between surface water, groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this particular aquifer as a sole - source (or near sole -source) aquifer for the residents of Black Point and as significant aquifer recharge area. Seeps along the shoreline indicate there may also be direct connections to the marine environment. 6. Submitted Monitoring Reports: We suggest that documents include specifically who receives the monitoring data or reports. This may be more appropriate as part of the permitting process. 7. Contingency Plan: There should be a contingency plan if monitoring results exceed State standards, including mitigation actions and possibly bonding to ensure that shellfish beds and the aquifer are protected. Sincerely, Jackie Gardner, MRC Co -Chair Approved by vote of MRC on April 2, 2018 3 C(.C tdl.f 49 From: Reid Johnson <reidcjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on the Pleasant Harbor MPR Attachments: Comments -Pleasant Harbor MPR_4-5-18.pdf Please add the attached comments on the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort to the official record. These comments supersede our earlier brief comments of Feb. 7, 2018. Thank you. Reid Johnson 221 Canal Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 reidcjohnson@gmail.com February 7, 2018 Comments regarding the Black Point Master Plan Resort We live part time across the Duckabush estuary from the proposed Black Point Master Plan Resort. As I understand the proposal, the Black Point Master Plan Resort will include almost 900 residential units, a 9 hole golf course and over 50,000 square feet of commercial development. This massive development is totally inappropriate for the area. The accompanying deforestation and grading alone will effectively destroy the Black Point Peninsula as we know it. We are particularly concerned with effects on water quality, particularly with respect to the Hood Canal. Runoff/silting during the long construction phase is unavoidable, and maintenance of the golf course will require constant use of environmentally destructive chemicals that will end up in the Canal, despite what may be stated in the EIS. Over the past two summers, the local waters have experienced major phytoplankton blooms. Crabbing in the area has deteriorated to the point where few bother to go out. The Hood Canal in this area is clearly under stress; water quality in the Pleasant Harbor marina area is really poor in the summer. The increased boating and fishing pressure by this development will no doubt have a strongly negative impact on the Hood Canal and Duckabush estuary waters. We are not aware of any independent scientific studies that address these issues. We are strongly opposed to the proposed Black Point Master Plan Resort. Sincerely, Reid and Lianna Johnson 221 Canal Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 reidcjohnson@gmail.com effbocc _ 11111' a. F „ k.m alAa From: Debbie <iowa97224@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:39 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon Resort Just a quick note stressing my opinion on the vital importance of progression with this resort. Brinnon is a magical area to experience. I moved there g years ago after working in Portland for my adult career. It was a dream fulfilled and the happiest I have ever been. Experiencing the elk, birds, shellfish and fellow retirees was beyond my imagination. I was fortunate to not have to rely on income. The community needs this development to keep this town alive. I had a home invasion by adult drug users which caused me to move, out of fear. I firmly believe this development will allow a source of employment for so many who are "stuck" in a situation of helplessness. Please approve this development, and soon, to open a gateway for the good of Brinnon and Hood Canal. Thank you. Debbie Nelson Sent from my iPhone C o Cc- c'[A (- l effbocc OD From: Andrea Mitchell <andreaonorcas@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 9:46 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: Pleasant Harbor Resort Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrea Mitchell <andreaonorcas a,gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:32 AM Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort To: jeffboc@co jefferson.wa.us, PCHARNASgco.jefferson.wa.us I have followed, researched and commented on the planning process for the Pleasant Harbor Resort since it's inception. I lived in Brinnon from 1992 to 2011. I have witnessed the poor, unprofessional handling of residents' concerns and violation of the county's own code by the individuals tasked with protecting it. During this time, concerns which were thought to lack scientific basis have become mainstream knowledge. The bullying, the greenwashing. the threats -they all mirror our national politics today. I watched the county allow the developer's attorney to coach them on the proper handling of the process, with the planners sitting like children at school as he instructed them on the finer points of governance. I carefully drafted a letter to the paper because they were running a double page ad by the developer which included false claims which I proved. I remember living in real fear of retribution. I remember a member of the Economic Development Council and the Republican Party hoarding the hard copies of the the Environmental Impact Statement so that individuals could not read it prior to the hearing, all with the county's blessing. All this is in the past and I have learned that once a thing is on the board, it slowly becomes a part of history whether it was done well and legally or not. Large corporations win over small communities all the time. We pay lip service to protecting the environment while basking in the flames of economic development theories that smolder and die long before the stated benefits come to pass. These are demonstrable patterns which we could learn from but choose not to. The deniers count on a lack of memory and focus ... and as I say, once it's on the board, it's hard to stop. Short term goals in exchange for long term costs. More recently, I understand that there has been an issue with the developer's vision brochure and that it's existence was not shared by the county with stakeholders. This would include the tribes and the information was only brought to light by a public records request. It sounds like more of the same to me. It's difficult to trust the integrity a governing body that hides information from it's voters while appearing to give full advantage to a foreign developer. The flame is dying and the smoke is beginning obliterate the once rosy economic predictions. I urge you ... the caretakers of the county's future to take a look at the facts and to be cautious of glossy sales pieces produced by those who will serve to benefit from the development. Follow the money. Seek the help of residents and voters who have given so much uncompensated time and effort to bring the facts to light. A county should be able to balance the budget with the contributions of it's own citizens and their work, not rely on an opiod delivered by a foreign developer that will only cause more need and then reliance in the familiar pattern of addiction. Sincerely, Andrea Mitchell c r From: MARIA MENDES <maria.mendes@snet.net> Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear County Commissioners, Friday, April 06, 2018 10:26 AM jeffbocc Comment: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Pleasant Harbor MPR Comments to BoCC.docx Attached below are my comments concerning the Pleasant Harbor MPR. As I have stated at various County Commission Board meetings as well as at Planning Commission meetings, I am opposed to this development as currently proposed. Please include the attached comments with the other comments you have received. Sincerely, Maria E. Mendes To: Board of County Commissioners From: Maria E. Mendes, 11 Danbury Court, Kala Point, WA Date: April 6, 2018 Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Much has been made recently about maintaining the rural character of Jefferson County. This is a key component of the Comprehensive Plan under revision. Key elements of the rural character are the beauty of the natural environment and the relatively low population density of the area. The Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort as currently proposed is not consistent with this. This development will be comprised of approximately 890 dwelling units, a nine hole golf course, and associated hardscape areas space for parking, etc. thus detracting from both elements. This development as proposed will negatively impact the environment, especially water quality. There has been insufficient analysis of the impact of storm water runoff on the Hood Canal and its fish and shellfish resources. Further, even a nine hole golf course requires vast amounts of water and chemicals to keep it green. We are in an area, which despite its heavy rain season, has been subject to drought in the summer, peak golf season. This impact has not been addressed. Although there is a proposed water quality monitoring plan, detection of a problem does not prevent the negative impact on the aquifer. Any negative impact will have a destructive effect on shell fish beds. As a person who has witnessed the long and costly effort to restore oyster beds in Long Island Sound, I say this is not a risk worth taking. There is also the impact on the two unique water bodies, Kettles, ponds created by melted glacial ice. These would be destroyed, not preserved. For Kettle B, which is 12 acres and 150 feet deep, this involves removing 20,700 square feet of wetland by clearing it of vegetation, filling it, lining it, and using it for sewage treatment. Kettle C, which is six acres and 100 feet deep, would be used as a storm water runoff basin. This type of destruction is not "green," nor does it "preserve" the kettles, but it does negatively affect the kettle's contribution to aquifer recharge. With regard to density, a development of this size will increase traffic on US 101. This will be concentrated in the good weather months, since a number of these units will be for short term occupancy. The infrastructure in this area is already strained in these months with the ever increasing number of tourists on the way to the National Park and Forest areas as well as our State Parks. The traffic analysis done as part of the FSEIS was conducted in the mid 2000's. The traffic study is both dated and flawed. We are ten years on, traffic has increased and the study has not been updated. One estimate is that traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. In addition, the original traffic study only analyzed accidents at intersections. It did not take into account accidents caused by improper passing, swerving to avoid road obstructions and wildlife, and distracted driving as drivers take in the amazing beauty of the area. US 101, a two lane narrow road with limited shoulders, is not immune to these types of accidents. It is not that development should be avoided, rather it should be of reasonable size, consistent with the rural character of the area, preserve natural features of the area, and protect the Hood Canal and the shell fish beds. The development as currently proposed does not do this. C. jeffboccf From: Debra Ellers <debra4stuff@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 1:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Black Point MPR comments Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: As a resident of Jefferson County, I oppose the current master planned resort development on Black Point on a number of bases: Water Quality. I am very concerned about water quality impacts on Hood Canal. It is already compromised, and salmon runs are adversely impacted. Our whole ecosystem in the PNW relies on salmon, especially our beloved Southern Resident Orcas. We must stop allowing further development in the region that can significantly degrade water quality. My understanding is that the MPR has the capacity to damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer. Moreover, the development as planned will destroy a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells. o Additionally, the large number of housing units and golf course will significantly increase the amount of stormwater, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides runoff into the already impaired waters of Hood Canal, further impacting salmon, shellfish, seals and other marine life. Taxpayer burdens. Another major concern is that taxpayers will pay for the increased infrastructure and public services required for this large development. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. We don't need increased property taxes in Jefferson County! Traffic congestion and safety and climate change. Already, US 101 is congested and dangerous due to the constant traffic and lack of passing lanes, especially in the summer with numerous recreationalists. This development will generate a major increase in traffic, predicted to increase by up to 4,100 car trips per day. Also, there will undoubtedly be increased traffic on State Rt. 104 across Hood Canal Bridge, which can also be especially congested at peak times. Transportation is already the leading carbon dioxide emitter in Jefferson County, and we should be looking to decrease reliance on private auto traffic, not increasing it to avoid further contributing to climate change. Low wage/benefit jobs. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Studies have shown that low wage Walmart workers often have to resort to public assistance, such as SNAP, again, further burdening taxpayers. I Destruction of kettles. The Kettles are a unique geological form from the Ice Age. We should respect them and encourage preservation, and ensure that all affected local Tribes have been properly consulted to their satisfaction. In summary, I am not opposed to reasonable development on this property. However, it should be properly scaled down from its current huge numbers of units and resource intensive amenities, require more mitigation from the developer for its impacts, and respect its environmental and cultural surroundings including Hood Canal and the kettles. I ask that the BOCC disapprove the MPR in its current form. Sincerely yours, Debra Ellers Port Townsend, WA effbocc us"du .4".A 316w Wf *0i,J, From: Gail Perry <geperry57@hotmai1.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 2:55 PM To: jeffbocc; Patty Charnas Cc: Brinnongroup@gmail.com Subject: MPR Comments Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners I am writing to voice my opposition of the Master Planned Resort development on Black Point. As a new resident of Jefferson County and Pleasant Tides Neighborhood off Black Point Road I feel very grateful to be here. It is amazing to wake up and see the beauty of our backyard; The Olympic National Forest and the magnificent Salish Sea. With that said, here are some of my concerns that would disrupt the quiet peacefulness of our neighborhood: Drawing down the natural Aquifer that this community has cared for and kept pristine for many years. Traffic, Safety and Population impacts should be addressed and answered. As of now this communities public services are limited and they would be unable to handle more traffic accidents, medical emergencies, unlawful activities and environmental consequences of a golf course, a resort with 890 units and over 56,000 square feet of commercial space. Tax increases will occur for local taxpayers even after the MPR makes required payments further burdening the residents in Brinnon and surrounding neighborhoods which are already financially strained. Environmental contamination from chemicals, waste, overuse and human errors will destroy the natural habitat, wildlife and water of the Hood Canal. In conclusion I personally don't see a need for another golf course and resort. There are so many other ways to energize the area of Brinnon and pool resources in the community and county without sustaining lifelong detrimental effects. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Sincerely, Gail Perry Sent from my iPad F f'9 r effbocc' urn, From: Janet <janetmarx_76@msn.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:48 PM To: Patty Charnas; jeffbocc; Michael Haas Subject: Comments for April 9 Comments Regarding the Proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement and Proposed Zoning Regulations I live in Port Angeles but own vacation property near Coyle on Hood Canal. As a Jefferson County taxpayer, I will be penalized with increased taxes for County infrastructure improvements, such as roads and utilities, in order to accommodate the resort. Jefferson County is not requiring a sufficient bond to cover costs to the County if the developer does not complete the project. This could result in substantial costs for the County. The health of the Hood Canal waters have been an on-going concern to Washington State since Governor Gregoire. A major issue for Hood Canal is the total influx of nitrogen, which has been implicated in the canal's low -oxygen problem. Common sources of nitrogen are sewage and fertilizers. Pollution is another contributor to the Canal's environmental problems. The developer is proposing injecting treated sewage water back into the aquafer. Current sewage treatments are not designed to treat many contaminating metals, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Besides being a human health issue, this proposed sewage treatment would add to pollution of the Canal. Water, even in an aquafer, is not stable it travels through the soil, down -hill into the Canal. Granted the developer as a concession has reduced the golf course to nine holes. Even a nine -hole course requires heavy applications of fertilizers and herbicides. And again the water run-off from the course will travel down -hill into the Canal. Currently there is no truly environmentally "green" golf course. The resort will considerably increase impermeable surfaces such as roofs, streets and sidewalks, near the Canal. These will result in water run-off carrying pollutants down -hill into the Canal. Storm drains are a controlled flow but do not prevent pollution reaching the Canal. The resort is going to result in increased traffic along Highway 101. Brakes and tires wear as we drive, as does the surface of roads. It is likely during heavy rains much of the wear material is washed into the Canal. Allowing the MPR may benefit the developer and investors but it will significantly contribute to the diminishing health of our Canal, increase remediation costs and provide very little benefit to the citizens of Brinnon or Jefferson County. Respectfully submitted, Janet Marx 112 Lockerbie PI Port Angeles, WA 98362 Virus -free. www.avast.com effbocc j From: Rob Mitchell <duckabushrob@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 3:54 PM To: Patty Charnas Cc: jeffbocc Subject: PHMR Comments Attachments: Public Comment 3-7-18.docx Attached please find my comment re: Pleasant Harbor Marina Resort, Master Planned Resort Land Use Amendment. To be recorded prior to BoCC meeting regarding MPR final approval of 04/09/2018. Rob Mitchell 4246 Duckabush Rd. Brinnon, Wa. 98320 I 04/01/18 Rob Mitchell 4246 Duckabush RD. Brinnon, Wa. 98320 Planning Commission Board Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: Public Comment Period -Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Attention: Commissioners Kathleen Kler, Kate Dean and David Sullivan A brief personal history, in 1992 after an exhaustive three year search for property I bought 20 acres which was part of an original Homestead within the National Forest. This is four and a half miles from Black Point. The reason I chose this property was to be away from urban congestion and the negative impacts of over population. By 1998 1 had moved myself and my construction business there to undertake the largest design/ build and restoration of a historic log structure of my career. This project took 2 years and was followed by many projects that produced revenue for Jefferson County. Around 2000 1 was approached by 3 of the Planning Commissioners to join them "to push this thing MPR) through". I demurred because even then it was a bad business model and economic plan. Most of those commissioners on the board stood to financially benefit from this development. Two others on that same board also did but were in opposition to the Resort. They were quickly pushed to the background and the Brinnon Sub Area Plan was founded. They had envisioned 30 homes around a golf course. A few years after it passed even the Chair of that commission admitted privately that they had no Idea how large it would become. From it's inception the Pleasant Harbor MPR process was mishandled by DCD beginning with the Developer's Attorney directing DCD on how to proceed. Part of this process has involved Public Comments of which I have made many, backed by over a thousand hours of studying the proposal, the EIS's and additional research regarding the many negative impacts of a development this large. Many comments were made by professionals. Our comments were rewarded with a verbal pat on the back by the County and blithely cast aside in their rebuttal by the developer's engineers. Many comments were mishandled by DCD and lost. Particularly galling is the response to many comments made regarding the by now extremely outdated) Traffic Study and the offsite negative impacts of the additional 4100 vehicle trips (cars and large trucks) added to Rt. 101 and surrounding secondary roads. The response was, "This amount of traffic is to be expected for a development of this size. There is no mitigation for traffic aside from realignment of the entrance to Black Point and possibly busing resort customers from the airport. There is no mitigation of the offsite pollution, accidents, fatalities and loss of service to business's and citizens along all of Hood Canal. Jefferson County, Mason County, and Kitsap County. There is no mitigation for the offsite negative impacts of adding up to 2000 people from the resort on our trails, beaches, rivers and the harvesting of shellfish. In the Planning Commission public meeting held on 12/04/14 1 will paraphrase the Lead Planner, David Wayne Johnson's opening remarks, If, the DSEIS produces an FEIS that is found to be inadequate then, the land use designation can be denied by the Board of County Commissioners and the MPR map becomes all R1-5" The County is prepared to give Statesman a tremendous natural resource that is not limited to Black Point but all of Hood Canal. The developer's history has not demonstrated that; 1. This Business Model will succeed. 2. Statesman has the financing to start and finish this. 3. Statesman has ever started and completed a development this large. The jobs created are 80% low income, poverty level and seasonal. That means that we, the taxpayers and County will be paying to take care of these people. We the taxpayers will be subsidizing the developer's profit. This is not sustainable economic development. DCD's job was to shepherd the process, not be biased for or against the resort. I can understand why they would be prejudiced for the developer because, the developer is paying them for their work. The Development Regulations, written largely by the developer, has an unlimited Build Out Period, so DCD will have jobs in perpetuity. They don't have to concern themselves with the MPR's completion, pollution of Hood Canal, overcrowding of our back roads, trails and the over harvesting of our shell fish. The Board of County Commissioners doesn't have to care about the traffic, offsite pollution, loss of service, loss of life on our roads, overcrowding, overharvesting, and more importantly the loss of peace and serenity for the taxpayers of South County because they will be collecting 2.5 % of all the excise taxes and the increased property taxes generated by the MPR. They will use this money any way they want. A Common Good is something that benefits all people and is owned by all people. The Common Good that Brinnon owns is, it's location on Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula and still to this day pristine natural resources. The giving away of our natural resources benefits the Developer, the DCD, and the County coffers. The rest of us get nothing. Sincerely, Rob Mitchell u -°a effbocc From: Gilbert Skinner <bonesskinner@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort To Whom it May Concern, I am writing in support of the Dr. William F. Zingheim letter to you dated April 1, 2o18. Those of us who want development in this County need you to stand up and help us out. Supporting the Pleasant Harbor MPR project will be a good start. I am one of the many cited in Dr. Zingheim's letter who regularly shops in Kitsap County. While I prefer to buy local, Jefferson County's resistance to development often forces me to go to other venues for service. Please signal a new era of growth and development by ensuring this projects success. Have a great day and keep smiling, Gil and Barb Skinner Port Ludlow, WA Sent from my iPad 1 effbocc From: Jon Adkins <jadkins@xltech.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:54 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Dear Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, I am a professional fisheries biologist with over 20 years of experience in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal. I also own and operate a sailboat that has been moored at the Pleasant Harbor Marina for 14 years. I wish to express my support in favor of approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR application. I can personally attest to the quality of the ownership and management of the Pleasant Harbor Marina. Since the Statesman Group took over operation of the marina, they have made extensive investments to improve the condition of the entire facility, including the docks and waste management systems used by the many boaters that come from all around the region to visit Pleasant Harbor. This is in stark contrast to previous owners of the marina that allowed the facilities to simply deteriorate. The vast majority of the community recognizes and values the Statesman Group's philosophy and commitment to maintaining the natural qualities of this area. More to the point, the applicant has satisfied every condition of approval as reflected in the staff report prepared by the Jefferson County planning department. The applicant's conclusions regarding the environmental effects, in consideration of proposed measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts, are founded on the best available science and engineering principles. Concerns over water supply, water quality and habitat impacts have been satisfied through the application of proven technology and best management practices. The applicant's proposal includes amenities for the community that would not otherwise exist, but for this project. Furthermore, the proposal will create much needed employment and will enhance economic vitality in south Jefferson County. As I read through the comments containing objections to the proposal, I am struck by the predominance of speculation about impacts based on value judgements alone, with very little reliance on facts or sound data. Please make your decision to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR based on the exhaustive planning and engineering efforts that will make this project an overwhelming success. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Adkins Olympia, WA l Cbfl- A From: Tom Brotherton <tomb255@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 5:09 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment on the Blackpoint MPR Agreement The project has been discussed and revised many times since its inception. The scientific studies have been completed and the environmental hazards identified and eliminated. At this point, the only question that remains is whether it will be good for the county I urge you to ignore the complaints of The Brinnon Group, The Brinnon MPR Opposition Grout, The Hood Canal Environmental Council, Barbara Moore -Lewis, Robert Mitchell, Elanor Sather, and the other activists from outside the county. They sued the county in Clallam County and Thurston County to stop the project years ago. They lost in both counties and appealed the verdicts. The Appellate court ruled against them on January 19, 2011. Since then they have commented hundreds of times against the project. The County and Statesman have used the best available science to make the project safer and more environmentally sound than any project in the history of Hood Canal, and incredibly safer than the existing, uncontrolled residences on the north side of Black Point. No matter what Statesman and the County do to protect the environment, it will never satisfy these environmentalists. The Brinnon - Black Point MPR will bring badly needed jobs to south county, both for construction and operation. It will provide badly needed short term housing for tourists. It will mean increased sales for Jefferson and Mason county merchants. It will increase the tax base and county income. It will mean more students in Brinnon and Quilcene. It will protect our environment much better than any of its neighbors and, if it fails, anyone who moves in there. Every aspect of the plan has been studied repeatedly. It is time to move beyond planning and start earning some of the benefits for the county. I urge the Commissioners to act in the best interests of the County and approve the agreement with Statesman. Thank you Tom Brotherton 255 Cascara Dr. Quilcene, WA 98376 360) 531-3498 Everything is too long a list to work with. No one knows everything about anything. No one knows something about everything. Everyone knows something about some things. Anyone could be the world's foremost expert on something. Never think that something you don't know must not be true or important. effbocc From: cynthiakoan@gmail.com on behalf of Cynthia Koan <cynthia.koan@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 7:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: April 4, 2018 Letter from Planning Commission Re: MPR Hello, Please forward this letter from the Planning Commission to all three Commissioners and also please enter it into the Pleasant Harbor MPR hearing record. Sincerely, Cynthia Koan Jefferson County Planning Commission, Chair jeffbocc From: cynthiakoan@gmail.com on behalf of Cynthia Koan <cynthia.koan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 1:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: April 4, 2018 Letter from Planning Commission Re: MPR Attachments: Final signed PC to BOCC MPR letter April 4 2018 .pdf Well let's just try that again. Thanks, Julie! On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM, jeffbocc <jeftboccgco.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Cynthia, there is no attachment to the email below when received. Please resend. Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary II Jefferson County Commissioners Office 36o 385 9100 From: cynthiakoan@gmail.com <cynthiakoan@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Cynthia Koan Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 7:17 PM To: jeffbocc <ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us> Subject: April 4, 2018 Letter from Planning Commission Re: MPR Hello, Please forward this letter from the Planning Commission to all three Commissioners and also please enter it into the Pleasant Harbor MPR hearing record. 1 Sincerely, Cynthia Koan Jefferson County Planning Commission, Chair To: Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, Washington From: Jefferson County Planning Commission Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort As expressed in our previous letter to the BOCC on July 6, 2016, the Planning Commission remains concerned that unintended consequences could result from full implementation of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Re -sort as Currently proposed. As members of our community and stewards of our environment, we have a responsibility to ensure such a large undertaking does not impose threats to either the delicate ecology of the site or the stressed economy of the local area. Over the course of site visits and many hours of research and discussion, we have witnessed merit in the work undertaken by the applicant/developer to date and foresee potential for a positive approach going forward. Yet, we believe several lingering concerns must be more fully addressed within the context of the Development Agreement you are now considering: For a development this large in a remote area without a robust economy to support it, the dependency on investment from outside the area is both encouraging and risk -laden. If all goes well, it will no doubt add jobs and financial opportunity to the local area, but if it fails down the road, it could also end up as a huge liability for the County and the Brinnon community. We recommend that the Development Agreement include requirements for review of the applic,antldeveloper's business plan by an independent financial consultant, reputable in the field of golf course resorts, before each major phase of the project is undertaken. The objective of such reviews should not be another forum for debate, but rather a conscious effort by the applicant/developer in cooperation with the County to reduce the risk. We believe appropriate bonding is also necessary to reduce the impact of potential business failure. 2. No matter how strong the existing plans are in mitigating for the impacts of water runoff and sewage treatment, the risk of damaging the underlying aquifer and disturbing the delicate balance that protects local shellfish, both natural and commercial, is undeniable. We therefore recommend that the Development Agreement include requirements for continuous water monitoring in perpetuity, with appropriate testing being done at least quarterly, and the results openly shared with the tribes,the local shellfish industry, and the public. We also recommend that the County and the State work together with the applicant/developer to give consideration to consolidating wastewater treatment at the existing facility now serving Dosewallips State Park. 3. We understand the applicant/developer came forward with a plan of lesser scope, that included preservation of Kettles B and C but never formally submitted the plan to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) because of fears that the completed environmental impact reviews would no longer be applicable and the process would have to be reinitiated- at additional expense. We request that the County work with the applicant/developer to build a plan for resubmittal that would reflect reduced impacts. Such a plan could be determined to be consistent with the environmental impacts that have already been reviewed and addressed, negating the need for further SEPA review. We believe any plan that preserves the ancient Kettles that accent this property would be in accordance with the current Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan's goal and policy of preserving unique geological features Environment Element, ENG 7, ENP 7.7 [2004]), local treaty tribes' concerns over preserving historic cultural and delicate environmental aspects of the kettles, and could be a step in mitigating concerns over existing wetlands and protecting the aquifer and adjacent shellfish beds. Natural wetlands serve a function in filtering and metering water back into the aquifer, a function that engineered wetlands cannot replace. 4. An area of great concern to the Planning Commission is the term of the applicant/developer's vesting by virtue of approval of the Development Agreement. The County has the obligation to reserve their right to adopt land use regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan into the future to accommodate for unknown and unforeseen circumstances. We believe the vesting period should be reasonably consistent with the vesting periods granted to to other phased development applications. 5. Some members of the Planning Commission have strongly suggested that a small -footprint MPR that would highlight the kettle ponds (instead of filling them in and making golf course takes), and that would draw a connection to the amazing Olympic National Park at its doorstep, would be much more enticing as an ecotourism draw than a golf course. Golf course resorts are failing all over the country/world because demographics are changing and younger generations don't golf as previous generations have done in the past. This would also be in accordance with the Brinnon Subarea Plan's description of a conceptual MPR with a golf course and 20-25 homes east of Hwy 101 and a hotel/motel, employee housing, condos, and water treatment across (west of) Hwy 101. Thank you for the stewardship you have given this project. We respectfully request that you consider these recommendations from the Planning Commission as you formalize Jefferson County's Development Agreement with the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort applicantIdeveloper, Chair W Matt Sircely, Vice Chair CC ..a From: Marion Huxtable <mhuxtable@olympus.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 LS9 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Black Point Kettles The developers of the Master Planned Resort on Black Point plan to destroy a state landmark, the largest of the Black Point Kettles. It is hard to believe that the Commisioners will allow this to take place. These remains of glaciation are an important natural feature of Washington State and should be preserved in the present state. I am writing to ask you to prevent the tragedy of converting this kettle into a dump for excavation dirt and for treated sewage water storage. A feature created a couple of million years ago to be destroyed in a few days! Unthinkable. Don't let it happen. Think about your legacy as leaders in protecting our county with its amazing geological story. Marion Huxtable Ryan Huxtable effbocc From: Stephen <sportsterdad@msn.com> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 8:22 PM To: jeffbocc; Patty Charnas Cc: brinnongroup@gmail.com Subject: MPR Comments Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, The following is a sample letter from a local advocacy group, but one that succinctly covers some of the issues that I have regarding the MPR. As such, their words express my opinions and their concerns mirror my concerns, so please, I urge you to take them to heart. Following the letter I have enclosed further concerns and comments.) I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer o destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation. efforts that have taken place. In addition to these points of issue, as a member of the Pleasant Tides Property Owners Association, I have a deeper vested interest in my opposition to this project. I have heard conversations about the daunting legal team brought in by The Statesman Group in an effort to take possession of our water source early on in this proposal. Our small association - made up of volunteers - held them at bay (with help and cooperation from other concerned interests), but with their disproportionate range of influence coupled with deep -pocket resources the potential of renewed advances on our water source looms large still. If this is the type of intimidating practice this group readily engages in, then how can anyone take them at their word to willingly and without coercion do the right thing in all aspects of this proposal? Also, while I agree that Brinnon is in need of opportunities for growth and employment, this MPR is not the answer. It will indeed provide work for local residents, but the bulk of it will be relatively short-term or sporadically drawn out over the course of each new phase development. After it is built very few job opportunities will remain and those that do will be, for the most part, low income positions and very seasonal. Also, it will bring in non -invested interests and entities that may not understand and/or respect our community and our dependency on its resources. Brinnon, and. Jefferson County, is known and highly valued for our wild places and the ability to engage with nature through a myriad of opportunities and adventures. It is a place to commune with and experience the outdoors. These are our strengths as a community and it is what draws people to the area. Inclusive adventures involving wildlife and nature should be our focus in generating revenue, such as responsible fishing and hunting guides and tours, refuges/sanctuaries, parks, and other viable sustainable endeavors, not an exclusive development (certain established wildlife will be partially, if not completely, excluded as well). Currently, people do not come here for golfing, or shopping, or condo and timeshare life. They come to see the elk, the eagles, and the salmon (all of which will be adversely impacted to some extent by this MPR). They come to hike the miles of trails. They come to fish and shrimp, and to gather clams and oysters. They come to kayak or boat in Hood Canal. They come (and live here) for sustenance opportunities. They come for and because of the abundance of nature. We are not in need of another golf course (by my count there are currently eight within, or just over, an hour's drive), and we do not need a resort (as evidence of the only hotel that was in Brinnon has since been turned into a senior/community center). For those who wish to indulge in that lifestyle there is the more centrally -located established and accommodating Port Ludlow (thirty miles away), replete with all the amenities associated with fine resort living. And for further consideration, once built, it will not be maintained (or can even begin to be built), without our ongoing contributions in the way of tax dollars and county resources (including but not limited to, infrastructure and public safety). Once built (or even partially), it cannot be undone, or modified should the need arise without considerable money and resources. And once built, we cannot, if ever, readily reestablish the natural spaces consumed and/or paved over, or replenish the native wildlife that will be displaced. Introducing a development of this magnitude into a sparsely populated and natural setting is a slippery slope indeed as growth always begets more growth. And in the event that you grant approval for this MPR and it moves to fruition, there is no turning back. You will have opened the proverbial Pandora's Box. And as is the case in a tumultuous endeavor such as this, any environmental, fiscal, or societal repercussions that may arise, perceived or real, will be directly bound to your decision. Again, I respectfully urge you to oppose this MPR. Sincerely, Stephen Perry c( q is REARING RECJulieShannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 10:18 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Attachments: I am in my third decade as a Jefferson County resident.doc From: Bill Zingheim Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:15:10 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley; dsullilvan@co.jefferson.wa.us; Kathleen Kler; Michael Haas; Kate Dean Subject: For your enlightenment. Dr. William F. Zingheim 6281 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 zing@olympus.net 4/1/2018 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Building Permit Department jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us I am in my third decade as a Jefferson County resident. During that time I have observed the policies of the Jefferson County Building Department in regard to the process of obtaining building and development permits. At first, the rules and regulations required of permit applicants were consistent with the reasonable and prudent requirements used by other counties in this and other states. However, as the years have passed, the scope and volume of highly technical, detailed information required to mitigate or satisfy the County's requirements for a permit have grown to the extent that both the public and Courts have found them to be capricious, arbitrary, and unreasonable. It is now almost automatic that a permit applicant is required to hire one or more well-paid, County -Approved "experts" (minimum qualification: Phd. or ex -county employee) to mitigate all of the impediments to every imaginable aspect of property development which the Building Officials divine. Few, if any, middle income people can afford these administrative costs to build in this County. I have been present in those County offices and observed a furious potential permit applicator stormed out with his roll of plans, saying out loud as he left: "This is B.SY' The effect of the above policy has had the following intended and unintended consequences: 1) Economic development of the County area has floundered, while the neighboring Counties are thriving. The percentage of the small business failures in the County is astronomical. There is no population base which has sufficient discretionary funds to support them. The businesses which employ a population of this level must have stable well-paid employees. No businesses equals no jobs. No jobs equal no middle-income housing. 2) As an unintended consequence of the above, our County School Districts are very much in decline due to lack of students. Jefferson County has the oldest mean age per household of any county in the United States. These households are occupied by grandparents, not parents. There are simply not enough middle-class family child-bearing households in the County to supply the necessary school population to economically operate a school system. Conversely, there are not enough of these middle-income property owners to pay the taxes to support their children's schools. 3) Almost three-quarters of the income spent on day-to-day family living expenses of Jefferson County residents is spent outside Jefferson County! If you wish to see all of your old friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, stand at the entry to the Wall -Mart in Poulsbo! On a given Saturday morning, they will all be there. They all shop in Kitsap County. People simply do not buy most of their food, clothing, entertainment, cars, and other services in Jefferson County. Silverdale, Sequim, or Amazon are the choices. When buying goods in the few poorly - stocked stores in Jefferson County, the cruel byword you hear everywhere is: "We can order it for you and have it here next week. If you want is sooner, try Silverdale." Thus, sales tax is, and has been for years, hemorrhaging out of the County. The buying habits of the average person are directed out of our local markets. Selling beads and ice cream to the tourists in Port Townsend does not constitute the base for stable economy in rural Jefferson County. 4) With the arrival of the new property tax bill, it did not take long for me to realize that the property tax bill ( prorated on a monthly basis), was approaching the amount of my mortgage payment. With the cost of government rising each year, the tax bill should exceed my mortgage in two or three years. The failure to generate middle-income housing and business taxable parcels in the County is throwing a disproportionate tax burden on the existing property owners in the County. You have frozen our primary asset, and are taxing us off our land ! Many astute observers have correctly analyzed the behavior of the County Building Department as doing that which is necessary to perpetuate the political hegemony of the liberals of the City of Port Townsend. This has been done by the direction of the County Commissioners. They have discovered that the rights of the County Residents can be ignored, with little or no political risk. A classic example of this has been the County's effort for a decade to quietly stifle any progress in construction of a sanitary sewer system in Port Hadlock. With such a sewer system, the Port Hadlock community would expand and prosper with new businesses and middle class housing, challenging the political hegemony of Port townsend. Most dreaded of all: Port Hadlock might incorporate into a City, taking a huge bite off the County's tax rolls! On the other hand, it is safe for the politicians to appease the elderly retired and non- contributory (i.e. on welfare) hippy voting population of the City of Port Townsend. The fact is: The population and the economy of Port Townsend has little or nothing to do with the economy of the rest of Jefferson County, yet the voters of Port Townsend can easily carry any election which bears directly upon the economic welfare of County residents. Conversely, County voters cannot vote in elections which effect the economy of the City of Port Townsend! To most Port Townsend residence, Jefferson County is simply the impoverished backwater you must drive through to get to and from P.T.. They rarely stop in Chimicum while on their way to the Mall in Silverdale. I predict, without hesitation, that the behavior of the Commissioners and certain County Building Officials towards County Permit Applicants will soon come under further scrutiny of the Courts. You have already paid out County Taxpayers money in excess of a half -million dollars in damages for your capricious and arbitrary behavior in this regard. I understand that additional litigation is being actively contemplated and encouraged. I suggest that if your present policies and behavior continue with regard to the existing permit matters now before you, one or more may contain the straw which breaks your camel's back. Your decision on the ten -year-old Permit Application for the Pleasant Harbor matter will be carefully watched. Sincerely; Dr. William Zingheim Port Ludlow, WA cc: Philip Morley" <pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us David Sullivan" <dsullivan@jefferson.wa.us Kathleen Kler" < kkler@jefferson.wa.us Michael Haas" < mhaas@jefferson.wa.us Kate Dean" <kdean@jefferson.wa.us CCT(C(m 4-q4 jeffbocc D FMNMUrroil From: Joanie Hendricks <overbrook4@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 10:33 AM To: Patty Charnas; jeffbocc; Michael Haas Subject: Written testimony to be submitted for the Brinnon MPR hearing on Monday, April 9,2018 Attachments: Brinnon Resort Eric letter April 2018.docx; Brinnon Resort letter Joanie April 2018.docx Please accept these two letters from Eric Hendricks and Joan Hendricks of Brinnon. We are unable to attend the hearing in person. Thank you effbocc J From: BARRY C FORD <barry_mary_ford@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 10:43 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR I strongly support the Pleasant Harbor MPR. It will Bring Jobs, Opportunity and Beauty to Our County in a very environmentally friendly way! It is a needed, please vote (YES) for its approval! Barry Ford 22 Evergreen Ln Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 s Lac 1" K r 8 1" W t 7 '41 From: Doris W. Unruh <dwunruh@cablespeed.com> a ° Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 12:04 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Project I support the subject project. I think it would be good for our communities. Doris W. Unruh AD Virus -free. www.avast.com 1 jeffbocc'\ From: Vonda N.McIntyre <vonda@vondanmcintyre.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 12:35 AM To: Patty Charnas; Michael Haas; jeffbocc Subject: Black Point development PCHARNAS@co.jefferson.wa.us mhaas@co.jefferson.wa.us jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Jefferson County officials, When friends and I bought property on Duckabush Road in zggi., the place looked like the craters of the moon. It had been clear-cut. The forester we hired to survey the land said he should have been able to find zoo replanted baby trees/acre, but could find only twelve. He said: "The logging company followed the letter of the law but completely broke its spirit." We were willing to expend significant resources and time in search of the peace our property offers us. We had 6000 trees planted. Now, nearly 30 years later, the place looks like a forest again. A young forest, but a forest nonetheless. We did what the logging company was bound under law to do, but did not do. It sounds to me like a similar thing is happening with the proposed Black Point development. Promises. Will they be kept? Laws. Will they be followed? Taxes. Will they be paid, and will they come even close to covering the infrastructure costs to the county? Some promises cannot be kept. Golf courses are sources of tremendous pollution. They belong nowhere near a body of water as vulnerable as Hood Canal. I am also concerned to find that the local tribes have not been consulted properly. Best, Vonda N. McIntyre lcb yy` E In + i ' +il*, i` r Si^ x . Y From: Jessica Hogenson <jessicahogenson@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 12:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Please accept this letter in support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in Brinnon. I think it's very important to the economy of Jefferson County. The front page of the March 28, 2018, edition of the Port Townsend Leader included a story about the Pleasant Harbor project alongside a story about the need for more money for homeless shelters. It struck me that the Pleasant Harbor MPR can help solve the problem of homelessness by providing more and better jobs to those who need them. The newspaper article mentioned that this project has been under review for more than 10 years. Isn't that enough time? The Jefferson County Courthouse was built from the ground -up in just two years, and I would think we could at least approve a plan for development is less time. Pleasant Harbor would be a tremendous boon to our county. Between creating new and badly needed jobs, growing our county's reputation as a vacation and retirement spot, and providing more tax money, the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a win-win for all of us. Thank you for your time. I hope you approve the Pleasant Harbor development as quickly as possible. Best regards, Jessica Hogenson 51 South Bayview Dr. Port Ludlow 206-200-9583 ym 1 effbocc tv From: Bendt34 <bendt34@aol.com>•w w/ .,`' Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 12:39 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: PHMP To: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. As a resident of Jefferson County I share our common enthusiasms and concerns for the livability of the County as well as the State of Washington in general. During the past forty years we have raised and recreated with our children and now, grandchildren, at our home in Mats Mats Bay and elsewhere on the Peninsula. As there are no marine facilities at Mats Mats we have kept a boat elsewhere. For the past ten years we have been tenants of a boat slip at the Pleasant Harbor Marina. We have come to appreciate the wonderful potential of expanded recreational facilities and applaud the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, which opens many avenues for other activities and opportunities. And jobs.Clean jobs. Jobs that allow out local population dozens of chances to remain, work and raise their families in Jefferson County. As a former city airport commissioner, I appreciate the care and thoroughness that has been tendered by all parties concerned and I respectfully and strongly urge the BOCC to recognize the ordnance in place at the time of the application was adhered to by the applicant, with all matters addressed, a decade ago. Since then, concerns that have been addressed and answered, some multiple times, have delayed the project, goal posts have been moved, guidelines that cover that which has been covered have stalled needlessly, stalling recreational and career potential quite unnecessarily. Many of us get nervous with growth. That is part of the human condition. Growth is change. This is a positive chance for change, an exciting change.This is a chance for fresh golfing, dining, shopping, living and indoor sports that are found nowhere else in the area concentrated in one locale. Residents and guests alike will not be chased out of the area to utilize those amenities, which will serve the purpose of decreasing the demand on recreational and residential venues elsewhere and creating dozens of jobs for our local citizens. As a now retired businessman I will also bring up the need for services at the County level and funding that is accordingly acquired. This is a very, very rare opportunity to have a sustained, clean industry that will generate hundreds of thousands of property tax dollars per year and at minimal expense to any governmental agency, expressly Jefferson County. Those opportunities are hard to come by. This opportunity, these jobs, this chance to step into a positive future is in your hands. Please approve this application at this time so that it can move forward and all of us in the County can move ahead in a positive direction. Respectfully submitted, David F. Holt Mats Mats Bay Jefferson County, Washington Tm"A effbocc WL From: bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR Attachments: MPR letter 2.docx Thank you for considering our letter Bill and Roxianne Morris Sent from Mail for Windows 10 r. -I P;rr4o"11 Board of County Commissioners; March 26, 2018 Planning Commisioners We are writing against the MPR development in Brinnon. We believe it to be a flawed process from the beginning in that the county had NO PLAN and listened to the developer's suggestions. It benefits the developer to great lengths and leaves local residents with a degradation of their rural neighborhood with little benefit to them. The county is seeking revenue but it will be at such a high cost that the overcrowded roads and burden on resources may end up costing them more. It will not necessarily be beneficial to Brinnon and could ultimately, cause the loss of the precious waters of Hood Canal. The MPR is given 890 units; 240 are homes, 216 condos or town homes, 154 hotel rooms plus the 100 low cost units for employees. There are an additional 317 units in the maritime village with 123 units in the golf course SO that is considerably more than 890. That is a lot of water usage in showers and toilets flushing. Wonder how that all will affect the one aquifer on Black Point? This does not sound like it maintains the rural qualities of Brinnon. The 2010 census of Brinnon population is 797. The population of the resort would add two to three the population of Brinnon. This would be during the late spring to summer months when camping, beach use and travel to Brinnon are at its height. Don't forget to factor in the RV slots. RV's are so much fun to be forced to drive behind. This adds more burden to roads and over harvesting of shellfish on beaches. This is an environmental disaster in the making when you add to the wastewater even if treated pharmaceuticals will find their way to the canal) dumped into the waters of Hood Canal. The pollution contaminants from cars, trucks and RV's will most certainly add to the declining health of the waterway. The over population burden on a small rural area will also affect travel on the two main roadways. One concern is the small narrow country road of the Duckabush that is the nearest gateway to hiking the Olympic Wilderness with several trails open for day hikes. This does not give local residence much reprieve from the overpopulation on their rural life. Our experience has been that most seem unable to read NO TRESPASSING or PRIVATE PROPERTY signs as they turn around in my driveway. Highway 101 wrecks close that road for hours and are more likely to turn the Black Point entrance into another Paradise Road wreck area where people make left turns onto a swiftly moving highway. This one though has more obstruction to see traffic clearly due to being at the top of a hill and corner. Another concern is the viablilty of a golf course. There are many many golf courses on the Peninsula from Hansville area, Port Ludlow, two in Port Townsend, Lake Cushman, Alderbrook, two in Sequim and several south in Shelton area. What would the draw be to come to Brinnon to make such a large venture successful? I have not found one resort with the capacity of the MPR; most fall within 200 rooms. (Little Creek 190, Alderbrook 93, Sequim Bay Lodge 54, Suquamish 186, Point No Point 85, 7 Cedars new Hotel will have 315). These have convention centers as well, golf course, and a casino. Is there a need for another golf course?? -I think not and certainly, not at the size of the MPR. I do not feel Brinnon needs to be the site of another Bayshore Motel or become a summer getaway like wintering in Yuma or Sequim. It leaves the full time Brinnon resident not having what Growth Management was to protect -a rural way of life. 890 units seems too large and with little to attract to be viable. Other major concerns have still not been fully addressed. The costs to taxpayers for road improvements and maintenance will add to county burdens and will not be offset by revenues generated. Jobs are mostly minimum wage and seasonal with no guarantee that locals will get preferential hiring. Damage to the shellfish beds due to excessive water and chemical usage not to mention sewer drainage from the many showers and flushing toilets. Who will maintain the sewage project if they tie into the public one? Public services for fire and police will also be stretched. None of these are the panacea they are projecting to solve the issues of no employment in Brinnon. The MPR will probably increase our taxes! The impact on the environment is a huge concern. The over population will damage the precious waters of Hood Canal which are already fragile. The increased car traffic will greatly add to polluting the waters. The waste treatment does not remove phamaceuticals and would result in job losses in neighboring counties. The water usage on Black Point could destroy the only aquifer there. There is a habitat lost when the trees and area is changed dramatically. I do not feel that these losses are worth the revenue to the county. The unique feature of the kettles will be lost and should be saved. They represent a unique past of Brinnon not found in many areas. A lady once asked what we thought about the MPR and then shared her story of growing up on Port Ludlow Bay as a child visiting her family cabin by the bay. There were lots of shellfish and today, there are none. They vanished with over population and pollution of various kinds. That is my concern for Hood Canal waters which are fragile today. What will be left? I don't think you can undo this damage once it is too late. The resort will forever change the quiet rural qualities of Brinnon that attract people to move here. The MPR is not the job panacea it represents. Most of the jobs are seasonal and minimum wage. The MPR will pollute, deplete shellfish, overuse the Black Point aquifer, and change the quality of life of this very rural area. We know our life on the rural Duckabush road will be heavily impacted by the steady stream of travelers. The resort needs to have a smaller number of units to deflect the overpopulation demands on such a small area. Over 3000 people on such a small area will destroy its quiet rural solitude, water, and peaceful habitat. By significantly over populating Brinnon for five or six months does not seem to represent the goals of Growth Mangagement whose main goal was to maintain the rural quality of life in Brinnon. It won't be working then -will it? Think of it, over three thousand people in Brinnon and the two lane roads that we have and the detrimental effects of POLLUTION. Won't be fun for those who have lived here for many years seeking peace and solitude. It won't affect you, the commissioners or the people on the planning board but will dramatically, affect people who live on the Duckabush Rd and further south. IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK. It will forever change rural quiet Brinnon and not for the better. And if it fails or developer sells -what then? We strongly ask you to either reject the MRP proposal OR to reduce it's size to under 300 units and save the kettles. Growth Mangement isn't working for Brinnon locals. Is a fast food stop not far behind? Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon Wa 98320 effbocc • M moi• From: bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:38 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR Attachments: MPR letter Bill.docx Thank you for considering our letter Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Board of County Commissioners April 4, 2018 Planning Commissioners With concerns for the quality of rural living in the Brinnon area; I find myself here thanks to the proposed MPR project on Black Pt. My information comes from the very first community meeting in Brinnon and Garth Mann's plans for the 235 or so acres he had purchased on Blk. Pt. through the latest Jefferson County Planning Commissioner meeting. I will not go into the various issues of such a project and it's impact on environment, water quality, wild life, kettles, traffic, fisheries, etc. My concern is the Growth Management Plans for south Jefferson county established to maintain a rural way of life seem to be totally forgotten with this proposed 890 unit project. Growth Management determined to maintain a rural environment in south Jefferson County large tracts of land could not be broken down into smaller than 5 acre tracts, R-5. The JCPC informed me at a recent meeting that the 235 odd acers on Black Pt. was zoned as 10 acer tracts when purchased by Garth Mann and company. The planning commissioners also stated at that said meeting that the county had not had any experience with such a large land use proposal, Master Plan Resort. With Mann's past experience in this type of development; he was able to persuade the DCD and county commissioners to rezone the 23 odd R-10 tracts into MPR zoning. At a recent planning commission meeting it was stated by someone in the audience who was part of the Growth Management plan that they had thought a golf course would be a good idea. This happened without much input from community people. And in talking with others, the suggestion was for a few houses NOT almost 900 units. There are 90 houses on Black Point today. It does not seem likely that adding the almost 900 units of which there are 240 houses; that the area will be able to sustain the demands on the aquifer. The latest census of Brinnon had roughly 800 people. If the proposed 890 unit development were to proceed to build out as planned the population of Brinnon could at least triple but probably be far more at than that at times. So much for rural living! I am shocked at in all the planning that went into growth management that in a very short period of time the growth regulations were totally forgotten by the county, over looked and changed in favor of the developer. Were the land owners and residence of a true way of rural life in south Jefferson county simply forgotten? R-10 is what the area can sustain. Please step back and take a few deep breaths, open your eyes to the possible futures of south Jefferson county before you sign off on this proposal. The old residence of south Brinnon want nothing to do with this MPR monster. It seems the project is being promoted by the "new comers". Those who retired to this area from major cities to enjoy a rural way of living ... I am once again very confused how this human race thinks! Take that deep breath now. Thank you for taking the time, Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush, Rd Brinnon, Wa. 98320 c -60( c -A Julie Shannor From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 2:05 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Better social services for the people of Jefferson County Attachments: 3-15-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .pdf From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 2:04:45 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley; Michael Haas Subject: Better social services for the people of Jefferson County Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl(c,cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 15, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Better social services for the people of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: 4, A vote for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a vote for more and better social services for the people of Jefferson County. The tax revenue generated by this project will provide the funding necessary for grants to OlyCap and other social services organizations that provide needed resources to the county's homeless, elderly and others who need a helping hand. I ask that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertlncablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 15, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Better social services for the people of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: A vote for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a vote for more and better social services for the people of Jefferson County. The tax revenue generated by this project will provide the funding necessary for grants to OlyCap and other social services organizations that provide needed resources to the county's homeless, elderly and others who need a helping hand. I ask that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Julie Shannon From: Dav4d Sullivan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 2:16 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County Attachments: 3-19-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .pdf From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 2:16:09 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley; Michael Haas Subject: Retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertlgcablespeed. com 360) 437-0901 March 19, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: W t. Your vote to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR means attracting and retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County. Our school system is in dire need of increased funding and through the sales taxes and property taxes created by the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Jefferson County can ensure that education remains a top priority for the county and its lawmakers. I implore you to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, I Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl(a cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 19, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: Your vote to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR means attracting and retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County. Our school system is in dire need of increased funding and through the sales taxes and property taxes created by the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Jefferson County can ensure that education remains a top priority for the county and its lawmakers. I implore you to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass B0V(N 11W Julie ShannonC From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 2:27 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Depend on a reliable police presence Attachments: 3-23-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .pdf From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 2:27:03 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley; Michael Haas; David Stanko Subject: Depend on a reliable police presence Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertlncablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 23, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Depend on a reliable police presence Dear Commissioners: Fr Residents across the county depend on a reliable police presence. However, funding problems make it difficult for law enforcement to receive the proper tools they need to keep the citizens of Jefferson County secure. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can help provide desperately needed money for law enforcement and in the process, improve the safety and security of everyone who lives here. The sooner you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the better. 1 Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass David Stanko Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cab espeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 23, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Depend on a reliable police presence Dear Commissioners: Residents across the county depend on a reliable police presence. However, funding problems make it difficult for law enforcement to receive the proper tools they need to keep the citizens of Jefferson County secure. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can help provide desperately needed money for law enforcement and in the process, improve the safety and security of everyone who lives here. The sooner you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the better. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass David Stanko 70k Julie Shannon` 'aq. A4 From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 2:48 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Help improve the fire and EMS services Attachments: 3-26-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .pdf From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 2:48:14 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley; Michael Haas Subject: Help improve the fire and EMS services Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl(a,cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 26, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Help improve the fire and EMS services Dear Commissioners: I'm asking that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR now because the money it will generate in new taxes will help improve the fire and EMS services we rely on to respond to emergencies. Nothing is more terrifying than a home fire or a terrible accident, and with the additional resources that could be provided for our first responders, it would provide greater peace of mind to all the people who call Jefferson County home. Please vote in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 berftcablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 26, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Help improve the fire and EMS services Dear Commissioners: I'm asking that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR now because the money it will generate in new taxes will help improve the fire and EMS services we rely on to respond to emergencies. Nothing is more terrifying than a home fire or a terrible accident, and with the additional resources that could be provided for our first responders, it would provide greater peace of mind to all the people who call Jefferson County home. Please vote in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan '""' 'y'' ve,f At Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 3:02 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs Attachments: 3-29-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .pdf From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 3:02:12 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley; Michael Haas Subject: This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl(a,,cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 29, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs Dear Commissioners: Jefferson County's unemployed and under -employed people need your help. You can provide them the help they need by voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs that so many of our neighbors need. These are the jobs that so many people desperately need to continue raising their families in Jefferson County. Sincerely, Bert Loomis I cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 29, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs Dear Commissioners: Jefferson County's unemployed and under -employed people need your help. You can provide them the help they need by voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs that so many of our neighbors need. These are the jobs that so many people desperately need to continue raising their families in Jefferson County. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass r Julie Shannon PUP Aft a wi vrt From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 3:34 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: There is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County Attachments: 4-2-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .pdf From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 3:33:59 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley Cc: (leach@soundpublishing.com Subject: There is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl a,cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 April 2, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: There is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: Last year, we were told that there is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County. You can help solve that crisis by voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The combined sales tax and real estate taxes generated by this $140 million project would provide tens of millions of dollars for the county treasury, allowing us to do more to help those in need of affordable housing. Please approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight. 1 Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl(cacablespeed_com 360) 437-0901 April 2, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: There is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: Last year, we were told that there is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County. You can help solve that crisis by voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The combined sales tax and real estate taxes generated by this $140 million project would provide tens of millions of dollars for the county treasury, allowing us to do more to help those in need of affordable housing. Please approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass jeff bocc r'. LY From: Barbara Blair <barbarajoblair@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 5:33 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Opposed to Black Point MPR Attachments: Location.pdf April 6, 2018 Dear Kate Dean, Kathleen Kler & David Sullivan: Location, location, location is the first rule of real estate because location determines the value of the property. In the case of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort at Black Point, the location is severely lacking. The annual rainfall is 61 inches as compared to 19 in Port Townsend and 16.5 in Sequim. It can be very dark and rainy because of the proximity of the adjacent Olympic Mountains to the west. Because of the location of the plot of land on Black Point, there will be no water or mountain views that add value and enjoyment to the property and there is limited beach access. The surrounding area doesn't abound with restaurants, and other tourist attractions. Vacationers who stay in condos while on vacation as opposed to trailers, campers, tents and cabins, expect an array of dining, shopping and activity/entertainment options for which they will need to travel approximately an hour to Port Townsend, Sequim or Shelton. Today, people are not playing golf like they did 12 years ago and if they do and can afford it, they like to play highly rated 18 -hole golf courses. Less than an hour from Black Point there are four well-regarded 18 -hole golf courses including Alderbrook in Allen, Lake Cushman, Port Ludlow and 7 Cedars in Sequim where it will be more likely to be dry. Because of the poor location, I am concerned that the resort will fail and that it will become a liability for Jefferson County and the Brinnon community. To avoid such an event, the developer should be required to be bonded to cover the liability. Since the Hood Canal is already hypoxic in areas with fish kills and dead zones, water from runoff and waste treatment should be tested regularly by the resort and the Tribes. If the Tribes are unable fish and gather shellfish in the area, it will be a breach of their rights established by the Point No Point Treaty, so every precaution should be taken to maintain and hopefully improve the water quality of the Hood Canal. Kettles B and C, which the developer plans to fill to use for water treatment and water features on the golf course are unique geological features. They should be preserved not only because of their depth and size but also because the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Skokomish Tribes have indicated that they have cultural significance, similar to Tamanowas Rock in Chimacum. In the 170 years that settlers have been in the area, the land use policy has been to use the land and water without much regard for conservation or protection. Hopefully you have seen enough degradation to question the developer's plan. You have a duty to be stewards of the land and this is not a good use of land on Black Point. Gains are being made in habitat restoration, why would you want to approve a MPR that appears to be a plan that is bound to fail? Best Regards, Barbara Jo Blair 294 Sunset Boulevard Port Townsend, WA 98368 effbocc T From: shammond46@reagan.com 40i Saturday, Aprilril 07 2018 7:49 PM " P '`" wf a To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon Resort Project If one looks at Jefferson County demographics, income levels,housing availability and the departure of retail sales taxes to neighboring counties it is crystal clear Jefferson County is in serious long term trouble. You need taxes and you need to encourage more jobs, better education and increased housing. The Brinnon project will provide a lot of that. It is a well thought out ecologically sound development that deserves your approval. Failure to provide that approval will generate massive disgust by your citizens which you will deserve. Act now and at last do something that will further the future of our county. Steve Hammond Port Ludlow Ad Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 8:09 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: The Pleasant Harbor MPR represents the gold standard in ecologically sensitive development Attachments: 4-6-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .docx From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 8:08:22 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley Cc: jmajor@peninsuladailynews.com Subject: The Pleasant Harbor MPR represents the gold standard in ecologically sensitive development Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bert1kcablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 April 6, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: The Pleasant Harbor MPR represents the gold standard in ecologically sensitive development Dear Commissioners: The Pleasant Harbor MPR and its planning represent the gold standard in ecological sensitivity. We cherish our environment in Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor MPR represents how seriously we take preserving our environment. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, you can show the community and the entire state that we can balance the needs of the environment with sound, responsible economic growth. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl ci,cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 April 6, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: The Pleasant Harbor MPR represents the gold standard in ecologically sensitive development Dear Commissioners: The Pleasant Harbor MPR and its planning represent the gold standard in ecological sensitivity. We cherish our environment in Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor MPR represents how seriously we take preserving our environment. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, you can show the community and the entire state that we can balance the needs of the environment with sound, responsible economic growth. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley CC -3C7QrIk f I. ($ Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan "' V Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 8:41 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 69% voted against the Proposition 1 property tax increase Attachments: 4-7-18 Letter - Pleasant Harbor MPR Letter .docx From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 8:40:23 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley Cc: jmajor@peninsuladailynews.com Subject: 69% voted against the Proposition 1 property tax increase Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl cr,cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 April 7, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: 69% voted against the Proposition 1 property tax increase Dear Commissioners: Jefferson County taxpayers showed everyone last November that they are already overburdened by high taxes when they voted 69% against the Proposition 1 property tax increase. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the Board can demonstrate that they are listening to the people and understand the needs of the hard working taxpayers of Jefferson County by expanding our tax base through this project. Sincerely, I Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl jr cablespeedxom 360) 437-0901 April 7, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: 69% voted against the Proposition 1 property tax increase Dear Commissioners: Jefferson County taxpayers showed everyone last November that they are already overburdened by high taxes when they voted 69% against the Proposition 1 property tax increase. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the Board can demonstrate that they are listening to the people and understand the needs of the hard working taxpayers of Jefferson County by expanding our tax base through this project. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Hello, I'm writing in opposition to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort that you'll be discussing tomorrow, April 9th. I live on Woodpecker Drive just up the hill from Pleasant Harbor and my two main concerns with this proposed resort are how it will affect my property taxes and traffic on 101. With more people moving to, or visiting, the area, this seems likely to increase demand for real estate, which typically raises prices and consequently property taxes. My current taxes are high enough as it is and I do not want to see them rise. As for traffic on 101, it is already busy enough in the spring and summer that it can sometimes be difficult to enter the roadway on 101 from Woodpecker Drive. With a resort down the street, this seems likely to increase traffic and make things even more difficult. So, I'm asking that you please do not approve the resort. Thanks, Todd Clark 492 Woodpecker Drive Brinnon jeffbocc From: Sent: Todd Clark <tuck0411@grnail.corn> Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:02 AM r" To: jeffbocc yy C d i Y I L.ri .yj l a Subject: Black Point resort Hello, I'm writing in opposition to the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort that you'll be discussing tomorrow, April 9th. I live on Woodpecker Drive just up the hill from Pleasant Harbor and my two main concerns with this proposed resort are how it will affect my property taxes and traffic on 101. With more people moving to, or visiting, the area, this seems likely to increase demand for real estate, which typically raises prices and consequently property taxes. My current taxes are high enough as it is and I do not want to see them rise. As for traffic on 101, it is already busy enough in the spring and summer that it can sometimes be difficult to enter the roadway on 101 from Woodpecker Drive. With a resort down the street, this seems likely to increase traffic and make things even more difficult. So, I'm asking that you please do not approve the resort. Thanks, Todd Clark 492 Woodpecker Drive Brinnon From: Jodee Rastelli <jodee@bel-r.com> y . Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:51 AM r +` i r ,,,/ To: jeffbocc Subject: Black Point Master Plan Resort Attachments: IMG 1174.JPG To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, I am a resident of Pleasant Tides on Black Point and I strongly oppose the current plan for development here for the following reasons: My #1 concern is the damage done to the only aquifer on Black Point by: o injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer; this treatment plant is planned to be built right across the road from our wellhead! o destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area o drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells I don't believe that this project will be successful (look at Port Ludlow) and once this natural area has been destroyed, we will never get it back. I, personally, have seen Black Bear in the proposed area. Others have regularly seen Cougars and, of course, there is a plethora of Deer, Eagles and other native critters living on this land. Once this habitat is destroyed, it is gone forever. The larger predators will make more frequent visits into our neighborhood. (See the attached picture of a recent visitor to our property. ) Jefferson County COULD be known for keeping it's wild places intact and becoming a destination BECAUSE of it's natural places, inviting tourism that is eco -conscious. People live here BECAUSE of the natural beauty and another golf course only cheapens the area. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. OUR PROPERTY TAXES WILL INCREASE. The developer will not shoulder this burden. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. The developer can file bankruptcy and walk away at any time, leaving the county with a mess. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal!!!! Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. I thank you for reading this and hope we are able to change some of your minds. Respectfully, Jodee Rastelli jeffbocc From: Karl Boettcher <ptboettcher@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 3:36 PM To: jeffbocc i Subject: Pleasant Harbor + • ,, It's about time people start thinking of ways to bring money to Jefferson County instead of raising more TAXES on property owners. We are in favor of Pleasant Harbor - we need to know that no monies from the citizens will go to this project - we expect complete, honest disclosure of the Project and wish all involved success. Karl & Marilyn Boettcher I From: Sent: CC - A f _qA r Lee Jelinek <leejelinek@gmail.com> Sunday, April 08, 2018 5:25 PM I PO To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Comments/ Protect the groundwater and air! Thank you for including my comments in the official record, I have come to the conclusion that should the resort proceed it should use rain catchment as a sole source for water and there should be no wood burning fireplaces or wood burning stoves! As a resident of Black Point I have kept an open mind up to the point of writing this letter considering every aspect of the planned project and the impact on the existing environment, community and residents. I have given the planned resort considerable thought and I have concluded the location is not appropriate for a resort, golf course or high density housing because of the large size of the project. That being said should the development proceed the groundwater and air should be protected. Contrary to other comments I have seen there are indeed water problems in the Port Ludlow area. In the course of purchasing a property on North Bay Way in Port Hadlock, while doing my due diligence I learned of the saltwater intrusion problems in the Port Ludlow/Hadlock area and Morrowstone Island. I found from the Jefferson County office that the water from the well on the property I wanted to buy had high chloride levels and saltwater intrusion, I was shown the tests and saltwater intrusion maps and as per Jefferso Coyunty, the only way to build was to use rain catchment as a sole source of water for my residence.The neighbor sharing a lot line to that property, as a remedy, was already using a well that was getting water from only 25 feet deep because of the saltwater intrusion. The engineer at the Jefferson County office said that would be surface water and actually not legal. The county does not have enough staff to monitor all of the wells in the county so while a new well might be monitored the existing wells or illegal drilling would go unchecked, further exacerbating the situation for fresh groundwater. I did a rain catchment feasibility study for the specific property, my family's individual usage requirements, a specific house design custom to the property using rain catchment as a sole source with expertise from an architect, engineer and a rain catchment system company and additionally created a budget for the home and decided to look elsewhere to live. I chose to purchase a property in Brinnon instead that already had an existing house built on it. Building a new property close to the shoreline can be extremely problematic. Building hundreds of new residential units close to the shoreline even more so! I purchased an existing home on Black Point and am now very concerned that if a big new construction project and a resort is built there, there will be unforeseen environmental impacts that cannot be reversed and can prove to be very costly to the community, residents and county. If a resort were to go in it should use rain catchment as a sole source for water. Saltwater intrusion is irreversible and can be extremely problematic and costly. Saltwater intrusion is expensive and nightmarish. Additionally, I am very sensitive to woodsmoke as many people are. Woodsmoke is noxious and makes me physically ill. It is also an exceptional eyesore to see it moving through the sky close by. I am concerned about woodsmoke from the multitude of fireplaces in a resort. New fireplaces would have an immediate impact on the air quality in and around Black Point. I would have to drive past the resort to reach my home in Pleasant Tides or to travel out. If the wind blows towards my neighborhood or the air gets socked in anywhere in Brinnon it becomes a serious quality of life and health issue for everyone. I do not have a wood burning fireplace or wood stove in my home nor should any new construction. Should the resort proceed there should be no wood burning fireplaces in the development. This is an easy way to protect air quality in the area. Many communities around the country have implemented no new wood burning stoves and wood burning fireplaces since the 1980's. A resort of this size will bring more development outside of the resort and requirements for more infrastructure, build out and support services. Everything just gets bigger and bigger. There is also a seasonal component. The economy and population ebbs and flows seasonally creating a feast or famine economy that is less than ideal. It is a mismatch to put in a big development project that ultimately will be seasonal. Throughout the Puget Sound area it is customary boating season from Opening Day on the water in the beginning of May through the summer until Labor Day and back to school that ends the crowds of people en masse outdoors. That is everywhere and certainly in Brinnon. There is a shortage of sheriffs in the county. Hazardous Hwy 101 is the only way to emergency medical services unless flown out by helicopter. With a big population surge into rural Brinnon, the entire community changes with higher density growth concentrated into such a pristine environment. With bigger development something is thrown off and it is the very things that makes Brinnon special. Not everyplace has to be developed. It is okay to leave some areas rural and especially so in sensitive environments and ecosystems. I waited until writing this letter to make a decision since I have had positive experiences with Pleasant Harbor Marina. I appreciate a nice resort and am not against development per se but the density of housing for the planned resort is too high for the Black Point area. Black Point/Brinnon is a beautiful natural setting that is best left rural, natural and wild. It is a one of a kind location and more development, especially higher density will impact the environment and natural setting and the everyday rural quality of life that I and other residents sought when moving to Brinnon. Should the resort proceed it should use rain catchment as a sole source for water and there should be no wood burning fireplaces or wood burning stoves allowed in the development! Sincerely, Lee Jelinek Pleasant Tides/Brinnon Resident cc. f)0(((0 effbocc From: Windycrest@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 6:11 PM rTo: jeffbocc r, ; `"'-.,Or ' " /4( 4m xCc: Michael Haas; brinnongroup@gmail.com; Patty Charnas Subject: Testimony Pleasant Harbor Resort, April 9, 2018 To Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, I oppose the current proposed development of the Pleasant Harbor Master Panned Resort at Black Pt. by Statesman Group of Canada, for many reasons and, in general, the loss of our quality of life as our environment here in Brinnon on Hood Canal is further compromised. 1). Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and services: I do not look forward to additionally supporting this LLC's profits with my tax dollars and time. Having purchased a moorage slip at Pleasant Harbor Marina with a 30 year lease and surviving the bankruptcy of the marina and several years later having to negotiate with the Statesman Group to keep our slip, we have incurred a rather steep assessment for improvements to the marina infrastructure. This is after z years of living with construction site because of delayed permitting and was originally designated as "phase 3" of the resort development. 2). Seasonal Employment: The staff at Pleasant Harbor Marina is exceptional, but due to the inability to find personnel, at times we have lost usual privileges do to Statesman's catering to the short term visitors with insufficient staff. In winter, the facilities have closed, but for weekends, providing only seasonal employment for some staff and limiting use to the community. In summer part of facilities are closed do to lack of personnel. I have seen part of the property deteriorate through poor maintenance. Will the future development be any different? 3). The Obvious: Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and pesticides. Extra nutrients will be released into the canal that already has "dead zones" due to excessive algal blooms feeding on these nutrients and depleting the oxygen. Toxic blooms, currently rare may occur more often, closing commercial and recreational shellfisheries. 4). The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer, destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area, drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells and affecting Marina well also. My husband and I have owned multiple properties in Jefferson County over the last 28 years. We purchased our home in Brinnon 21 years ago and purchased our slip at Pleasant Harbor Marina, in 1996, zz years ago. We vote and we care about our community. Over this time period I have participated in the county process for the Brinnon sub area plan and was appointed by the County Commissioners to the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee in a position for District 3 and served as a science representative for z years. I have taken every opportunity to participate in my government process so that my concerns to the proposed development at Black Pt., currently by the Pleasant Harbor and Golf Resort LLC, Statesman Group of Canada, be heard and seriously considered by my representatives. Please do not approve this development at Black Pt. In Brinnon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Deborah Siefert Sent from my Wad From: Dustin Robinson <dustin.p.robinson@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:05 PM To: Michael Haas Cc: Patty Charnas; jeff bocc Subject: Letter From A Young Resident To whom it may concern, I moved to Brinnon from Indianapolis exactly one year ago on April I st, shortly after my 25th birthday. Indianapolis is a large city in the midwestern United States, ranked 34th on the largest metropolitan areas in. the country. I'd had enough. of it. I'd seen enough shopping malls, strip malls, big box stores, retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters, golf courses, apartment buildings, condo units and hotels to last me a lifetime. So I decided to move to a tiny little town on the Hood Canal named Brinnon. In this town there were two restaurants, a gas station, a general store, and a worn out community center that was clearly a failed hotel. Failed. The reason I was drawn to Brinnon is precisely because of what it is lacks. What it lacks is all that is wrong in this country, which is rampant and unrelenting capitalism in the name of "progress" at the expense of local inhabitants and, perhaps most important, our planet. Unfortunately it is also what is being proposed in the plans for Black Point and the Master Planned Resort. This "MPR" is the dream of a relatively small group of people that includes a 9 hole golf course and 890 residential units. Depending on which census you look at, there are only about 800 people living in Brinnon at the moment. Of them., I have never met anyone whose dream it was to have a golf course built here. I have, however, met unique and loving people who like things the way they are here, and who don't mind. traveling to larger cities nearby to use the amenities where they are already established. There is nothing inherently wrong with golf courses or condo units, or even shopping malls or big box stores. What is wrong is what comes with them, which are the increases in. traffic, pollution, hazards, and various unforeseen. expenses, not to mention the changes in people's attitudes and. the charm of the town. If one were to truly have the welfare of Brinnon and it's residents on their mind, I can't imagine why an idea such as this MPR would even exist when there are so many other routes to take that do not jeopardize the community or the environment by taking such an extreme leap. This is capitalism in the guise of welfare, with. promises of a better tomorrow. Why not put a priority on what one can do today instead? Reinvest in the community and the infrastructure that has already been established. Help our community center, and all of the vacant rooms within in. Help our restaurants and general stores and gas stations and kayak rentals. Help us,, not them. Sincerely, D.P. Robinson N:)a r 11 ieffbocc (D I"4 It1A I_ Ik I i ,v MA V From: Chuck Ising <piratechuck@gmail.com> .40 Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: No! I oppose the Pleasant Harbor Planned Resort I am writing this because I live on Black Point and do not wish to be subjected to development in that area. I oppose the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort for many reasons: 1. Traffic problems! Sure it will be addressed, like what happens everywhere developers are let in to ruin a rural way of life. Look at the I-5 corridor. Rush hour is 10 hours a day. In Brinnon on HWY 101 when there is traffic there is suddenly tailgating (no where to pass) and more noticeable noise and exhaust from vehicles. More traffic has an immediate impact. The more vehicles, the more pollution. Only one two lane road in and out. HWY 101 is an extremely hazardous road and will require higher maintenance for a higher volume of vehicles and it is dangerous year round. It is already a cluster of logging trucks, RVs, boat trailers, motorcycles, and passenger cars along with elk, deer and other animals, at times there are pedestrians and bicyclists. There are frequent traffic notices regarding accidents, landslides and trees falling down closing the road in both directions! Add in all the new cars and delivery trucks. Really? Its asking for trouble. This is not a good location for an increase in traffic. The emergency response and road maintenance departments in the area will need to increase their budgets and personnel. More traffic will cost more money and require bigger budgets for the infrastructure and maintenance and support services. The increased tax base is unlikely sufficient to completely cover these increased expenses. 2. Air quality will be greatly affected. All of those dwellings burning wood in fireplaces will immediately pollute our clean air. I oppose any new wood burning fireplaces in Brinnon! 3. Water quality: Hood Canal already has oxygen depletion problems in the water. Increased boat traffic is bad for the water quality in Pleasant Harbor itself which is shallow and has restricted water flow in and out of its very narrow entrance. Now we are learning of micro plastics in the ocean and the threat to wildlife that could also pertain to Hood Canal and Puget Sound. Furthermore the aquifer and groundwater on Black Point is at risk of being compromised by seawater intrusion with the new development. It is common sense not to risk water quality and water supply for more development. This is just not a good location for development! 4. Wildlife habitat threatened: What about the established wildlife? Bald eagles, deer, bears, mountain lions etc. everything will be affected including marine life and shellfish. I have seen aggressive baby seals in Pleasant Harbor that are fed by people and completely unafraid. The deer in the area have no fear of people, stand in the road and walk toward people for food. This will only get worse with a resort going in. There are bears and mountain lions roaming around Black Point. This is a wild area that will be lost! 5. More boat traffic and population close to active military training areas is a bad idea. I have often heard over marine radio, boat traffic that has wandered into restricted areas on the water being asked to leave the active military training areas close to Pleasant Harbor. This area is in close proximity to a Naval Base and submarine activity. It is better security -wise to be less populated, not more. 6. It will raise our property taxes! It will raise our whole cost of living. More people dictates moorage rates may increase despite no proximity to haul -out and boat yard amenities. Rural Brinnon residents will be outnumbered when it comes to voting, so the whole area will be corrupted by developers in the future. Development will spread. The Brinnon area will see an increase in the cost of living likely disproportionate to any new jobs created. Brinnon will become less affordable to live in. 7. Golf course? Another one? Our drinking water may get contaminated from all the pesticides and growth chemicals that golf courses are famous for. What about the nuisance noise on the golf course? Golfers, balls being hit and golf maintenance equipment can be noisy. 8. If residents of Brinnon wanted all these "amenities" they would have moved elsewhere. 9. Our night sky will be lost because the city lights came to Brinnon! 10. Suppose the resort goes bankrupt? Seriously, Brinnon is really out of the way! I looked at the pros versus the cons and it looks like a really bad idea to me. I lived in Maple Valley when the developers and Gary Grid Locke said the same thing to us back then. Again they lied, developers often do not care, They butcher an area then go back to Arizona, Utah or even back overseas. Respectfully, Charles Ising Black Point Resident and Homeowner effbocc t C From: Jefferson County GOP <GOP@broadstripe.net> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 11:57 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: 'Jon Sherry' Subject: Brinnon Master Plan Resort Attachments: 2018 Brinnon Master Plan Resort Letter to Commissioners.docx Please read the attached letter concerning the Brinnon Master Plan Resort. The letter is in support of the resort. Thank you, Jon Cooke Quilcene Jon Cooke 62 Nickelbush Lane Quilcene, WA 98376 April 8, 2018 Dear Commissioners: Kler, Sullivan and Dean I wish we had a choice. I wish we could say, "Let's pass on this resort, because we can choose another option to bring jobs to the south county. But there is no other option out there in the wind. Even conservatives are divided over the resort. One conservative said, "If I wanted to live in a resort I would have moved to Port Ludlow." But later he admitted that "...it is the owner's property and he should be able to use his property however he wants." I wish we had a choice. The February jobless rate is up from 7.1% to 7.5% in Jefferson County. The jobless rate also went up in January. This board of commissioners could turn that trend around and this resort will help in a big way. The state jobless rate is 4.7% for February (Peninsula Daily News). Why is there a three point difference between the state jobless rate and the rate in Jefferson County — no growth? I wish we had a choice, but south county children are suffering too. At the end of the 2016-2017 school year the percentage of free or reduced lunch students hit 90% in the Brinnon School District. How can we reduce that number for south county children? This board of commissioners could bring jobs to the south county. You will hear a lot of fears of things that could go wrong at the resort environmentally. But what about the half to one hour commute for young families to find livable wage work? Their cars are affecting the environment too. I just ask that this board of commissioners turn from a legacy of poverty for rural Jefferson County. Please step into economic growth and prosperity. Sincerely, Jon Cooke c c =- . From: Jeff Taylor <jefft911@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 4:32 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Black Point development Whitehorse and Port Ludlow are the two golf courses on the Olympic Peninsula with the easiest access for the large Seattle market. Whitehorse went bankrupt, and Port Ludlow let one of its three hole courses go to seed from lack of demand. This was before golf went into a world wide slump. A golf course development does not meet any need that is not already over served. The proposed development at Black Point is for people who don't live here done by a developer who isn't local. The two main claims why it would be beneficial for Jefferson County are jobs and tax base. There would be a surge in construction jobs, but if the build is rapid most workers will be brought in. Long term, resort communities don't create very many jobs, and most are low wage. Brinnon is far enough from the population centers that many would be filled by people moving from other areas. I don't think these kinds of developments even contribute to the tax base. If it is successful there will be a large amount of infrastructure that will need to be improved or added. In areas where golf developments are very successful they do increase tax revenue, but they do it by increasing property values, making problems like affordable housing worse. I have golfed around the world. In some places like St. Andrews, Ballybunnion, Carnoustie, and Lahinch the courses are a part of the community, and used by the locals. In others, like Baja and the Yucatan, they are isolated enclaves that do not share the values of the locals. These are outside investments for foreign owners in areas with small local populations. The golf communities can dominate the local politics, and have totally changed the character on the areas. The jobs are service jobs that do not pay enough to afford housing. Black Point is the second type of development. Jeff Taylor Sent from my iPhone Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 7:05 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor PRO From: Thompson, Rick Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 7:02:58 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Kdean@jefferson.co.wa.us Cc: Thompson, Rick Subject: Pleasant Harbor PRO Good Morning: I support the planned development in Brinnon. I speak from the school perspective. Our county is aging and we need to make development a top priority. If we do not, we manage resources downward and a downward spiral impacts school operations in more and more tangible ways. You have read about the boon to school funding; however, these enhancements filter through a complex formula based on enrollment. Simply put, the state does not bail out districts when enrollment goes down. Enrollment goes down typically when there are no jobs. I support this type of development. Your work is appreciated. Rick From: Vetis Cathcart <vetiscathcart@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:06 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort low ai c r N Y My husband & I have been residents of Jefferson County since 2003. During that time, the only improvements to the county's tax base has been some new home construction in Port Ludlow. Construction has been minimal. The lack of viable development in Jefferson County has resulted in increased property taxes to residents of the county. It is time for Jefferson County to look toward the future and provide opportunities for it's residents. The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort will provide jobs, homes and opportunities to current residents of the county. It will also offer growth and increased amenities to the Brinnon area of Jefferson County. There have been several school bond issues in Jefferson County that have failed in the past years and may continue to fail. An increased tax base in Jefferson County will provide funds to help alleviate projected shortfalls in needed school and infrastructure projects throughout the county. We strongly SUPPORT approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. Sincerely, Wallace & V. Kay Cathcart 107 Deer Hollow Circle Port Ludlow, WA 98365 email: vetiscathcart(a,%!mail.com jeffbocc From: Sent: Dale Glantz <daleglantz@earthlink.net> Monday, April 09, 2018 9:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort Dear Jefferson County Commissioners: I want to express my strong support for the Pleasant Harbor Resort and the positive effects it will have on the economy and attractiveness of our county. Please vote to support this development. Sincerely, Dale Glantz Jefferson County Resident and Voter C From: Karen Farr <karenfarr@cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:06 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon Resort We need the Brinnon Resort - what we need in Jefferson County is JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! We cannot have affordable housing without jobs. We cannot support medical personnel without jobs. This is an environmental friendly project that has been thoroughly vetted and needs to be approved and built! I vote a BIG YES for this project! Karen Farr, 570 McMinn Road, Port Townsend, WA 98368 I C C -aC rod effbocc N-6 From: Al Bergstein <albergstein@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:22 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Feedback on Pleasant Harbor R-Ecri . .ji Prior commitments preclude me from attending tonight's meeting. While there are going to be many people in attendance tonight to give points of view similar to mine, including the documentation that I helped work on with the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, I lust wanted in the record that I am totally opposed to this project being permitted and allowed to go forward. While it is apparently too late to stop permits the BOCC has issued in the past, there are still significant issues remaining unanswered. The main one is that there appears to be no technical documentation that allows citizens to understand the water processing plant that they are supposed to have documented. It is unclear what happens if the proposed use of the existing site fails to work as anticipated. There is no backup plan of record. The question is raised, "what then?" The least that could be done would be to force the applicants to document this issue thoroughly. Thanks for your time and efforts. Al Bergstein 5104 Mason St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 effbocc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: FYI Jodi Adams Permit 8s Admin Manager Phone 360-379-4494 Jodi Adams Monday, April 09, 2018 10:28 AM •J tr , i jeffbocc dcd FW: MPR MPR letter Bill.docx From: bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:40 PM To: #dcd <#dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MPR Thank you for considering our letter Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Board of County Commissioners April 4, 2018 Planning Commissioners With concerns for the quality of rural living in the Brinnon area; I find myself here thanks to the proposed MPR project on Black Pt. My information comes from the very first community meeting in Brinnon and Garth Mann's plans for the 235 or so acres he had purchased on Blk. Pt. through the latest Jefferson County Planning Commissioner meeting. I will not go into the various issues of such a project and it's impact on environment, water quality, wild life, kettles, traffic, fisheries, etc. My concern is the Growth Management Plans for south Jefferson county established to maintain a rural way of life seem to be totally forgotten with this proposed 890 unit project. Growth Management determined to maintain a rural environment in south Jefferson County large tracts of land could not be broken down into smaller than 5 acre tracts, R-5. The JCPC informed me at a recent meeting that the 235 odd acers on Black Pt. was zoned as 10 acer tracts when purchased by Garth Mann and company. The planning commissioners also stated at that said meeting that the county had not had any experience with such a large land use proposal, Master Plan Resort. With Mann's past experience in this type of development; he was able to persuade the DCD and county commissioners to rezone the 23 odd R-10 tracts into MPR zoning. At a recent planning commission meeting it was stated by someone in the audience who was part of the Growth Management plan that they had thought a golf course would be a good idea. This happened without much input from community people. And in talking with others, the suggestion was for a few houses NOT almost 900 units. There are 90 houses on Black Point today. It does not seem likely that adding the almost 900 units of which there are 240 houses; that the area will be able to sustain the demands on the aquifer. The latest census of Brinnon had roughly 800 people. If the proposed 890 unit development were to proceed to build out as planned the population of Brinnon could at least triple but probably be far more at than that at times. So much for rural living! I am shocked at in all the planning that went into growth management that in a very short period of time the growth regulations were totally forgotten by the county, over looked and changed in favor of the developer. Were the land owners and residence of a true way of rural life in south Jefferson county simply forgotten? R-10 is what the area can sustain. Please step back and take a few deep breaths, open your eyes to the possible futures of south Jefferson county before you sign off on this proposal. The old residence of south Brinnon want nothing to do with this MPR monster. It seems the project is being promoted by the "new comers". Those who retired to this area from major cities to enjoy a rural way of living ... I am once again very confused how this human race thinks! Take that deep breath now. Thank you for taking the time, Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush, Rd Brinnon, Wa. 98320 C.7-610ar A <--., 1.1 KN- )4 effbocc OD From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: FYI Jodi Adams Permit & Admin Manager Phone 360-379-4494 Jodi Adams Monday, April 09, 2018 10:28 AM jeffbocc dcd FW: MPR MPR letter 2.docx From: bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:39 PM To: #dcd <#dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MPR Thank you for considering our letter Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 4 e ;may d Board of County Commissioners; March 26, 2018 Planning Commisioners We are writing against the MPR development in Brinnon. We believe it to be a flawed process from the beginning in that the county had NO PLAN and listened to the developer's suggestions. It benefits the developer to great lengths and leaves local residents with a degradation of their rural neighborhood with little benefit to them. The county is seeking revenue but it will be at such a high cost that the overcrowded roads and burden on resources may end up costing them more. It will not necessarily be beneficial to Brinnon and could ultimately, cause the loss of the precious waters of Hood Canal. The MPR is given 890 units; 240 are homes, 216 condos or town homes, 154 hotel rooms plus the 100 low cost units for employees. There are an additional 317 units in the maritime village with 123 units in the golf course SO that is considerably more than 890. That is a lot of water usage in showers and toilets flushing. Wonder how that all will affect the one aquifer on Black Point? This does not sound like it maintains the rural qualities of Brinnon. The 2010 census of Brinnon population is 797. The population of the resort would add two to three the population of Brinnon. This would be during the late spring to summer months when camping, beach use and travel to Brinnon are at its height. Don't forget to factor in the RV slots. RV's are so much fun to be forced to drive behind. This adds more burden to roads and over harvesting of shellfish on beaches. This is an environmental disaster in the making when you add to the wastewater even if treated pharmaceuticals will find their way to the canal) dumped into the waters of Hood Canal. The pollution contaminants from cars, trucks and RV's will most certainly add to the declining health of the waterway. The over population burden on a small rural area will also affect travel on the two main roadways. One concern is the small narrow country road of the Duckabush that is the nearest gateway to hiking the Olympic Wilderness with several trails open for day hikes. This does not give local residence much reprieve from the overpopulation on their rural life. Our experience has been that most seem unable to read NO TRESPASSING or PRIVATE PROPERTY signs as they turn around in my driveway. Highway 101 wrecks close that road for hours and are more likely to turn the Black Point entrance into another Paradise Road wreck area where people make left turns onto a swiftly moving highway. This one though has more obstruction to see traffic clearly due to being at the top of a hill and corner. Another concern is the viablilty of a golf course. There are many many golf courses on the Peninsula from Hansville area, Port Ludlow, two in Port Townsend, Lake Cushman, Alderbrook, two in Sequim and several south in Shelton area. What would the draw be to come to Brinnon to make such a large venture successful? I have not found one resort with the capacity of the MPR; most fall within 200 rooms. (Little Creek 190, Alderbrook 93, Sequim Bay Lodge 54, Suquamish 186, Point No Point 85, 7 Cedars new Hotel will have 315). These have convention centers as well, golf course, and a casino. Is there a need for another golf course?? -I think not and certainly, not at the size of the MPR. I do not feel Brinnon needs to be the site of another Bayshore Motel or become a summer getaway like wintering in Yuma or Sequim. It leaves the full time Brinnon resident not having what Growth Management was to protect -a rural way of life. 890 units seems too large and with little to attract to be viable. Other major concerns have still not been fully addressed. The costs to taxpayers for road improvements and maintenance will add to county burdens and will not be offset by revenues generated. Jobs are mostly minimum wage and seasonal with no guarantee that locals will get preferential hiring. Damage to the shellfish beds due to excessive water and chemical usage not to mention sewer drainage from the many showers and flushing toilets. Who will maintain the sewage project if they tie into the public one? Public services for fire and police will also be stretched. None of these are the panacea they are projecting to solve the issues of no employment in Brinnon. The MPR will probably increase our taxes! The impact on the environment is a huge concern. The over population will damage the precious waters of Hood Canal which are already fragile. The increased car traffic will greatly add to polluting the waters. The waste treatment does not remove phamaceuticals and would result in job losses in neighboring counties. The water usage on Black Point could destroy the only aquifer there. There is a habitat lost when the trees and area is changed dramatically. I do not feel that these losses are worth the revenue to the county. The unique feature of the kettles will be lost and should be saved. They represent a unique past of Brinnon not found in many areas. A lady once asked what we thought about the MPR and then shared her story of growing up on Port Ludlow Bay as a child visiting her family cabin by the bay. There were lots of shellfish and today, there are none. They vanished with over population and pollution of various kinds. That is my concern for Hood Canal waters which are fragile today. What will be left? I don't think you can undo this damage once it is too late. The resort will forever change the quiet rural qualities of Brinnon that attract people to move here. The MPR is not the job panacea it represents. Most of the jobs are seasonal and minimum wage. The MPR will pollute, deplete shellfish, overuse the Black Point aquifer, and change the quality of life of this very rural area. We know our life on the rural Duckabush road will be heavily impacted by the steady stream of travelers. The resort needs to have a smaller number of units to deflect the overpopulation demands on such a small area. Over 3000 people on such a small area will destroy its quiet rural solitude, water, and peaceful habitat. By significantly over populating Brinnon for five or six months does not seem to represent the goals of Growth Mangagement whose main goal was to maintain the rural quality of life in Brinnon. It won't be working then -will it? Think of it, over three thousand people in Brinnon and the two lane roads that we have and the detrimental effects of POLLUTION. Won't be fun for those who have lived here for many years seeking peace and solitude. It won't affect you, the commissioners or the people on the planning board but will dramatically, affect people who live on the Duckabush Rd and further south. IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK. It will forever change rural quiet Brinnon and not for the better. And if it fails or developer sells -what then? We strongly ask you to either reject the MRP proposal OR to reduce it's size to under 300 units and save the kettles. Growth Mangement isn't working for Brinnon locals. Is a fast food stop not far behind? Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon Wa 98320 cQ<<f 1) < jeffbocc From: Roma Call <romac@pgst.nsn.us> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 11:23 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Patty Charnas; Michelle Farfan Subject: PGST Comments: Pleasant Harbor MPR Attachments: PGST_Comments_PleasantHarborMPR040918.pdf Dear Board of County Commissioners, On behalf of Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, I'm forwarding the attached comment letter regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Agreement and Development Regulations. We will also provide a hard copy at the public meeting this evening. Thank you. Roma Call Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Environmental Program romac@pgst.nsn.us cell 36o-516-3979 office 360-297-6293 qftrAprik PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE l201831912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 2018 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us SENT VIA EMAIL Dear Board of County Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding Jefferson County's proposed Development Agreement and proposed Development Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPRs I am writing on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (Tribe) to provide comments and inform the Jefferson County County) Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that the draft Development Agreement does not comply with the specific conditions of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 and does not meet the required state and local regulations. In addition, it does not provide appropriate mitigation for potentially significant adverse effects. Although the County has met with representatives of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe on several occasions, our concerns have not been addressed in the proposed documents. Therefore, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe opposes the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement as written. The Tribe also opposes the adoption of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 17 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County code. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes that were signatories to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933.1 The Treaty reserved for the Tribe the right to engage in fishing, hunting and gathering in its usual and accustomed areas. These rights were not granted to the Tribe; rather, these were pre-existing rights that were reserved when the Treaty was signed. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members have deep ancestral ties to their traditional use areas, which pre -date the signing of the Treaty by thousands of years. Based on Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members' unique historic relationship with and knowledge of these areas and the natural resources in these areas, they will experience significant impacts from the proposed MPR project. For at least 17 years, the Tribe has commented on the proposed MPR at every step in the review process, beginning with the County's first proposal for a Brinnon Subarea Plan in 2001. The Tribe has repeatedly commented about concerns that potentially harmful effects were not being addressed and that important resources would be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. During the course of the process, the County has consistently minimized or completely ignored the Tribe's concerns. Here again, the proposed Development Agreement and Development 1 United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp, 1020. 1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Boldi !/). qmi PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Regulations give only a minimal mention of the local tribes and reflect the County's inadequate process for tribal consultation. Requests for the protection of culturally significant resources have been ignored. Requests for the development of a Stewardship Plan that ensures tribal access, in order to allow members to hunt and gather, have been ignored. The lack of any meaningful consultation in order to ensure the protection of important cultural and natural resources has resulted in an unacceptable proposal, which the Tribe must oppose. 1. Need to Correct Inappropriate Development Agreement Language Concerning Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign nation, meaning that it exists separate and apart from both the Federal and State government. The Tribe is an independent nation, with an independent government. The Tribe has undertaken its own study of the project area and has determined that the kettles and wetlands in the project area contain cultural resources, in need of protection and preservation. The Tribe has made both the County and the Developer aware of this fact, on multiple occasions, and has urged the preservation of the kettles and wetlands. The proposed Development Agreement contains a provision on cultural resources, titled "Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance." In the provision, the County and the Developer propose that only one kettle will be preserved, and only if prior to Developer applying for a grading or building permit ... the PGST applies for and receive a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.. Accordingly, the Developer is: (1) only required to preserve one kettle; and (2) only if the Tribe receives: (a) a determination on the listing of the project area; (b) before the Developer applies for grading and building permits. These requirements are unacceptable. First, the preservation of the kettles and wetlands, that a tribal government has already determined is a cultural resource, should not depend on the validation of a state government. The importance of the site, as recognized by the Tribe, should be sufficient to warrant protection and preservation of the site by the Developer, regardless of any listing with the State. Second, the Tribe already submitted an application with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to list the property as a Traditional Cultural Place. However, the review process is time intensive and involves the gathering of information that is not readily available. The review process could potentially take years. Under the proposed Development Agreement, if the Tribe does not obtain a determination on the listing of the site prior to the Developer applying for its permits i.e., the next stage in the process after the Development Agreement and Development Regulations are finalized), then the kettles will not be preserved. This time requirement is highly inappropriate, as it subjects the preservation of important cultural resources to Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE Kingston, WA 98346 the administrative review process of the State. Essentially creating a race between the Tribe and the Developer, seeing which entity can have its documents processed faster. This is an unacceptable way to provide for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. Despite the title of the section, the Tribe fails to see how its provisions recognize the cultural significance of the area. The Developer Agreement should require the Developer to preserve the kettles and wetlands, without mention or reference to any State processes. 2. Significant Errors and Areas of Noncompliance in the Proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations The Tribe has several concerns with the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations related to density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, sequencing issues with the Development Regulations, and failure to meet the required provisions and conditions of Ordinance 01- 0128-08. The following sections describe each of these issues in more detail. a. Need for More Appropriate Density Allowance for the Proposed Master Planned Resort The Tribe is very concerned about the massive size and scope of the MPR, which is planned for construction in a highly sensitive area that was previously zoned rural residential. To address these concerns, we propose a decrease in the overall density allowance. We also recommend implementing a conditional approval structure for each phase of the development, based on the Developer's ability to meet required performance standards. i. Need for a Reduction in Overall Density of Master Planned Resort The Draft Development Agreement, Section 8.1, proposes 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space, and indoor and outdoor recreation spaces. This will essentially create a large town on the outskirts of Brinnon, significantly changing the landscape and greatly increasing the intensity of land use in the Brinnon area. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Brinnon's total population was 797 in 2010.2 With the proposal for 890 residential units associated with the MPR, and assuming 2.5 persons per household, we would expect to see an additional 2,225 people residing in the area at full build out. The number would more than double the population of Brinnon and would be comparable to the population of Port Ludlow, which had a population totaling 2,603 residents in 2010.3 Under the current proposal, the rural character of the Brinnon area will be lost and replaced by a more urban land use. Having short-term homes for a portion of the American Fact Finder. United States Census Bureau. Brinnon CDP Washington. 2010 Total Population. 3 American Fact Finder. United States Census Bureau. Port Ludlow CDP Washington. 2010 Total Population. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 3 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 total residential units does not necessarily limit environmental impacts and may actually increase the amount of vehicle traffic, vessel traffic and recreational shellfish harvesting. The Tribe recommends that the County re -consider the total density of the MPR in comparison with that of nearby rural towns and resorts. The County should reduce the total number of residential units, both permanent and temporary, to a more appropriate and manageable number, by at least two-thirds of what is currently proposed. ii. Need for a Conditional Approval Structure for Master Planned Resort Development Under the Development Agreement proposal, the Developer may be expected to correct any areas of noncompliance before being allowed to continue to full build out. However, the proposal gives the Developer unlimited time to do so and guarantees the approval of full build out to 890, units no matter the circumstance. As proposed, the Development Agreement does not provide the County with options for holding the Developer accountable if things go wrong. The proposal does not describe how the County would respond to any areas of noncompliance that occur after full build out. Additionally, the development would proceed even if there are failures that cannot be corrected, such as with saltwater intrusion in groundwater wells, for example. According to the proposed Development Agreement, if saltwater intrusion occurs the Developer would be required to provide potable water to the affected residents but then would be allowed to continue to full build out, even with the aquifer being permanently degraded. Given the enormous size and intensity of the proposed development in a highly sensitive natural area, the Development Agreement does not go far enough to hold the Developer accountable for potentially significant harmful effects to the environment. The County should implement better safeguards to protect our valuable resources. We recommend that the County consider removing the full build out of 890 units from the draft Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Instead, the Development Agreement would include only the first phase of the development on a conditional basis. Remaining phases would be approved at a future date, based on the Developer's ability to meet specific measurable performance criteria. The development under Phase 2 would not be approved unless the Developer was able to demonstrate in Phase 1 that performance standards had been met, as specified. For example, the Developer would demonstrate that no saltwater intrusion was present in groundwater wells; degradation of water quality had not occurred; all monitoring requirements had been completed; wildlife management criteria had been met; wastewater treatment facilities had been approved and constructed; downgrades or closures in nearby shellfish harvest areas had not occurred; required mitigation measures had been implemented, and so on. Failure to meet specific performance standards during the build out period may indicate a likelihood that impacts would continue into future phases and even after the Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 at, PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 build out is complete. Therefore, during Phase 1 the Developer would be required to correct any areas of noncompliance and would not be approved for any further development if performance standards were not achieved. In the event of failure to meet performance requirements, Phase 1 would be considered the end of the MPR build out and no further development would be allowed. Likewise, if Phase 2 indicated failures in performance, the Developer would not be approved to continue to Phase 3. Given the enormous size and intensity of the proposed development and its risks to the integrity and character of the area, a system of conditional approval would provide a useful tool for holding the Developer accountable and preventing significantly harmful impacts in future phases or after build out. b. Need for Enforceability and Specificity in the Development Agreement and Development Regulations The draft Development Regulations and draft Development Agreement lack the specificity and enforceability that are necessary to ensure the protection of resources over the term of the agreement and after build out. It is not clear in the documents whether or not the County will have the appropriate measurable criteria to enforce the development standards. For example, County staff recommended revisions Development Regulations Matrix Item #5) require that Development Regulations include the following restrictions: "Short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone." This requirement is consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08 Condition 63aa, which calls for 65% of rental and time-share residents per JCC 18.15.123(2). However, the Development Regulations do not explain how Jefferson County will track and enforce a 65% short-term residency and for how long. Without specific enforceable measures in place, the Developer or a future owner would be able to replace short-term residents with permanent residents during and after the build out period. A transformation from short-term to permanent residents is likely to have a significant impact on the wastewater system, water supply and water quality in the area. The environmental impact assessment did not consider these effects. According to the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan, the vision for the MPR was very different from the Port Ludlow MPR. It states that, "We envision the Black Point MPR to be significantly different and smaller in scale than the Port Ludlow MPR in that it would be less structured towards development of permanent residential accommodations and more so towards providing recreational opportunities and support services for the traveling public in a manner that will benefit local residents."4 Without a specific method for tracking and enforcing the short-term residencies over the course of the MPR build out and after build out, it is highly likely that we will see an increase in permanent residents at the MPR, which would more truthfully resemble the Port Ludlow MPR. BOCC Preferred Alternative Draft. Brinnon Subarea Plan. May I. 2002. p. 45. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -- Kingston, WA 98346 Other sections of the Development Agreement that will need more specificity and enforceability include water quality monitoring (Section 6.2 and Appendix N), water supply monitoring (Section 6.2, Appendix 0), wastewater treatment (Section 6.2, Appendix 1), wildlife management (Section 8.8.4, Appendix P) and others. These sections of the Development Agreement lack enough specificity to ensure appropriate implementation and lack provisions for establishing a County tracking and enforcement system. The Development Agreement and Development Regulations should outline more specific requirements, such as type and frequency of monitoring, frequency of reporting, and a more detailed process for identifying and selecting a wildlife fence in coordination with other entities. Additionally, a more measurable system of enforcement and penalties for any noncompliance both during and after the build -out period should be clearly identified. c. Need for More Appropriate Agreement Terms and Build -Out Period The draft Development Agreement Section 2.2 states that its Term is as follows: The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date to five (5) years after the end of the build -out period described in Section 2.3. The Build -Out Period is defined in Section 2.3 as follows: The build -out period for purposes of RCW 36.7013.180 shall be twenty-five 25) years from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases described in Section 10, whichever is later. In essence, the language as written provides the Developer with an endless Development Agreement term and limitless time period for the MPR build out. It is not clear why the County has provided the Developer with this extraordinary build -out term. The term of the Agreement should have a firm expiration date with a specific limited period for MPR build out. We recommend a ten to fifteen -year build -out period and Development Agreement term that is from the effective date to the end of the build- out period. d. Need for More Appropriate Sequence for Development Agreement and Development Regulations Review Process The process for reviewing the draft Development Agreement, its appendices, and draft Development Regulations is puzzling at best. According to State law, RCW 36.70B.170(1), "a development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." The County's proposed Development Regulations set forth the permitted uses, density standards and zoning development standards and cannot duplicate existing local Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 i PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -- Kingston, WA 98346 codes for stormwater, critical areas, land division and site developments Therefore, it is understood that Development Regulations would be in place before determining whether or not the Development Agreement is consistent with them. The MPR Development Agreement Section 8.1, Permitted Uses and Density Standards; Zoning, gives reference to an Appendix A, which is Chapter 17.60 of the Jefferson County Code, the proposed amendment to the Development Regulations, However, Development Agreement Appendix A is blank, and the Chapter is not actually provided because it has not yet been adopted by the BOCC. The simultaneous review of both documents is highly problematic for reviewers. Since standards and zoning regulations are only provided in draft form, it is impossible to make an appropriate assessment of Development Agreement compliance. We support the July 6, 2016 comments of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, which include the following paragraphs: In the absence of such regulatory directives as required... 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. In line with the above comments, we recommend that the County first consider whether or not the Development Regulations are appropriate before attempting to consider any adoption of the Development Agreement. The approved Development Regulations, rather than the draft version, must be made available to reviewers so they may determine whether or not the draft Development Agreement is consistent with the regulations. e. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128- 08 Conditions In January 2008, the BOCC approved Ordinance 01-0128-08, adopting a proposal for the MPR with conditions. According to the County's staff, the Development Agreement "is the best vehicle to ensure compliance with 30 conditions."6 However, it is Jefferson Countv Informational Briefing Presentation. Januar) ° 8. 2018. p.16. 6 Jefferson County Informational Briefing Presentation. January 8. 2018, p. 8. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 s a0ti PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 clear that the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations fail to meet the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. The Tribe has identified multiple areas of noncompliance, as described in the following section. i. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(j) for Tribal Consultation The Tribe has attempted, on several occasions, to meet with the County in order to participate in meaningful government -to -government consultation regarding the M PR project. The Tribe has been operating under the assumption that they were invited to meet with the County in order to provide a detailed discussion of the Tribe's concerns in regards to the MPR Project, in other words, to have their voice heard by the County and the Developer. To date, the Tribe does not feel as though its concerns have been heard or addressed. The Tribe is concerned that it was invited to participate in discussions merely to fulfill a procedural consultation requirement and that neither the County, nor the Developer, feel any need to resolve or address the Tribe's concerns. There have been several meetings that have brought the same issues to light, again and again, with no resolutions reflected in the proposed documents. This is not meaningful consultation. For example, the Tribe has emphasized to the County, on multiple occasions, that the Kettle Ponds and Black Point hold cultural significance to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has asked that the County and the Developer modify their proposed plan to destroy the integrity of the Kettles. The Development Agreement language that the County put forth to respond to the Tribe's request does not address the Tribe's concerns. Instead it evokes further frustrations and puts pressure on the Tribe to take responsibility to prove the cultural significance of the Kettles. Then, the Tribe was asked to review the proposed language and did so in a meeting with the Developer and the County. The Tribe submitted comments on the Development Agreement language. The revisions the Tribe made to the language were not taken into consideration and the suggested changes from the Tribe were not made. In essence, all of the Tribe's efforts and discussions were a waste. In addition, although we discussed the development of a stewardship plan that would ensure access for hunting and gathering by tribal members, such a plan was not included in the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Recently, a neighboring Tribe has expressed views that do not align with the views of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. However, the County must remember that the tribes are sovereign nations, meaning that each tribe is separate and individually govern themselves in all aspects, including cultural heritage. No other tribal, state, or federal government has the right to dictate to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe the cultural significance of the area. As each tribe has differing historical accounts, each tribe may ascribe a different cultural significance to the area. The County should recognize that one tribe does not speak for all of the tribes in the area. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 r PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 ii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for Protection of Nearby Natural Resources including the Protection of Shellfish Harvesting Areas Ordinance 01-0128-08(60)(iv) finds that pursuant to JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c), the subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and anticipated land use development, including compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Development Agreement, Section 6. 1, calls for the Developer to recognize the importance of Hood Canal being "just as important to the success of the MPR as it is to those who use Hood Canal for recreation and subsistence." Section 6.2 requires the Developer to address demonstrated impacts of the MPR on nearby natural resources, including water quality both on-site and off-site. JCC Section 18.15.126(g) for master planned resorts requires the following: A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the development. The Development Agreement fails to provide any protection for shellfish resources adjacent to the MPR, as required. The Development Agreement does not include a description of how the MPR would minimize or eliminate any harmful effects to the shellfish beds, does not consider the potentially significant effects that 2,225 new residents would have on nearby shellfish harvest areas and does not include any action plan to address potential closures or downgrades of shellfish harvest areas. The proposed MPR would be located just minutes from two adjacent public beaches, on the Duckabush and the Dosewallips Rivers, which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area and to the general public. The proposed MPR will create an increase in recreational harvesters, both short-term and permanent residents, intensifying the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves in Hood Canal is sporadic and increased pressure from additional harvesters without an annual enhancement would result in a decline in the existing resource over time. We are also concerned that additional contaminated stormwater runoff, increased vessel traffic and contaminated groundwater could result in significant water quality degradation in Hood Canal leading to additional downgrades in the status of the shellfish harvest areas. In 2015, the Washington State Dept. of Health (DOH) reported that one water sampling location on Dosewallips and two Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 9 r PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -- Kingston, WA 98346 locations on Duckabush were in Threatened status and additional locations on each tideland were failing into a concerned status. In 2017, we received notice from DOH regarding Hood Canal #3 Growing Area on the Duckabush River. In response to DOH marine sampling results from areas near the mouth of the Duckabush River, failing the 90th percentile fecal coliform NSSP standard in 2016 and 2017, DOH will be downgrading a portion of the Hood Canal #3 Growing Area to Conditionally Approved status. The presence of the MPR, in addition to other development, increasing vessel traffic, stormwater runoff, and other impacts in the region will have a cumulative effect on shellfish species. Additional water quality impacts from the proposed MPR in these sensitive areas would likely result in additional shellfish area downgrades and closures. These impacts have a significant cultural and economic impact on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has proposed a mitigation plan for the shellfish impacts of the MPR (See Appendix A) to the County and the Developer; the mitigation plan included seeding beaches on the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers with clam and oyster seed. The shellfish mitigation proposal is based on only 1% of the MPR population, while an even larger increase in recreational harvesters is likely. In addition, the mitigation proposal does not include the harvest of other shellfish species, such as crab, that are also likely to be impacted by the MPR. However, the shellfish beach mitigation, as proposed, would provide a benefit to the Tribe, and to all tribes that harvest in the area, as well as the general public. The Tribe has not received any official response from the County or the Developer regarding its shellfish mitigation proposal. The Tribe's shellfish mitigation plan was not included in the draft Development Agreement or Development Regulations. The County cannot claim it has met its requirements under Ordinance 01-0128-08(63)0) for consultation with the tribes while at the same time ignoring the Tribe's proposed mitigation for impacts to shellfish in the adjacent areas. In addition, the BOCC cannot claim it has met the requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for the protection of nearby natural resources. iii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and Chapter 18.22 JCC for Protection of Critical Areas State law requires that counties ensure any Master Plan Resort is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas (RCW 36.70A.360(4)(d) Master Planned Resorts). The Development Agreement Section 8.4 Critical Area Standards states that the allowed uses within the critical areas of the MPR "shall be determined based upon the Jefferson County Critical Area requirements, Chapter 18.22 JCC", which is found in Development Agreement Appendix C. In addition, Development Agreement Section 8.8.7 addresses compliance with Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01 - Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 10 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 0128-08, which describes a required "conservation easement protecting any wetlands and their respective buffers identified or created on the Property." We are very troubled by the Developer's plan to remove 20,700 sq. ft. of wetland and associated buffers in and around Wetland B of the MPR, in direct conflict with state and local regulations, and Sections 8.4 and 8.8.7 of the Development Agreement. The MPR includes the placement of 300,000 cubic yards of fill in Wetland B for the purpose of placing a plastic liner and creating a stormwater/wastewater storage basin in Kettle B see Development Agreement, Section 10.1.3 Phase 1 and FSEIS). Therefore, the proposal is in direct conflict with Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance and Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 for the protection of wetlands. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations lack any explanation for why the County would allow these variances to their development standards and regulations. The County fails to provide any rationale for allowing the Developer to design the entire MPR project around this exemption for the purposes of creating a catchment basin in Kettle B. Therefore, the County cannot claim that the Development Agreement and Development Regulations have met the required conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and required Critical Area Ordinance (JCC Chapter 18.22) while the MPR design for Wetland B remains audaciously noncompliant. iv. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) for the Examination of Ecological Impacts As stated previously, the Tribe is concerned with the MPR plans to retain stormwater in Kettle B with dual functions of stormwater treatment by way of retention and infiltration and water supply for fire safety and irrigation. Condition H of Ordinance 01-0128-08 clearly states that, "the possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved." To date we have seen no documentation that this condition has been achieved. We support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to conduct "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." We also support the Planning Commission's recommendation for "a detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff generated onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite." Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 i PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE Kingston, WA 98346 Additionally, it is unclear how the ecological impact of filling a wetland to construct a stormwater pond may be mitigated. The ecology of a natural wetland, especially not one that exists in the context of an extraordinary geological feature such as Kettle B, will not be replicated by typical constructed wetlands. The likelihood of success for achieving any ecological function with a constructed wetland is yet to be determined. Overall, the Tribe is highly concerned that the County has not examined the Developer's water plan in more detail and independently from the Developer before proposing to move forward with the Development Agreement. The BOCC cannot claim to be compliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) until a comprehensive ecological examination has been completed and all concerns have been addressed with regard to the Developer's water plan that alters unique geological features and wetlands. V. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) for the Development of a Water Quality Monitoring Plan The proposed water quality monitoring plan is lacking in scope and sample frequency. We previously informed the County of these concerns in a comment letter, dated May 1, 2017. However, despite our concerns, the sample locations remain as originally proposed by the Developer, the sample locations are limited to three sites within Pleasant Harbor, despite Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) requiring "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program." The sites within Pleasant Harbor should not be considered offsite, due to their close proximity to Statesman's own marina. Monitoring within the marina area will be more likely to detect pollution from vessel activities such as illicit discharges of bilge water or sewage than from additional stormwater runoff. The language in condition R, "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading", offsite is intended to mean waters which may receive pollution from sources associate with the resort including stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or atmospheric deposition from vehicle emissions. We do not expect these potential effects to be limited to or concentrated in Pleasant Harbor. Additional sites must be located in marine waters downgradient from the proposed infiltration basins, due to the direct connection between the sea -level aquifer and the nearshore marine waters. We support the use of monitoring wells to detect contamination of groundwater by pollutants but given that the groundwater will ultimately discharge to marine water, it is prudent to sample marine water where groundwater receiving infiltrated stormwater would be expected to discharge. Discharge and/or contaminant loading is intended to mean that concentrations and discharge are to be measured to calculate a contaminant load. By measuring concentration and discharge at points along the assumed pathways of pollution transport, one can better understand the connection between pollution source and sink, which would be useful for understanding where pollutants are being removed and whether by degradation, attenuation and/or filtration. This language supports our Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 12 ata PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE Kingston, WA 98346 request for consideration of the fate and transport of contaminants expressed in our comments dated May 1, 2017 and January 19, 2017. The parameters to be measured are limited to the basic parameters listed for general aquatic life criteria. Additional parameters are needed to ensure marine water quality is not degraded by increased concentration of metals and organic pollutants, including copper, lead, zinc, PAHs, nutrients and pesticides and herbicides. Section VII(A)(2) states "sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies, to avoid duplication of effort data from other agencies may be used if possible." Mussel cages were deployed this year by the Tribe, in coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, as part of the Puget Sound Mussel Monitoring program for Stormwater Action Monitoring. Data from these mussel cages should be used, both to establish a baseline and to detect exceedances, as stated in our comments dated May 1, 2017 and January 19, 2017. The water quality monitoring plan VI(2) states prior to the first development permit application being submitted, a report will be provided to Jefferson County Public Health describing the proposed best management practices for protection of water quality. We expect the BMPs proposed include stormwater pretreatment upstream of infiltration basins. Infiltration of stormwater in a kettle will not be sufficient by itself, as the capacity for removal of contaminants by soil is finite. Soil chemistry must be considered to adequately remove contaminants by soil, 7 and condition (q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires it. Section VI(10) of the plan states that methodology and quality assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the BMPs are approved. This provision suggests an opportunity for development of an adaptive management plan, as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08 (r). Adaptive management is intended to increase the ability to fashion timely responses in the face of new information and in a setting of varied stakeholder objectives and preferences. Section VI(5) states that "For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort". It seems this would cover how to respond to a water quality exceedance, but it is unclear how adaptive management will inform the appropriate responses and how they will be agreed upon. Additional work is needed to craft an appropriate adaptive management plan. VIIIA) states sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable water quality standards for a period of five years. Sample frequency should not be reduced until the build out of the resort has been achieved. Exceedance criteria in monitoring wells must be as stringent as drinking water standards, whether or not the sentinel wells sampled are utilized for drinking water Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 13 17 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT m 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 purpose. Sentinel wells are not only an early warning system but must trigger a response required under VI(5). The water quality monitoring plan must be corrected to address these issues before the County considers it complaint with the Ordinance. A. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(n) for the Development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan We have yet to see any Wastewater Treatment Plan for the MPR project. Currently the Development Agreement, Appendix I, includes a reference to pages 931 - 932 of the FEIS, which includes a preamble stating the intention for the development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan, but none is provided. To date a plan has not been produced, according to email communications between PGST and Statesman via the County. Because the Developer plans to discharge treated wastewater into Kettle B for reuse in irrigation and fire suppression, it is important to ensure an adequate system of treatment. Without any plans for a system we are unable to determine whether the proposed project will be appropriate. Until a Wastewater Treatment Plan is provided, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed MPR will meet the requirements of Chapter 246-272B WAG, Jefferson County Code 08.15.100, Ordinance 01-0128-08 63)(n) and Development Agreement Section 8.10. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant. vii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(t) for Addressing Impacts of the Pleasant Harbor Marina Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(t) states the following: The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. (Italics added) The Development Agreement fails to address the adaptive management program requirement, as identified by Condition T. We are concerned with the potential for additional vessel traffic as a result of this project causing degradation of water quality. While a pump -out station is located within Pleasant Harbor, we seek assurances that operators of the proposed MPR will actively enforce the rules prohibiting discharge of sewage from vessels, as well as discharges of grey water, bilge water or fuel. Covenants for the marina will need updating. Per the 2006 Marina Impacts Analysis, water quality monitoring station #293 "meets standards but with some concerns." An increase in the intensity of use associated with the marina and Pleasant Harbor as a result of the MPR will likely generate additional concerns. The County cannot claim it has met the Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 14 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 requirements of this condition without providing an appropriate adaptive management program to address potentially significant impacts to Pleasant Harbor. Additionally, the Developer's economic analysis of the MPR should include an assessment of impacts to fisheries and commercial shellfish as a result of the increase in vessel traffic from the additional MPR residents. viii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(p) for the Development of a Neighborhood Water Policy We are unclear how Condition P of Ordinance 01-0128-08 has been satisfied. The Ordinance requires that a Neighborhood Water Policy be established which requires Statesman to provide access to their water supply in the event that the neighbors waters supply is affected by seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusions would occur in response to pumping of the aquifer and given that the neighboring wells would draw from the same aquifer, shifting production from one well to another would not improve the aquifer condition in the long term. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(p). ix. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(1) for the Protection of Wildlife The proposed Development Agreement, by virtue of its adoption by reference of the November 2017 Revised Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP), contains incomplete, inadequate and ineffective provisions to mitigate the impacts of the MPR on wildlife, particularly on the Duckabush elk herd. The RWMP only partially meets the requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1). The RWMP still contains outdated information about the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd, including the erroneous statement that it is a migratory herd. If the RWMP is to be used as a blueprint for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife, it must be based on the best available scientific information. Erroneous information detracts from the credibility of the Development Agreement. Second, the RWMP does not contain a definitive, enforceable commitment that wild animals will not be killed when conflicts arise. Despite Ordinance 01-0128-08's requirement that non- lethal means must be used to address wildlife damage, the Development Agreement and RWMP do not specifically prohibit lethal removal of animals. The Development Agreement and/or RWMP must contain an enforceable provision that wild animals will not be killed to prevent wildlife damage, except in cases where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety. The Development Agreement and RWMP fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. The new provision relating to the installation of a deterrent fence contains only a single, ambiguous sentence, stating only that "the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 15 aeQ PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE —Kingston, WA 98346 of PGST to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access." Furthermore, the RWMP is internally inconsistent, stating that the fence will be built only "as a last resort." There is a need for the Development Agreement and RWMP to describe the fence in sufficient detail (including where and when it will be built) to allow the Tribes and the Jefferson County staff to evaluate whether the applicant has met the County's expectations for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife. The major shortcoming in the revised plan is that it still does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow the assessment of risk or the likelihood of success. Evaluating the potential efficacy of management actions, or their impacts on wildlife is not possible because the descriptions of these actions are vague and incomplete. Any statement of proposed actions that is intended to be legally binding must contain performance standards that are objective, quantifiable, and measureable. The Development Agreement and RWMP fails to identify such standards. It does not adequately describe the conditions tinder which remedial management actions will be taken and leaves too much discretion to the Developer to decide when such actions are necessary. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe cannot afford wildlife losses brought about by poor planning and a lack of commitment to wildlife stewardship by the Developer. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. Every hour that the elk spend in high human density areas inaccessible to tribal hunters is an hour that our tribe is denied its treaty right to hunt. In addition to these comments, we support the letter submitted by Tim Cullinan, Point No Point Treaty Council, concerning the proposed Wildlife Management Plan. 3. Conclusion As proposed, the Development Agreement includes inappropriate language with regard to the recognition of culturally significant areas. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations present errors and areas of noncompliance related to density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, inappropriate sequencing of the review, and the failure to meet required provisions and conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Our concerns with regard to cultural resources, shellfish harvest areas, impacts to wetlands, water quality degradation, and effects on wildlife have not been addressed. Therefore, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe opposes the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement and proposed Ordinance amending Title 17 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County code. We would appreciate being informed about any actions related to the MPR project that Jefferson County's Board of County Commissioners and Department of Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 16 s PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Community Development plan to take now or in the future. We look forward to continuing a meaningful process for government -to -government consultation. Thank you. Since y, Je omy Sullivan Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 17 at, PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE —Kingston, WA 98346 APPENDIX A Shellfish Seeding Mitigation The increase in residents into the Pleasant Harbor MPR area will have an impact on the public beaches in the area. Both the Duckabush and the Dosewallips are minutes away from the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR project. In order to mitigate the impact from increased non -treaty intertidal harvest, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe proposes the following: 1) 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years to be split between Duckabush and Dosewallips 2) 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips Shellfish Seeding Mitigation Calculations The calculations used to determine the quantities and frequencies of the proposed shellfish seeding mitigation are as follows. 890 residential units with an average occupancy of 2.5 persons per unit will increase the seasonal local population by an estimated 2,225 persons. This number does not include the projected increase in daytime visitors that will be drawn to the area by the golf course and other retail establishments associated with the project, or the projected increase in the local population stemming from new employment created by the project. If 1% of the new Black Point residents harvest clams and oysters on each of the approximately 90 daylight low tides 0 MLLW or lower between the months of March and September, then harvest effort will increase by approximately 2,000 person -harvest - days per year (0.01 x 2225 x 90). Assuming that each person harvests their limit of 40 Manila clams on each low tide, the 2,000 -person harvest days will result in a harvest of 80,000 clams per year and 240,000 clams over three years. Manila clam seed takes three years to reach harvestable size and survival during this period ranges from 5-25%. Based on this survival the 1 million clam seed proposed as a seeding amount every three years would be expected to produce between 50,000 and 250,000 harvestable clams. This range encompassed the harvest increase of 240,000 clams that the project is expected to generate. Assuming that each person harvests their limit of 18 Pacific oysters on each low tide, the 2,000 -person harvest days will result in a harvest of 36,000 oysters per year and 144,000 oysters over 4 years. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 18 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE Kingston, WA 98346 Each bag of seeded oyster cultch yields 240-900 adult oysters (this is based on an average of 300 shells per bag, 8-12 spat per shell, and 10-25% survival of spat to adulthood) after four years of growth. Based on these assumptions, the 400 bags of seeded cultch proposed as a seeding amount every four years would be expected to produce between 96,000 and 360,000 harvestable oysters. This range encompasses the harvest increase of 144,000 oysters that the project is expected to generate. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 19 C(TW effbocc r From: V susieretter <susieretter@gmail.com> ` ` t... ,. i y Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 11:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort I urge you to vote "YES" in favor of the Pleasant Harbor Resort. Our county is in desperate need of additional tax resources to help with many needed services that are currently under budgeted. This project is a golden opportunity for you to meet some or all of those needs by not having to raise taxes. Your constituents told you loud and clear through the "No Vote" on Prop 1 that they are NOT in favor of higher taxes. Let them know you hear them by voting "YES" in favor of the Pleasant Harbor Resort. Thankyou Susan Retter 91 Montgomery Lane Port Ludlow WA 98365 360-437-2581 Susieretter@gmail.com Sent frorn my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Jefferson County BOCC, Tim Radliff <timradliff@msn.com> Monday, April 09, 2018 12:40 PM jeffbocc Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort In case there is not enough time for me to speak tonight, I would like to share my thoughts, if I may. At first, I thought the debate surrounding the PHMPR was best served by the desires of the people of Brinnon. In the fullness of time, it has become apparent that it really is a county -wide issue, due to the economic issues facing Jefferson County, which you explained during your listening tour in Port Ludlow, last winter. Anyway, it seems to me that a well-planned, ecologically -friendly resort would be a good fit for South Jefferson County. I would certainly oppose a heavy manufacturing proposal, given the area's pristine beauty. I don't pretend to be an expert on the economics of the leisure industry but I would think that the boost of real estate taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, wages, et al, would certainly help the coffers of Jefferson County and other taxing bodies? And won't most of the monies taken in by the resort be 'out-of-town' money, which is a real boost? A local Jeff Co. official recently told a group of us that the County Officials were wary of the failures of projects in other counties, and didn't want to subject the residents to such calamities. That is truly understandable. Well, I think the time has come for bold measures, and I'd like to see you approve this project ... for the good of the people of Jefferson County. On a side note, I see quite a few new houses being built around Port Ludlow, so that should help the real estate tax coffers! Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Tim Radliff 4/9/2018 3:57:18 PM C qRRING P' U.S. Bank +13607653895 P. 1 of 1 APR 0 9 2018 April 9, 2018 Dear Board of County Commissioners, x • Thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments on e Aq . r Marina expansion process. I am a lifelong Quiicene resident and user of the marina in question. As you know It is a natural harbor, very protected and a very beautiful and desirable place to spend time. While keeping our boat in the marina, it was our pleasure to witness the improvements made to the existing business both for our pleasure and safety but also for the wellbeing of the harbor Itself.. it was always our feeling that care and thoughtful planning went into the give and take of the permitting process (thus far) and the resulting product was beneficial to the business, the projects opposition, the boaters and the community. This project will offer wonderful living accommodations not available anywhere else in south Jefferson County. If this project can't be permitted I'm wondering what project would EVER be acceptable. Please consider this a plea for acceptance of the proposed project. Very. sincerely, Mari P 'lllips.. 450 Penny Creek Rd. Quilcene, WA 98376 360 531 2776 C RECEIVEDIIGyRECORD To: Board of County Commissioners APR ® 9 2018 From: Maria E. Mendes, 11 Danbury Court, Kala Point, WA r. rptDate: April 6, 2018 - V Subject: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort a, Much has been made recently about maintaining the rural character of Jefferson County. This is a key component of the Comprehensive Plan under revision. Key elements of the rural character are the beauty of the natural environment and the relatively low population density of the area. The Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort as currently proposed is not consistent with this. This development will be comprised of approximately 890 dwelling units, a nine hole golf course, and associated hardscape areas space for parking, etc. thus detracting from both elements. This development as proposed will negatively impact the environment, especially water quality. There has been insufficient analysis of the impact of storm water runoff on the Hood Canal and its fish and shellfish resources. Further, even a nine hole golf course requires vast amounts of water and chemicals to keep it green. We are in an area, which despite its heavy rain season, has been subject to drought in the summer, peak golf season. This impact has not been addressed. Although there is a proposed water quality monitoring plan, detection of a problem does not prevent the negative impact on the aquifer. Any negative impact will have a destructive effect on shell fish beds. As a person who has witnessed the long and costly effort to restore oyster beds in Long Island Sound, I say this is not a risk worth taking. There is also the impact on the two unique water bodies, Kettles, ponds created by melted glacial ice. These would be destroyed, not preserved. For Kettle B, which is 12 acres and 150 feet deep, this involves removing 20,700 square feet of wetland by clearing it of vegetation, filling it, lining it, and using it for sewage treatment. Kettle C, which is six acres and 100 feet deep, would be used as a storm water runoff basin. This type of destruction is not "green," nor does it "preserve" the kettles, but it does negatively affect the kettle's contribution to aquifer recharge. With regard to density, a development of this size will increase traffic on US 101. This will be concentrated in the good weather months, since a number of these units will be for short term occupancy. The infrastructure in this area is already strained in these months with the ever increasing number of tourists on the way to the National Park and Forest areas as well as our State Parks. The traffic analysis done as part of the FSEIS was conducted in the mid 2000's. The traffic study is both dated and flawed. We are ten years on, traffic has increased and the study has not been updated. One estimate is that traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. In addition, the original traffic study only analyzed accidents at intersections. It did not take into account accidents caused by improper passing, swerving to avoid road obstructions and wildlife, and distracted driving as drivers take in the amazing beauty of the area. US 101, a two lane narrow road with limited shoulders, is not immune to these types of accidents. It is not that development should be avoided, rather it should be of reasonable size, consistent with the rural character of the area, preserve natural features of the area, and protect the Hood Canal and the shell fish beds. The development as currently proposed does not do this. XOCA LIq g I IFA PUBLIC COMMENT 4 /9/1 8 OR0 Arnnn 0 9 X018 Todd Wexman F COUNTYIpresentlyspeakonbehilfoftheBrinnon ",roup whose , Al members have long been committed to the pr(-servLttion andRS enhancement of both the social and natut-al communities in and around the villaJ4 of Brinnon. As a leading member of the above, I've fervently opposed Gart Mann's plans to build onside the Hood Canal. Others have been involved in planning for Brinnon well before Gart Mann came to town. I've been told that Councty planners once met with locals, who iiiiagined their town as a near year- round destination for backpackers, campers, and boaters alike. All of the above was passed over when homebuilder Mann burst onto the scene. Having purchased an abandoned campground and marina on prime waterfront property,, he cherished plans to build what is known in financial circles as a CID --that is, a Community Interst Development. These are corporate -sponsored private subdivisio{n}s where residents share a golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, open space, a marina and other amenities in common --oftentimes gated to keep the rabble out, sometimes not. A single class of wealthy transients typically inhabit these developments, which have been described by social critics as "hollow villages," with everything for rent and half the houses empty in winter." CIDs have been around for a while, but really began to take off in the 1970s, when financially -strapped local governments saw them as a way to add property taxes to their roles without sunstantial investment. Here and elsewhere County officials moved heaven and earth to promote CIDs, bending rules and regulations in the process. In some cases, the banned them alto- gethert The BOCC iso its notice to approve Stato-manls application included a list of "findings" and made site-specific Comp Plan amendment approval contingent upon certain conditions being met. We of the Brinnon Group have shown Jeffco's findings to be questionable, its conditions vague, andel-more to the poiht - its undeiPlying analysis tragicallly misguided and incomplete. See our well-dicumented critique on -file in the County office. Boo* SIERRA CLUB k. North Olympic Grtiupr, " PO Box 714 Cop Carlsborg, WA 98324 APR 0 0 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissions From: Sierra Club North Olympic Group Date: April 9, 2018 JEFFERSON C° 3 The Sierra Club Board represents over 1400 members on the Olympic Peninsula with 700 members in Jefferson County. We have studied the merits, the environmental concerns and changes to the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development over the years. We view many changes as positive such as lowering the number of units to 800 and reducing the golf course from 18 holes to 9 holes. A further reduction in the number of units would abate growing concerns about water runoff and traffic. We believe that more is needed to lower the increased impact on the land, water and wildlife. A smaller footprint MPR could embrace the Kettle Ponds as a, geological asset that would fit into the National Park ecosystem. A Kettle is a key part of the aquifer recharge area. Filling them in would destroy geological and cultural importance of the native landscape. There needs to be a closer look at the way the Kettle Ponds could help mitigate runoff and pollution concerns regarding development of 800 units and 4100 cars per day in the area. We do not think there has been ample consideration of the value the Kettle Ponds to the area of development. The health of Hood Canal waters is a major concern. Looking at the nitrogen levels which are credited with the low -oxygen problem, the causes are associated with sewage and fertilizers. How will the golf course manage without the use of fertilizers and herbicides in their upkeep? Adding 4100 car trips per day would create congested traffic and increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Pollution created naturally through development has already caused Hood Canal waters to be greatly compromised. The developer is proposing injecting treated sewage water back into the aquafer but current treatments do not adequately cover environmental contamination from metals, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Water is not stable when it travels through the soil even in an aquafer and a compromised Hood Canal would be in harm's way. In consideration of the MPD, it is so important to take seriously the development rights and the rights of all those people whose livelihoods depend upon a healthy Hood Canal. Environmental damage could extend to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands and to wildlife. Please do not allow the development to proceed as planned. There are still too many environmental concerns. Cherri Mann Executive Committee Member Jefferson County, Sierra Club 53 Fairbreeze Dr. Port Townsend, WA 98368 na__Y iC• Wrcj I/ Q When the Planning Commission started the process of looking at draft regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR in January of 2016, 1 had no in depth prior knowledge and no particular opinion about this proposed development. I had no idea how big this proposed development was or how seriously it might impact the delicate arR ® 9 2018 endangered Hood Canal 3a After two years of study, I'm convinced the county has both the 'right-,, ; F., T responsibility to make this development fit our county and the physical site's limitations and strengths, which I do not believe this plan does. In addition to the recommendations put forward by the Jefferson County Planning Commission in their draft regulations and both letters submitted to the BOCC, I believe that the path to making this A development we will not regret for generations into the future would be to ... Vote down the currently draft development regulations and draft development agreement for the Pleasant Harbor MPR as currently proposed, which you have the right to do. Then show your leadership in our county by working with the developer to submit a plan that makes sense for Jefferson County, for Brinnon, for Black Point, and for the Hood Canal. Any adopted proposal should include ... A much smaller development (300 units or less instead of nearly 900) No golf course Preservation of kettles B & C Connection to Olympic National Park and Forest And should make this a resortt respects and high fights, rather than threatens, the particularly sensitive ecology of the Duckabush and Dosewallips outfalls and the Hood Canal that is home to Black Point. Dim Then, commissioners, please again s ow your leadership in creating economic opportunity throughout our county by making a full -steam -ahead commitment to work with county permitting departments to make starting and operating small businesses in Jefferson County a streamlined and common-sense process, to get out of the way of hard-working families who want to start and grow sturdy, family -sized, environmentally conscious and sustainable businesses in south county and throughout Jefferson County. This would be a legacy to be proud of. 4/ 021" -acrclol H OD CANAL ENVI ENTAL COUNCIL Am"ric'a' uique Heritage P. O. BOX 87 S BECK, WASHINGTON 98A( qFi, a f 4` APR 0 9 2010 April 5, 2018 I k E ER S0 'tea P ' YJeffersonCountBoardofCountCommissioners"' P.O. Box 1220 ,P , A NE , Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: Draft Development Agreement — Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort Title 17, Article II - Draft Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code Attention: Commissioners Kathleen Kier, David Sullivan and Kate Dean: The Board of Directors for the Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) has reviewed the Draft Development Agreement for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort (herein referred to as the draft agreement) and the Draft Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code (herein referred to as the draft regulations). The HCEC has serious concerns about these documents as they will guide construction and operation of the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) if approved by the Jefferson County (the county) Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Our concerns are both procedural and substantive in nature. We request that the following comments be entered into the public record. PROCEDURAL ISSUES In letters from Carol Morris, of Morris Law P.C. to Mr. Phillip Hunsucker, the county's Civil Prosecuter, Ms. Morris describes a number of procedural problems with the draft agreement (letter dated January 16, 2018) and the draft regulations (letter dated February 9, 2018). These letters are included here as Attachments A and B. Some of the most problematic issues raised in these letters are as follows. Consistency Between the Agreement and the Regulations It is unclear whether the draft agreement is consistent with the applicable draft regulations because the regulations have not yet been adopted by the county. Clearly, an ordinance amending the Jefferson County Code relating to the proposed MPR (Title 17, Article II) should be adopted before the agreement, which is based on language in the regulations, is approved. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the county has proposed two differing versions of the draft regulations — one proposed by the county staff and the other proposed by the county's Planning Commission. This raises the question of possibly violating due process. It almost certainly adds to the general public's confusion over which version it is being asked to comment on. County staff's January 5, 2018 memorandum consisting of a matrix comparing the two versions does little to lessen the confusion. Indefinite and Unlimited Build -Out Period According to the draft agreement, it will end five years after the build -out period which is twenty five years or five years after the completion of all phases described in Section 10 — or whichever is later. The Page 1 problem is that since there is no deadline for completion of any phase, the county might be approving a perpetual agreement. Vesting Regulations for MPR for an Unlimited Period of Time As noted in Attachment A, the developer benefits from an agreement which vests the regulations for an unlimited period of years. This draft agreement gives the developer vesting rights for not only the procedures relating to the processing of the permits for the development but also substantive regulations, e.g. stormwater regulations. Allowing the developer rights to vest to the regulations in place today ignores the fact that if an attempt by the county to impose new regulations is made, the developer will likely appeal the decision. Although it is not known at present what regulations will be adopted, this situation will most certainly not be in the public interest. These and other procedural problems in the agreement and the regulations need to be corrected in order to protect the county and its citizens from legal or financial difficulties. Otherwise, they may appear to have been drafted for the purpose of providing a substantial benefit to the developer. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES Environmental Issues The language in the draft agreement and draft regulations do little to lessen HCEC's concerns about potential unacceptable environmental impacts from the proposed MPR. We have stated our concerns repeatedly and at every opportunity since the MPR project was proposed in 2006. We believe that any economic benefits from creating another mega resort in the Hood Canal watershed are far outweighed by the potential negative environmental impacts including, but not limited to, significantly higher density, more intensive land uses on Black Point and surrounding area, major topographic alteration, increased demand on groundwater and risk to the aquifer from saltwater intrusion, loss of rural character in the Brinnon area, increased impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff to Hood Canal, loss of open spaces, disturbance to wetlands and loss of wildlife habitat. In particular, the HCEC is concerned about the future of the Black Point kettles, the largest of which is kettle B. The developer plans to fill it with a million cubic yards of excavation dirt and use it to store treated sewage water and excess rainwater for golf course irrigation. We concur with the Port Gamble Sklallam Tribe and the majority of the county's Planning Commission members who have called for preservation of both kettle B and C. Included with this letter please see Attachment C for more detailed information about the history, geology and value of the Black Point kettles. Another issue worthy of reexamination is the Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) for the proposed MPR. We understand that the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) notified the Jefferson County Department of Community Development in a letter dated December 8, 2017 Attachment D) that the WMP did not meet the requirements of the county's ordinance. According to the PNPTC, the revised plan still did not describe management actions in enough Page 2 detail to allow the assessment of risk or the likelihood of success. Without more specificity in the WMP, it is doubtful whether the county would be able to monitor or enforce compliance. The draft regulations state that the MPR developer is responsible for water quality monitoring, supplying data from the state water quality sampling station and other stations on Pleasant Harbor and submitting a summary report to the county (17.80.020(2)(a). The HCEC contends that the county should charge the developer for the county's costs for hiring an independent consultant to perform water quality monitoring and submitting a summary water quality report to the county. Further, the locations for water quality sampling to be performed should be identified to determine whether or not the developer is complying with the prohibition on stormwater discharge into Hood Canal. Social and Economic Issues The HCEC's primary area of interest is potential environmental impacts. However, there are social and economic issues of concern as well. The developer and the county have a responsibility to inform the public about the true costs to the local economy in the event that the MPR is approved. This includes potential impacts during construction and operation. As HCEC has pointed out in previous correspondence, of the estimated 225 permanent operational jobs that would be created, the majority would be low paying jobs. These jobs would pay 80 percent or less of the average median income for the Brinnon area. Construction jobs would fluctuate during various phases of construction. Many jobs would be seasonal and part time. It is difficult to see how this would benefit the Brinnon community economically except for the Canadian based developer and possibly real estate developers. A study of fiscal and economic impacts of destination resorts in Oregon concluded that, after subtracting the costs for services from the gross property and room tax revenue generated by the study resort, only a modest net surplus remained. When the cost of capital facilities including roads, schools, fire and police stations, and other facilities is also accounted for, the net cost to local taxpayers is substantial even after accounting for all known payments the resort would be required to make. (Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon by Central Oregon LandWatch — March, 2009) OTHER ISSUES Questionable Financial Status of Developer Jefferson County has an obligation to determine whether the developer, Statesman Group, is financially able to pay for all phases of construction and operation of the proposed MPR. Statesman Group's submission in 2016 of an alternative proposal entitled "The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community" (often referred to as the "Vision" proposal), called for a smaller, scaled down version of the original proposal. This proposal called for a private/public venture financed with some $37,750,000.00 of public, taxpayer funds. Considering its failed Page 3 detail to allow the assessment of risk or the likelihood of success. Without more specificity in the WMP, it is doubtful whether the county would be able to monitor or enforce compliance. The draft regulations state that the MPR developer is responsible for water quality monitoring, supplying data from the state water quality sampling station and other stations on Pleasant Harbor and submitting a summary report to the county (17.80.020(2)(a). The HCEC contends that the county should charge the developer for the county's costs for hiring an independent consultant to perform water quality monitoring and submitting a summary water quality report to the county. Further, the locations for water quality sampling to be performed should be identified to determine whether or not the developer is complying with the prohibition on stormwater discharge into Hood Canal. Social and Economic Issues The HCEC's primary area of interest is potential environmental impacts. However, there are social and economic issues of concern as well. The developer and the county have a responsibility to inform the public about the true costs to the local economy in the event that the MPR is approved. This includes potential impacts during construction and operation. As HCEC has pointed out in previous correspondence, of the estimated 225 permanent operational jobs that would be created, the majority would be low paying jobs. These jobs would pay 80 percent or less of the average median income for the Brinnon area. Construction jobs would fluctuate during various phases of construction. Many jobs would be seasonal and part time. It is difficult to see how this would benefit the Brinnon community economically except for the Canadian based developer and possibly real estate developers. A study of fiscal and economic impacts of destination resorts in Oregon concluded that, after subtracting the costs for services from the gross property and room tax revenue generated by the study resort, only a modest net surplus remained. When the cost of capital facilities including roads, schools, fire and police stations, and other facilities is also accounted for, the net cost to local taxpayers is substantial even after accounting for all known payments the resort would be required to make. (Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon by Central Oregon LandWatch — March, 2009) OTHER ISSUES Questionable Financial Status of Developer Jefferson County has an obligation to determine whether the developer, Statesman Group, is financially able to pay for all phases of construction and operation of the proposed MPR. Statesman Group's submission in 2016 of an alternative proposal entitled "The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community" (often referred to as the "Vision" proposal), called for a smaller, scaled down version of the original proposal. This proposal called for a private/public venture financed with some $37,750,000.00 of public, taxpayer funds. Considering its failed Page 3 E13-5 application program and its offer of a scaled down version of the proposal, the indication is that Statesman may not have enough money to proceed with the present proposal. Impact Cost Deposit and Performance Bond Requirement The HCEC agrees with other groups and individuals calling for the county to require a review of the financial results and business plan for each phase of the development by an independent consultant before each phase is approved for construction. In addition, the county must do an analysis of the amount of bonding the developer will have and require that amount of bond in the agreement. In a letter dated December 30, 2014, the HCEC proposed an impact cost deposit and performance bond requirement as follows: any approval of such a potentially harmful project in this fragile environment should be conditioned upon a complete analysis of the ascertainable and potential economic impact of the proposed MPR during and after construction. Before construction begins, the developer should be required to (1) deposit the amount of alt ascertainable direct and indirect costs regarding services and infrastructure into a fund available to local government to cover the costs as they are incurred, and (2) furnish a performance bond issued by a highly rated insurer to cover all potential costs that cannot be ascertained beforehand, including repairing any environmental damage incurred over a 50 year period because of the development and the costs of cleanup and restoration if the project is started but abandonded. In this way, the responsible government is attempting to assure no net economic loss to the community .." The county must also prepare an economic analysis of revenue and costs expected from the project, to determine what taxpayers will have to pick up. Traffic Congestion on Highway 101 We remain concerned about the impacts to Highway 101 from the increase in vehicles traveling to and from the airport. Traffic congestion in towns like Hoodsport is already a problem in the summer months. Further, vehicle -related non -point pollution and stormwater runoff entering Hood Canal and more greenhouse gas emissions are likely to increase. During the construction phase, the increase in trucks and other heavy equipment would likely lead to costly road damage, raising the question about who pays for the additional highway repairs. Impacts to the Hood Canal Watershed The still largely undeveloped rural character of the Hood Canal watershed is what sets it apart from the more densely developed and urbanized greater Puget Sound region. Unfortunately, over the nearly 50 years since the HCEC was established, we have seen a gradual "piecemeal" chipping away of the natural landscape from rapid growth and development in our rural areas and fewer open spaces throughout the watershed. Along with other environmental groups and individuals, we place a high priority on protecting what is left of our natural lanscape. The Page 4 proposed MPR must be evaluated with the potential cumulative impacts to the broader Hood Canal watershed. No one wants to see Hood Canal go the way of the rest of Puget Sound. SUMMARY As the decision-making process has dragged on for nearly 12 years, the HCEC has remained consistent in its opposition to the proposed MPR and our support for the local citizen organization, The Brinnon Group, whose members would be the most directly affected by the construction and operation of a very large international destination resort. Our position remains unchanged. We will continue to urge the Jefferson County BOCC to make the right decision and reject the Statesman Group's proposal - for the future of the Hood Canal area and the well being of its citizens. The HCEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft agreement and draft regulations and to share, once again, our serious concerns about the proposed MPR. We respectfully request that our comments be entered into the public record. Sincerely, Donna M. Simmons, President Hood Canal Environmental Council Page 5 f t i t l, l vac v f Morris Law P.C. January 16, 2018 Mr. Phillip Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Dram Development Agreement between Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP Dear Mr. Hunsucker: Thank you for making the draft Development Agreement available to the public for review. Here are our comments on this document: Fourth "Whereas": Here, it is stated -that the Legislature adopted the development agreement process in RCW 36.70B.170-.210 "to strengthen the land use planning process and reduce the costs of development ..." This development agreement appears to have been drafted for the purpose of providing a substantial benefit to the developer in the form of vested rights to any number of development regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and codes relating to management and operation of various facilities. There is nothing in the agreement which describes the consideration provided to the public in exchange. The authorizing statute (RCW 36.70B.170(1)) provides that: "A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." The administrative regulations adopted in order to implement the development agreement process (WAC 365-196- 845(17)(a)(ii)) provides that: "Development agreements do not provide a means of waiving or amending development regulations that would otherwise apply to the property." We can't determine whether this agreement is a proper exercise of police power, given that the development regulations that will govern this development haven't even been adopted. i Seventh "Whereas": Here, it is stated that: "This Agreement constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020." If this is meant to indicate that an appeal of this Agreement could only be filed under chapter 36.70C RCW, this is false. Under RCW 36.70B.200, "if the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the 3304 Rosedale Street NW, Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335-1805 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol®carolmorrislaw.com Web. www.carolmorrislaw.com Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 2 decision on the development agreement." There is no project permit application at this point in time, so it can't be appealed under chapter 36.70C RCW. It is our understanding that the County is attempting to establish the development regulations that will apply to the developer's submission of project permit applications in this agreement. Therefore, this agreement is an exercise of legislative authority -- and the County should be asserting that this is true, because the County is immune from liability for its legislative actions. RCW 4.24.470; Bogan v. Scott Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54, 118 S.Ct. 966, 149 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998). Therefore, the County doesn't need to bend over backwards in an attempt to provide the developer any concession desired by the developer for this project. An appeal of this development agreement could be filed, with the Growth dement Hearings Board . (if it were alleged that the agreement was inconsistent with GMA) or with the court under a constitutional writ of certiorari. See, Leavitt v Jefferson County, 74 Wash. App. 668, 686, 875 P.2d 681 (1994); RCW 7.16.360; RCW 36.70C.020(2). Chapter 36.70C RCW is "the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions The definition of "land use decision" in RCW 36.70C.020(2) is: "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals on: (a) an application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by. law before real property may be improved, modified, ..." This particular development agreement is not a "project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be modified. The County, plans to adopt it in conjunction with the new development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in the same manner as the adoption or an amendment to the comprehensive plan/development regulations (see, Section 17.60.040).1 Therefore, it will be adopted under the County Commissioners' legislative authority, which means it is not appealable. under chapter 36.70C RCW. See, Coffey v. City of .Walla Walla ' 145 Wash. App. 435, 440-441, 187 P.3d 272 (2008). Section 2.2 Term,• Section 2 3 Build -Out Period. The Agreement will end 5 years after the build -out period. The build -out period is 25 years or 5 years after the completion of This draft Development Agreement refers to an Appendix that should have included the new Zoning Code title 17 on Master Planned Resorts. Instead, the referenced Appendix is blank. You have provided me with a link to the drafts of this new Title 17 on Master Planned Resorts, but it is extremely confusing because there is the version recommended by the Planning Commission and the version recommended by the County staff. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 3 all phases described in ection 10, whichever is later. Because there is no deadline for the completion of any phase, the County would effectively be approving a perpetual agreement. The County has no authority to enter into contracts with developers for the purpose of indefinitely freezing development regulations. "The established rule is that municipal corporations have no power to make contracts which will control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties." 10 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. Sec. 29.07 (3`d ed). One legislative power that cannot be contracted away is the exercise of zoning powers. Id., 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, (3d ed), Sec. 9.21 (1986), 4 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, Sec. 24-31 (01 ed 1979). Agreements to protect land from all future rezoning are void as "illegal contract zoning" because such agreements bargain away the local government's police powers. Rathkopf, 2, The Law ofZoning and Planning, Sec. 29A.03 at 29A-33, 34. Although there are no cases in Washington in which a court has addressed the validity of a development agreement of indefinite duration, the Washington courts have held that an interpretation of the vested rights doctrine that would "freeze land use regulations forever" would be an "absurd result." Alliance Inv. Group of Ellensburg, LLC v. City of Ellensburg, 189 Wash. App. 763, 771, 358 P.3d 1227 (2015). Courts in other jurisdictions have also found such agreements invalid: Land use regulations, including the power to zone, involve the exercise of the sovereign's police power. A government may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in the future.' Moreover, contracts purporting to do so are invalid and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz, 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 823-4, 225 Cal.Rptr 43 (1986). See also, Mayor and Council of Rockville v Rlyns Enterprises, Inc., 372 Md. 514, 814 A.2d 469 (2002) (municipality could not bargain away its zoning powers by signing a contract indefinitely binding the municipality); Bollech v Charles County Maryland, 166 F.Supp.2d 443, 453 (Md. App. 2001); City of Farmers Branch v. Hawnco, Inc., 435 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. App. 1968); Geralnes B. V. v. City of Greenwood, Colorado, 583 F.Supp. 830, 841 (Colo. App. 1984). We understand that Section 7.2 provides that "this Agreement reserves the County's authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety." However, this is not the equivalent to an actual expiration date in a development agreement. 1n order for the County to trigger this Section 7.2, it would have to make a finding that there was a serious threat to public health and safety. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2017 Page 4 Also, we would assume that the developer would appeal the County's attempt to impose any new development regulations on its proposed development that were not strictly adopted for the purpose of addressing this health and safety problem. The developer obtains a substantial benefit from a development agreement which vests the development regulations for Pleasant Harbor for an unlimited period of years. The consideration received by the County for this agreement is not apparent from the language of the agreement (if it exists at all). However, it is clear that this agreement, which vests the developer to the development regulations in place today (whatever they may be, we still don't know) will certainly not benefit the public. As stated by the Washington courts: Development interests and due process rights protected by the vested rights doctrine come at a cost to the public interest. The practical effect of recognizing a vested right is to sanction the creation of a new nonconforming use. A proposed development which does not conform to newly adopted laws is, by definition, inimical to the public interest embodied in those laws. If a vested right is too easily granted, the public interest is subverted. Erickson & Associates, Inc. v McLerran, 123 Wash.2d 864, 874, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). Section 2.5, Exhibits and Appendices• Section 3.2,. -Master Plan Components. The development regulations that are supposed to govern the development of the property, and which vest when this development agreement is approved, are referenced as an Appendix. This Appendix is blank. My request for a copy of these development regulations was met by a link which provides two versions of a draft of the development regulations (the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Staff recommendation). It is difficult to provide any informed comments on these documents. Apparently, the County has chosen to adopt procedures that will keep the public in the dark about what development regulations will govern the development of Pleasant Harbor until the day of adoption/approval. Section 4.1.1- Protection of Fishing Rights,• Section 6.2. Impacts of Pleasant Harbor on Nearby Natural Resources: Section 8.3, Stormwater Standards. Here, it appears that the parties will agree that the developer will develop the property during the indefinite term according to the County's Stormwater Management requirements as they currently exist because they apparently will be attached as Appendix B). This means that the County will allow the developer to vest to the existing stormwater development regulations. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 5 The Washington Supreme Court has held that the "Legislature did not intend vesting to preclude enforcement of federal and state environmental laws," and that "state actions Pertaining to stormwaterwere intended to be exempt from the vesting statutes." Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board 187 Wash.2d 346, 365-66, 386 P.3d 1064 (2016). Given that the Washington Supreme Court has held that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to stormwater regulations, the question is why the County would allow the developer to vest to stormwater regulations through a development agreement. It is important that the Department of Ecology be contacted for its position on the language of this Agreement. In Sections 4.1.1. and 6.2, the developer agrees to "operate" the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with a Water Quality Monitoring Plan which we assume has been drafted to be consistent with the existing development regulations. Apparently, the developer plans to claim not only that its development is vested to certain regulations, but also its operations" are vested. The authority for this position is unknown, and again, the Department of Ecology needs to be contacted for its opinion on this issue. Section 8.1 Permitted Uses Again, there is a reference to Appendix A, which is supposed to include development regulations that haven't been adopted. There isn't even a single version of a draft .of these development regulations for the public to provide comment. Section 8.2. Planning Goals and Objectives. Here, the developer claims that this agreement vests the development to "the planning goals adopted by the County in the Comprehensive Plan as of the date of recording this Agreement." This is inconsistent with law: Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement or for all or that part of the build -out specified in the agreement, and many not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 6 RCW 36.70B.180.2 The comprehensive plan is not a zoning ordinance, nor is it a development standard/regulation or an amendment to either. Review the definition of development regulation" in RCW 36.70A.030(7). Also, look at RCW 36.70B.170(3) for a list of the types of things that may be included in a development agreement. Nothing allows the inclusion of planning goals and policy guidance to be vest through a development agreement because they are legislative activities. The County is precluded by the Washington Constitution from delegating its legislative authority to freeze policies and goals in its Comprehensive Plan on specific properties through a contract especially one with indefinite duration). Section 8.3.2, Stormwater Management in Public Roads. Here, the County is required to manage stormwater runoff on all public roads, rights-of-way and easements within the Pleasant Harbor MPR, apparently under all applicable regulations. However, the developer's responsibility for the management of stormwater within the Pleasant Harbor MPR during the next 100 years (or the duration of this Agreement) is vested to some ordinance that was adopted prior to 2018. First, it is highly unusual that the County would sign a contract agreeing to manage stormwater to a particular standard on private property in a contract.' Second, this language includes the County's express agreement to allow the developer to manage stormwater within the MPR, to the regulations in place at the time this Agreement was approved. So, if there is a flooding event within the MPR, and the County and developer are sued for damages to private property, the developer will simply claim that it has no liability, given that it isn't required to manage the stormwater to applicable standards -- this is the responsibility of the County. Again, this issue needs to be brought to the attention of the Department. of Ecology. It also looks like an equal protection issue, as it is unlikely that the County allows other property owners the same advantage. Next, let's imagine that the developer constructs a phase of the MPR twenty years from now, but constructs the roads under the stormwater regulations in place at the time. this Agreement is approved. Would the County accept a road that doesn't comply with the applicable development regulations? I don't know any municipality that would take this step. If the road didn't comply with the applicable development regulations, wouldn't the County have to use public funds to improve the road to the existing development regulations? This is an unconstitutional gift of public funds. 2 Also note that nothing in any of the development agreement statutes allow a developer to vest to any operations." 3 These are not included in the "indemnified claims" in section 11. 1, and section 11.x.1 specifically limits the indemnification to only those claims in 11.1. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 7 Nothing in the development agreement statutes allows the County to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of granting a developer an exemption from the development regulations relating to "management" of stormwater in a development. Section 8.4. Critical Area Standards. Here, the County has agreed to allow the developer to vest to some version of the County's critical areas ordinance. See my comments above. Section 8.5, Land Division Standards. Here, the County has agreed to allow the developer to vest to its permit procedures as they exist in some ordinance. The Washington courts have determined that procedures are not subject to the vested rights doctrine, and there is no need to include procedures here. Graham Neighborhood v. F. G. Associates, 162 Wash. App. 98, 116, 252 P.3d 898 (2011). However, as the years pass, the fact that the procedures adopted in this Agreement are outdated will certainly be a benefit to the developer. The attachments are not recorded against the property, so the public will have no idea what procedures govern the processing of the permits and approvals. This will make it especially hard for the public to find the appropriate version of the old code in order to file any appeals. Section 8.9 Water Service. Here, the developer has agreed to comply with "the most current approved specifications and requirements as determined by the Washington State Department of Health" for the water main extensions and potable water system improvements. Doesn't the County have any public works standards for such facilities? Why is the developer allowed to follow the CWSP as it exists, if this Agreement is of indefinite duration? Is there no possibility that the CWSP will change in years to come? Has this been reviewed by the Department of Health to determine whether it is subject to vesting in an agreement? Section 9.1. County Processing and Review. See comments on Section 8.5 above. Procedures are not subject to the vested rights doctrine, so there is no reason to include them here, -other than to intentionally disadvantage the public. Has the County also agreed to give the developer the benefit of the permit application fees in effect at the time this Agreement is executed for the next 100 years? Section 9.3, Vesting. Here, the County and developer attempt to create the fiction that developer is only vested in this Agreement to development regulations — which isn't true. The developer confirms that the County can't adopt any new or different development regulations during the indefinite and unlimited build -out period. Mr. Phillip Hunsucker January 16, 2018 Page 8 Just to be sure that the developer gets the frill benefit and supreme advantages not afforded to anyone in the County .(or anywhere else), the developer has added Section 9.3.3, which provides that if the. developer forgot to add some facet of the development that isn't vested to any subject, element or condition in this Agreement, then it is vested anywa So, no one actually knows what the development is vested to -- given that the do*eloper and the County have interpreted RCW 36.70B.170 through .210 to include not only development standards, but also the operation and management of ear.: of this MPR. This is an illusory condition and is unenforceable. Note that the developer has included the prohibition on the County's ad y new development regulations except to address a serious threat to the public d safety at least four. :times. It is clear that the developer intends to enforce it;.. County attempts todo so. In Section 9.3.4, the language is contrary to other parts of the Agreement. Here, the developer is required to comply with state or federal laws or regulations of any kind, including stormwater. The other contrary portions of the Agreement which . allow the developer to vest to stormwater and other police power regulations needs to be eliminated. ttkc. vo e"4, t B Morris Law P.C. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 9, 20181 TO: Phillip Hunsucker, Civil Prosecutor, Jefferson County FROM: Carol Morris, Morris Law, P.C. RE: Draft development regulations -- Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Version updated 12/10/17 The County's website provides notice of an upcoming public hearing on the draft development agreement for Pleasant Harbor. However, nothing in this notice provides any information about the purpose of this public hearing. Does the County plan to approve the development agreement? What is the proposed action? The County needs to carefully consider the timing of the adoption of the development regulations and approval of the development agreement. Development agreements are authorized under RCW 36.70B.170 - 210. RCW 36.70B.170(1) provides that "a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under [the Growth Management Act]." Jefferson County plans under GMA. It is impossible to determine. whether or not the development agreement is consistent with the applicable development regulations, if they haven't been adopted. The County doesn't explain whether it plans to adopt the development agreement first or concurrent with the proposed development regulations. To make matters worse, the County doesn't even have one version of the development regulations for the public to review. There are two different versions (one proposed by staff and another proposed by the Planning Commission). The County's distribution of two different versions of development regulations to the public, as well as a development agreement which purports to include the development regulations in a blank exhibit violates due process and fundamental fairness. Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 1 I prepared another memo dated February 7, 2018. This memo supersedes that earlier memo. Sorry for the inconvenience. 3304 Rosedale Street N.W., Suite 200, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: 253-851-5090 Fax: 360-850-1099 Email: carol@carolmorrislaw.com MEMO 2-8-18 Wn.2d 707, 712, 521 P.2d 1173 (1974). Providing a 60 day comment period doesn't solve this problem. Here are my comments on the 12/10/17 draft of the development regulations prepared by the County staff: 17.60.020: "The regulations in this title shall be known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code, ..." The "title" is Title 17, which includes more than the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code, it also includes the Port Ludlow MPR It appears that the County has divided up the Title into Articles, so if Port Ludlow MPR is Article I, then it should be stated here that the Pleasant Harbor regulations in chapters 17.60, 17.65, 17.70, 17.75, 17.80 and 17.85 are in Article II of this Title. 17.60.030: The former language stated that the purpose of this chapter was to set forth development regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The language has been changed in a way that makes no sense: "The purpose ... is to regulate land development uses that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development ... " So, does this mean that these regulations only apply to those uses" that are consistent with the Comp Plan? It doesn't apply and can't be enforced where the use" is inconsistent? 17.60.040: Here, it states that the Master Plan for Pleasant Harbor consists of: (1) regulations the ones in this chapter?); (2) the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (3) Final Environmental Impact Statements (how many are there? There is no identifying information here, like the dates of the EIS's or what they cover); (4) Final Supplemental Impact Statement (again, there is no identifying information, no dates); (5) maps (which maps?); (6) mitigation measures (in what? The unidentified EIS's and FSIS?); and the Development Agreement. This vague language does not provide sufficient information for the public to understand what applies to this development -- and it is too vague for the County to enforce against the developer. In Section 17.60.060, there is another list of the codes, regulations, etc. that apply to the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This list is more detailed and includes additional regulations. Why are these two sections (17.60.040 and .060) different? 17.60.050: The provisions of this title apply to all "land use actions and siting of infrastructure There are no definitions. in the County's code for "land use actions" and "siting of infrastructure." A definition is needed so that there is no confusion in the future about applicability. The public shouldn't have to guess about the situations that will trigger enforcement of certain codes based on ambiguous language. 2 MEMO 2-8-18 17.60.060: Here, the County states that "any land disturbing activity" must comply with other titles of the Code, and various other documents. If there is some reason to distinguish between the undefined "land use actions" in 17.60.050 and the "land disturbing activity" in 17.60.060, why isn't the reference to Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code included in 17.60.050? My point is that the developer must comply with chapter 18.35 JCC, Land Divisions, to divide the property prior to any sale, lease or transfer of any parcel or lot. Division of land is not a "land disturbing activity." (See, 18.10.120.) Although Title 18 is mentioned here, the procedure in chapter 18.15 JCC doesn't contemplate any subdivisions, short plats, or binding site plans in a MPR. (The Planning Commission's draft mentioned a binding site plan, but this appears to have been removed in the staff,version of the development regulations.) It is stated that: "where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and other applicable code provisions or other regulations, the more restrictive shall apply." Are the documents listed in 1 through 4 covered by this? They are not all codes or regulations. 17.60.060: Why were the exemptions deleted? If they were deleted because "it is confusing and potentially difficult to interpret," (staff comment on matrix), I have the same concern with 050 and 060 above, unless the activities that this "title" triggers are defined. 17.60.070: Where did the 890 residential unit cap come from? More terms are used here, and . they need to be defined so that this can be enforced. What is a "short term visitor accommodation unit? Is that the same as a "short-term rentalT' There are no definitions of these terms and they will be difficult to enforce. 17.60.080 and 17.60.090: Here, the County is establishing new regulations for legally nonconforming uses and structures. Given that the County has already adopted regulations for nonconforming uses and structures in Section 18.20.260, and incorporated Title 18 into this chapter or Article, the County is creating confusion about which apply and how conflicting language must be interpreted. Has the County inserted these regulations because only "land disturbing activities" (in 17.60.060) have to comply with Section 18.20.260? 17.60.100: Why are "structures" exempt? 17.65.010: The "purpose" section in a particular zoning district is supposed to explain the purpose of the district. For example, in a residential district, it might be: "This R-1 zoning district is intended to accommodate a pattern of land use that is predominately single-family." The purpose section is needed for each zoning district because the development regulations cannot list every single type of use that may be proposed in the future. When a property owner proposes a particular use that is not listed in the development regulations as either a "permitted," conditional" or "prohibited" use in that district, the Planning Director is required to issue an administrative interpretation of the code and make a decision whether the proposed use is MEMO 2-8-18 compatible with the purpose of the district and the other uses allowed in the district. If the County doesn't describe the purpose of the district, then only the permitted uses provide the basis for the administrative interpretation. This problem is exacerbated here, because the types of uses "permitted" (there are no conditional" or "prohibited" uses,) are widely different in nature. As a result, it is possible that the Planning Staff could allow py type of use not listed as permitted. For example, the land use impacts of a tavern are totally different from a more sensitive use like a single family home, yet they are permitted outright in the same zone. 17.60.020(5): Here, "public facilities" are permitted outright (there are no conditional uses listed, which would allow the decision -maker to address needed mitigation in a zone that also allows sensitive residential uses). The County has procedures for conditional use permits in Title 18, so the question is why all uses, even the most intense, are permitted outright in the same zone as single family uses. The definition of "public facilities" in JCC 18.10.160 demonstrates that no one has spent any time thinking about whether or not these uses are compatible with each other or the other allowed uses. in this zone. (The definition includes: "facilities serving the general public, streets, roads, ferries, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, community water systems, community sewage treatment systems, storm water systems, park and recreational facilities, libraries, fire and police stations, emergency medical services, municipal and county buildings, power houses, cemeteries and public schools" In other words, the developer could build single family homes immediately adjacent to a community sewage treatment system. Or, a county jail (county building) could be built right next to a public school. In Me* et al. v. Northwest Cascade, et al., Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 16-2- 11216-7 (currently pending), a class action suit was brought by owners of single family homes surrounding a FloHawks facility which collects and treats sewage from honey buckets. Even though the City of Pacific imposed numerous conditions on the FloHawks facility through a conditional use permit, it is alleged to have released odors, gases and fumes which substantially interfere with the property owners' enjoyment of their properties. The neighbors are suing, alleging nuisance, negligence and trespass as a result of the activities of this facility, which is located in close proximity to single family uses. This lawsuit was filed even after installation of upgrades to the odor suppressing equipment. In (6), the County has allowed, as uses permitted outright, "other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development." Again, 17.65.010, which is supposed to describe the "purpose" of this zone, does not include any purpose statement. It only describes the uses that are allowed in the zone, and these uses are extensive and varied. The County doesn't even require that the most intense uses obtain a 4 MEMO 2-8-18 conditional use permit, so that the impacts of the use can be mitigated on a site-specific, ad hoc basis. If the County allows every possible use of property other than heavy industrial in this zone, what does the Community Development Department need to do when the developer proposes an intense use not listed in 17.67.420? Nothing, other than to rubber stamp an approval. We question why there are no conditional uses in the MPR zoning districts, when the County actually implements a conditional use permit process in other areas of the County. 17.65.030: Here, the County is allowing the developer to build a building of any height; as long as the developer buys a ladder truck or other equipment for the Fire District. A variance isn't even required, so the adjacent property owner will have no notice of the developer's receipt of a building permit to construct a structure that will dwarf others in the neighborhood. The fact that the Fire District may need additional equipment to put out a fire in a building over a certain height is not the only, negative land use impact resulting from excessive height, especially adjacent to single family uses. 17.65.040: So that there is no question that no consideration whatsoever was given to the persons who. would eventually visit, live and work in this zone, all yard and setbacks have been eliminated. We assume that this has been added in order to eliminate any restrictions on the developer's ability to maximize its investment. 17.70.010: Here, there actually is a purpose section. It also states: "The dimensions. of the MPR-0SR zone do not preclude applicable buffers and setbacks as required under this title or under Title 18 Jefferson County Code." However, in Section 17.75.040, it states that "there are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR -MV zone," but "new structures located within the shoreline shall comply with the setback requirements of the" SMP. Does this mean that there are setbacks for new construction in this zone or not? 17.75.010: The purpose of the MPR -VM zone is again, not stated. Instead, there is a summary of the types of uses allowed, totally eliminating any mention of the fact that there are few differences in the uses permitted in this zone and the MPR -GR zone. 17.75.020: Again, my concern is that all listed uses are permitted outright in the MPR -MV zone. There are two prohibited uses, but the Countihas not classified any use as a "conditional use" A conditional use is not a permitted use. It is listed in the zone as a use that may be made within a zone, but only upon the grant of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner or other decision -maker (after a hearing). The reason certain uses are permitted only upon the grant of a conditional use permit, is because there are certain uses that may be desirable, but are not completely consistent with the permitted uses. Therefore, the zoning code requires that the decision -maker evaluate the proposed development under certain criteria for approval, which allows the decision -maker to consider the facts relating to the property and the proposed use. MEMO 2-8-18 For example, schools are not normally allowed in a single family residential zone as a permitteduse. They may be allowed with a conditional use permit, which would consider whether the , piece of property for the school is large enough to absorb all of the land use impacts relating to aschool, such as noise, parking and traffic circulation. It is difficult to understand why the County would allow a marina as a permitted use, not a conditional use, in this zone. While it does appear that the developer would have to obtain a shoreline permit for the marina, it is difficult to say whether the shoreline permit would addresstheimpactsofamarinathatwouldnormallybeaddressedunderzoningregulations. The words "overwater structures" have been eliminated. here (17.75.020(1)). However, in 17.75.020(4), there is a reference to how ,overwater buildings" shall be construeted. Does this mean that "overwater structures" or "overwater buildings" can or can't be constructed in thiszone? Again, 17.75.020(l 0) allows uses of every type and description, many of which are not compatible with each other or the residential uses allowed outright in 17.75.020(2). Same comment with regard to 17.75.020(12). There is no purpose section, only a summary oftheusesallowedinthiszone. Therefore, any type of use can be allowed, as long as theDepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentapproves. There are no criteria for DCD to use in suchapprovals. What is the procedure for the County to make the decision whether or not a use is allowed in aparticularzoningdistrict? I could not find any procedure for an administrative codeinterpretation. State law requires that the City adopt this procedure: "As part of its project review process, a local government shall provide a procedure for obtaining a code interpretationasprovidedinRCW36.708.110." RCW 36.70B.030(3). If the County doesn't have this Procedure (as required by state law), then the public will have no notice or opportunity to apply adecisionoftheDirectortoallowanunlistedusewithinoneoftheseMPRzones., The developer could propose an outdoor shooting range that will cause tremendous noise and pollute the ground water with lead, and the County may permit it, claiming that it is consistent with Section 17.65.020(4), as an "outdoor resort -related recreational facility." 17.75.030: In 17.65.030, no buildings could be constructed in the MPR -GR zone over 35 feet inheightunlesstheFireDistrictapproved. Here, "one structure may exceed 35 feet, but may notexceed45feet." No approval is required from the Fire District to exceed 35 feet in height. So, it appears that the limit in the previous zone was not based on any safety issue (like the fact that the Fire District didn't have a ladder such that firefighters could fight a fire -in a building over 35 feethigh) and was totally arbitrary. Also, what does it mean that "one structure" can exceed 35 feetinheight? One structure in the entire zone? n MEMO 2-8-18 17.80.010: Here, the. County has established the process for "reviewing major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan." Wouldn't the developer also need to obtain approval of a major or minor revision to any subdivision or binding site plan approval for any of these activities? 17.80.020: It appears that this section has been added so that everyone can just see a sampling of the mitigation measures that apply to the proposed development. (The mitigation measures are listed but it also states that they are not limited to these measures, yet these measures are listed for reference.") Given that the County has determined that it will impose mitigation or conditions on the development from at least four different documents, is there some reason that the County can't simply list all of them here, so that everyone knows what they are? It would also be helpful to look at them in one place, so that we could determine whether any measures conflict with each other or this proposed code. Also, this list of documents is not the same as the list of documents in 17.60.040 and 17.60.060. What is the reason for the difference? 17.80:020(1): Here, the developer is required to put the southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal into a permanent conservation easement. Who will be the owner of the underlying property? Who will be responsible for maintaining this easement? 17.80.020(2)(x): The County should charge the developer for the County's costs relating to the hiring of an independent consultant who will perform water quality monitoring and to submit a summary water quality report to the County.,, 17.80.020(2)(d): Here, it states that the permits "shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor MPR." First, has anyone done any testing of the current situation? If not, won't the developer argue later, if the water quality deteriorates, that it was not responsible, and the County can't prove otherwise? Second, why would the County only state that the permits require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures? The permits will issue and then the developer will be required to do some water quality testing. There isn't much to this testing program, other than it has to be done monthly. If the development agreement is signed and the permits issue, how will the County require additional mitigation? The development agreement has been crafted such that the developer is not only vested to every development regulation administered by the County, but also includes a paragraph that covers any development regulation that the developer forgot to include. It is difficult to understand why the County wouldn't adopt a water quality standard, and then use its enforcement procedures if the development doesn't meet the standard. The public receives little, if any benefit from this development, given all of the many concessions provided to the developer. Therefore, public funds shouldn't be spent on the enforcement of the development agreement. The County should require that the developer pay MEMO 2-8-18 the County's costs associated with hiring an independent consultant to do this water quality monitoring. There is no other way for the public to know that the water testing is accurate. 17.$0.020(3): As I pointed out in my comments on the development agreement, property owners can't vest to storm water drainage regulations, regardless of the language of that agreement. Here, it states that the developer will only be required to capture and treat the storm water to the most current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington" before discharge. Does this mean that the County acknowledges that the developer is not vested to stormwater regulations? 17.80.020(3)(b) and (d): So the County states that there shall be no discharge of sewage or bilge waters at the marina, and that fish cleaning can't take place in the controlled access areas of the marina. There doesn't appear to be any program that the developer is required to adopt to enforce this. These are issues that will be difficult for the County to enforce with limited time and resources. In 3(n): What does it mean that "the marina operations shall collect water quality data from State sources so long as available ... " The County should be charging the developer for the County's costs relating to hiring an independent consultant to perform this water quality testing. These conditions are drafted so that the developer can claim that it isn't required to comply -- and instead, it is the "marina operator" who hasn't complied with the conditions. It is important to identify the entity/individual that the County will bring its enforcement action against if these conditions are not met. 17.80.020(4)(b): Again, "the golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by the County, as a result of the water quality monitoring program ..." More details are needed, such as the entity/individual that must perform this condition should be identified. The development agreement has added language that prohibits the public from enforcing the terms and conditions of development approval, so the public's hands are tied if the County does nothing. 17.80.020(4)(d): The location(s) for water quality testing to take place should be identified so. that it can be determined whether or not the developer is complying with the prohibition on any storm water discharge into Hood Canal. 17.80.020(5): We question why the developer would comply with this condition, requiring calculation of greenhouse gases, if all it was required to do is "identify techniques to mitigate such emissions." Clearly, there is no need to identify any techniques if there is no requirement to actually implement them. 17.80.020(6): This section is not enforceable. The County can't enforce a requirement that the developer "strive" to do anything. MEMO 2-8-18 17.80.020(6)(h) The conservation easement is granted to Jefferson County, and the County is. required to "prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with theofthisEasementandtorequirerestorationoftheEasementAreadamagedbyactivityoru purpose is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement." In other words, the County is required to spend public funds to monitor this easement and address any damage to it. Apparently, this istheonlyconsiderationobtainedbytheCountyinexchangefortheMPRanditsconcessionstothedeveloperinthedevelopmentagreement. 17.80.030: Did the environmental documents address the impacts associated with 890 residential units? Is there something in these documents which requires not less than 65 percentofthetotalunitsbe "short term visitor accommodation units?" What is the County's enforcement plan for determining whether or not the developer has shouttermvisitoraccommodationthatconstituteslessthan65percentofthetotalunits? It will likelybedifficultfortheCountytomonitorallsalesandrentalstodeterminewhetherornotthisconditionissatisfied. 17.80.060: What is the duration of the MPR? We already know that the County doesn't plan to impose any deadlines on the construction of any phase, and so the development 4greement couldbeinplacefor100yearsormore (whatever is 5 years longer than the completion of all phases). Under 17.80.070(1)(i), the Planning Staff can even grant extensions to the non -deadlines fortimingofapproved. development." 17.80.070: The procedure for the adoption of development regulations and a development agreement associated with the adoption of development regulations is le 'slatiye not quasi- judicial. Take a look at 18.15.129. Here, the County plans to adopt a c uasiJudicial procedure to amend legislative developmentrelations. This is like establishing a procedure for the adoption of development regulations that is legislative (and follows all procedures for the adoption of development regulations in aGMACounty), but allowing the planning staff or hearing examiner to modify the samedevelopmentregulationsthroughanadministrative, quasi-judicial process. 17.80.080: Again, the County provides a quasi judicial procedure that will purportedly amendlegislativelyadopteddevelopmentregulations. Apparently, the County recognizes this problemin (2), and states that if the proposed major revision involves a change to the boundaries of the MPR zone, a comprehensive plan amendment is also required, and it is processed as a legislative action. This doesn't cure the fact that other revisions (major and minor) are still described as aquasi-judicial procedure. It is difficult to understand how these procedures mesh with the development agreement, which requires that "the Board of County Commissioners must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public hearing." 9 MEMO 2-8-18 17.85.010: Here, it states that a MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the applicant fails to meet the conditions in the approved phasing plan. Apparently, the developer can take 50 years to construct a phase, but the MPR is only null and void if the developer fails to meet some other condition of the approved phasing plan. This needs to be eliminated so that it is not interpreted as some exclusive basis for enforcement. The County can revoke the MPR for other reasons. ` 18.15.129: Here is the procedure for approval of a MPR. If the County wants to establish criteria for amendment (major or minor), this criteria should be in chapter 18.15. Otherwise, it appears that the County is establishing different criteria for major and minor amendments only for the Pleasant Harbor MPR in chapter 17.85. Why are the criteria for a major amendment of the Pleasant Harbor MPR in 17.80.080(1)(a) through 0) different from the criteria for the original MPR approval in 18.15.135? The danger in establishing different criteria for a major amendment is that the developer may propose a smaller, less intense development initially, and then once approved, use the less stringent criteria for a major amendment to obtain massive changes to the original MPR. The procedure for approval for a major revision should not be different from the original approval of a MPR. In 17.80.080, the Planning Commission has been eliminated from the legislative process. In 18.15.132, the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes recommendations.' If the activity is legislative, there is no deadline for a final decision (as would otherwise be required by RCW 36.70B.080), so it appears that the reason the Planning Commission has been removed from the process is to reduce public awareness of changes proposed: within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Staff version of the development regulations. cc: Client 10 Statement on Kettles Nationwide, Statewide & Value of the Kettles in Brinnon Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, November 27, 2017 Lys Burden, 310 Willow Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 I grew up in central Ohio, eldest child of a geologist father and botanist mother. The central and northern Ohio landscapes where we lived are dominated by recessional features of the massive Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered much of the northern U.S. in the late Pleistocene. My brothers and I grew up learning how to read topographic maps, visiting geologic features left by continental glaciation (including kames, eskers, kettle ponds and bogs, terminal moraines, outwash terraces, glacial grooves and more), and our dad taught us how to read landscapes and interpret their histories... so it was no wonder that I studied Geology at the University of Montana during the early 70's. It was there that I first learned about Glacial Lake Missoula and the great floods that it spawned across Idaho and eastern Washington. Upon moving to Jefferson County, I have been learning about the geologic setting here and have served on the planning committee for the JLT Geology Group since I arrived. I am also a Jefferson County Extension Master Gardener and one of the things that WSU Extension focused on teaching us was how to research ... plant problems or anything else. After learning in August that the county planning staff was going to permit, even encourage, the developer of the Pleasant Harbor MPR to use the largest kettles on Black Point as waste water and sewage ponds), I decided to research more information about kettles in Washington and nationwide. I looked for as much information as I could find on kettles through searching the Washington Geological Survey's library of published papers and studying published topographic and geologic maps of the ice margin across the state. I was surprised by the lack of glacial outwash features, especially kame and kettle topography, but then remembered the size and ferocity of the floods from Glacial Lake Missoula and realized that they had obliterated much of the land form that had been left by continental glaciation, as they made their way across the state to the Pacific. I did find that the ice margin of the Cordilleran Ice sheet that covered the coastal regions of the Pacific Northwest, especially the Puget Lobe, did leave quite a few recessional features, especially in Thurston, Pierce and Island Counties. Many of these features have been turned into parks or natural areas. With all my research, I came to realize that the big kettles on Black Points were very unique. They are the only ones on the Olympic Peninsula; and the largest, Kettle B, is much deeper than most in the state at 150 feet, and it is very narrow for its depth, between 300 to 500 yards wide. It was the deepest kettle I saw on any map, as most of them range from about 40 to 60 feet deep. Some have more surface area, but Kettle B was definitely the deepest. I do hope that these unique glacial features can be saved and can become a natural corridor through the development that will preserve some of the original landscape as a reminder of the special and dramatic regional setting we live in. More information and examples of kettles and kettle ponds follow: Kettle View Park 1250 Eagle Bend Dr. SE 4.8 Acres e. 1 r i A L Q90kb 11 Q.. T SOP` t 9t 9oy309 090k w q k Oft k aM ! NJ LL Another large pond in SE Olympia with a "kettle train" along its northern border. Note all features have little vertical relief, as they occur on a fairly flat glacial outwash terrace. Typical size for kettle ponds in the Columbia Valley east of Bellingham in Whatcom County. Fort be State Park ,tw Gun Road Recreation da q,' Grassers 55 Lagoon O Kennedys tr' 2O Lagoon 2 n 0 cr Y, o a%: z• A Z *a Laky1 5,... sa Y N ate= MAP LEGEND I&... andxa nmc sae, ibl. i..bb, The Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT) suffers continuity Contact • Station Fqn Ebey stale Park 7O Fort be State Park ,tw Gun Road Recreation da q,' Grassers 55 Lagoon O Kennedys tr' 2O Lagoon 2 n 0 cr Welcome to Ebeyrs Landing National Historical Reserve! Ebey's Reserve is ane of the largest national historic districts in the nation, but it also has boundless opportunities for adventure and recreation: hiking, paddling, biking, diving, sailing, camping, kite Flying, dog walking, bird watching, whale watching, fisting, mussel eating and antique -hunting.., and more! As the only National Historical Reserve in the National Park system, it is quirky and unique, so there are name things you should know in order to make the most of your time hem. Unlike traditional National Parks or National Historical Park, which are owned by the American people and "dude private ownership, the Reserve is a living, functioning community. Eighty-five percent of our 17,572 acres is privately owned by ordinary citizens, agencies and organizations. This map is designed for two purposes: to help our guests navigate the best recreational hot spots on the Reserve, and to steer them away from unwitting trespass on private property. Ebeyrs Reserve includes three Washington Stale Parks, four Island County Parks and three Town of Coupeville Parks, all unique and all offering different opportunities. The map icons will show you where to go to enjoy your favorite activities, and the map's color coding will hip you avoid private lands. Please note the following caveats: Dogs are welcome but must be on -leash on all Reserve trails. There is an off -leash deg area at Patmorc County Park nn Patmore Road. PLEASE clean up after your pet wherever You stroll. Paragliding is allowed only within the boundaries of Fort Ebey State Park. Please consult with the Park for rules and regulations. Call Washington State Parks regional Head Quarters at Fart Casey at, (360) 6784519. Many roads throughout the Reserve are great for road biking, and the Kettles Trails offer a network of mountain biking trails. For suggested routes and detailed maps, see ht[pa /wwtvwhidbeycamanoislands.wm Jthingsksdo/ outdoor—adventure/cycling/ Horseback riding is pomm0ted on the Kettles Trails but not over the park boundary into Fort Ebey State Park. Trailer parking is available at the junction of SR20 and Libbey Road, as well as at pull-outs at the Kettles Trails gates along SR20. The Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT) suffers continuity breaks as it makes its way from Fort Ebcy to Fort Casey state Parks. See main map and detail map of Fort Ebey for further information. For more information go to: ww.I.goelebta Thank you fir nespectirlg the privacy of the iv idenh of Ebey's landing National Historical Reserve, but come importantly Enjoy your visiffr A Historic Focal Point for the Region Central Whidbey Island has always been a great turnstile for the natural system of marine highways that conned Georgia Strait, Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca -the Salish Sea - and beyond. Our region represents the southern terminus of the inside Passage, a 1,000 - mile long waterway among coastal islands from Washington to Alaska. Northwest Coastal Indians traveled this great distance in grand cedar canoes to connect with a vast trade network. Today, as then, more than wr a thousand islands afford manners tw - protection from the heavy weather and high seas of the open ocean. GAEBEY'S LANDING EAr1EY HIS LAN 0.F pub6rat on fun ben mads P ble by 2% Hnsel/Matd (-ds n— d+rTepn a1 CO.Ventle a^•d Wars —Y. - BBIn" COLUMBIA JSF Pvm Imes l w.wrsm a 5,... ate= MAP LEGEND I&... andxa nmc sae, ibl. i..bb, The Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT) suffers continuity breaks as it makes its way from Fort Ebey to Fort CaseyFqnEbeystaleParkStateParks. Be aware that signage for the P14T that leads Id -dmandenwnwPrehenyNII ,iaonal e ," _,., to the top of the Fort Ebey bluff will dead end on the Nat' y 5ceniRnll Furry „ rs southern end of the park with no descent to the beach. Kenles Troll Noor Nohorses aaowed on trails en• , Southboundthrough-hikers should stay at the beach Hiking blkMikngisqueurbint wU. sate Park boundaries. uh mcg'-+,, level to continue south towards Fort Casey. Trails are elmed[o morodxed vehicles. 0"`"'kt Welcome to Ebeyrs Landing National Historical Reserve! Ebey's Reserve is ane of the largest national historic districts in the nation, but it also has boundless opportunities for adventure and recreation: hiking, paddling, biking, diving, sailing, camping, kite Flying, dog walking, bird watching, whale watching, fisting, mussel eating and antique -hunting.., and more! As the only National Historical Reserve in the National Park system, it is quirky and unique, so there are name things you should know in order to make the most of your time hem. Unlike traditional National Parks or National Historical Park, which are owned by the American people and "dude private ownership, the Reserve is a living, functioning community. Eighty-five percent of our 17,572 acres is privately owned by ordinary citizens, agencies and organizations. This map is designed for two purposes: to help our guests navigate the best recreational hot spots on the Reserve, and to steer them away from unwitting trespass on private property. Ebeyrs Reserve includes three Washington Stale Parks, four Island County Parks and three Town of Coupeville Parks, all unique and all offering different opportunities. The map icons will show you where to go to enjoy your favorite activities, and the map's color coding will hip you avoid private lands. Please note the following caveats: Dogs are welcome but must be on -leash on all Reserve trails. There is an off -leash deg area at Patmorc County Park nn Patmore Road. PLEASE clean up after your pet wherever You stroll. Paragliding is allowed only within the boundaries of Fort Ebey State Park. Please consult with the Park for rules and regulations. Call Washington State Parks regional Head Quarters at Fart Casey at, (360) 6784519. Many roads throughout the Reserve are great for road biking, and the Kettles Trails offer a network of mountain biking trails. For suggested routes and detailed maps, see ht[pa /wwtvwhidbeycamanoislands.wm Jthingsksdo/ outdoor—adventure/cycling/ Horseback riding is pomm0ted on the Kettles Trails but not over the park boundary into Fort Ebey State Park. Trailer parking is available at the junction of SR20 and Libbey Road, as well as at pull-outs at the Kettles Trails gates along SR20. The Pacific Northwest Trail (PNT) suffers continuity breaks as it makes its way from Fort Ebcy to Fort Casey state Parks. See main map and detail map of Fort Ebey for further information. For more information go to: ww.I.goelebta Thank you fir nespectirlg the privacy of the iv idenh of Ebey's landing National Historical Reserve, but come importantly Enjoy your visiffr A Historic Focal Point for the Region Central Whidbey Island has always been a great turnstile for the natural system of marine highways that conned Georgia Strait, Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca -the Salish Sea - and beyond. Our region represents the southern terminus of the inside Passage, a 1,000 - mile long waterway among coastal islands from Washington to Alaska. Northwest Coastal Indians traveled this great distance in grand cedar canoes to connect with a vast trade network. Today, as then, more than wr a thousand islands afford manners tw - protection from the heavy weather and high seas of the open ocean. GAEBEY'S LANDING EAr1EY HIS LAN 0.F pub6rat on fun ben mads P ble by 2% Hnsel/Matd (-ds n— d+rTepn a1 CO.Ventle a^•d Wars —Y. - BBIn" COLUMBIA JSF 4t History & Geology of Kettle Lakes Explored in Book and Travel Blog July 13, 2109 - UConn Communications Geology professor Robert Thorson has written a book and a travel biog about America's kettle lakes and ponds. Photo by Peter Morenus Stretching from Cape Cod to the High Plains is a freshwater galaxy of nearly 100,000 kettle lakes and ponds created by an ice sheet that existed until about 11,000 years ago. In a new book, Beyond Walden: The Hidden History ofAmerica's Kettle Lakes and Ponds (Walker & Co., 2009), geology professor Robert Thorson provides the first authoritative treatment of this "species" of glacial lake. Beginning in June, Thorson traveled across the northern United States from Maine to Montana, taking in all 19 kettle lake states and posting a bl g about his travels dubbed From Walden to Wobegon." Kettles have no inlet or outlet but are natural wells fed by groundwater filtered by silica -rich, grit -free sand. Thousands dot the landscape, and many have historical, cultural, and geological significance. Thorson is an authority on the scientific interpretation of historic landscapes, especially the emerging field of cultural geology. He has written four books, including Stone by Stone and The Magnificent History of New England's Stone Walls. His biog postings include reflections on historic east -west literary connections between the two "W" places and anecdotes from local residents about what the lakes mean to them, interwoven with scholarly ideas from his new book to help improve management of this important freshwater resource. I realized that a blog would be a great way to get the word out," he says, "and to have fun while doing it." America's best-known kettle lake, Walden Pond in Concord, Mass., was made famous by Henry David Thoreau's 1854 book of the same name. Thorson suggests that Lake Wobegon, made famous by radio host Garrison Keillor, "is America's second best known kettle, albeit a mythical one somewhere in Minnesota." Although Walden and Wobegon are more than 1,500 miles apart, there is a strong physical - ecological connection, Thorson says. The larger kettles in New England closely resemble in appearance and aquatic ecology their counterparts in central Minnesota because they share a similar origin. In addition, a historical connection between New England and Upper Midwest kettles — generally called ponds in the east, lakes in the Upper Midwest, and potholes on the prairie — stems from the east -west direction of American settlement. In 1861, Henry David Thoreau traveled to Minnesota, his only journey beyond New England. The influence of geology on American culture is all too often overlooked," says Thorson, noting that kettle lakes played an important but largely unknown role in American history. Pond Village Pond, in Truro, Mass., for example, is where Myles Standish and his soldiers quenched their thirst, dipping a metal kettle taken from a Native American storage mound into a Cape Cod kettle pond a "musket shot" wide. During colonial and Yankee settlement, Thorson adds, kettle lakes were valued for beaver pelts, bog iron, refrigeration ice, cranberries, medicinal herbs, and other resources. These lakes later played an important role during 19th century exploration and immigration, especially for immigrant Scandinavians who were familiar with them from the old country. During the 20th century, kettles were involved in the birth of ecology as a science, and the creation of a potent family recreational lake culture. Kettle lakes should not be taken for granted, however, says Thorson. They are fragile ecosystems that are in constant tension with human overdevelopment. In essence "fossil icebergs" — the melted remnants of ice blocks — they are also repositories of ancient flora and fauna beneath the surface. Kettles reveal an enormous amount about who we are and where we came from," he says. Preserving them has never been more important." NPv. .. A 6 a Via. a rrl tt fiA s in+sl Walden Pond, a famous 61 -acre kettle pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, has been preserved as a state reserve. INI f A AftVMwjOjVftw jos A n Ar# N*W Oto A /'** #,R tier /,,r* A A t Jr lig J About the Ice Age Trail The Kettle Moraine is a belt of irregular ridges and upland areas that extends for more than 120 miles, mostly in Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha Counties in Wisconsin. The Kettle Moraine is composed of glacial sediment deposited between the Green Bay and Lake Michigan Lobes approximately 18,000 to 15,000 years ago as they receded from their maximum positions during the most recent glaciation. Pot - shaped depressions, or kettles, formed when large blocks of buried ice melted after the ice lobes receded. Large parts of the Kettle Moraine have been preserved in the Kettle Moraine State Forest. E AGE TRAIL A I. [. 1A N C F More than 12,000 years ago, an immense flow of glacial ice sculpted a landscape of remarkable beauty across Wisconsin. As the glacier retreated, it left behind a variety of unique landscape features. These glacial remnants are now considered among the world's finest examples of how continental glaciation sculpts our planet. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is a thousand -mile footpath that highlights these landscape features as it travels through some of the state's most beautiful natural areas. The Trail is entirely within Wisconsin and is one of only eleven National Scenic Trails. But the Ice Age Trail is more than a path through the woods. It is a place for mental and physical rejuvenation, a place to unwind after a hard day and enjoy the landscape of Wisconsin. More than 1 million people use the Ice Age Trail each year to hike and snowshoe, to backpack, to disconnect and reconnect. POINT NO POINT TREATY COUNCIL i Port Gamble S'Klallam * Jamestown S'Klallam t 4l I Ol C lel wi "F' December 8, 2017 Jefferson County Department of Community Development ATTN: Michelle Farfan 621 Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 Subject: Revised Wildlife Management Plan for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Ms. Farfan: The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) is writing in response to your request for comments specific to the November 2, 2017 Revised Wildlife Management Plan prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. As you are aware, on August 31, 2017 we submitted comments on GeoEngineers' original Wildlife Management Plan dated July 31, 2017. Following our review of the Revised Wildlife Management Plan, it is our conclusion that the plan still has only partially met the requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1). The major shortcoming in the revised plan is that it still does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow the assessment of risk or the likelihood of success. Evaluating the potential efficacy of management actions, or their impacts on wildlife is not possible because the descriptions of these actions are vague and incomplete. Please refer to Section 4 (bottom of page 7) of our August 31, 2017 comment letter for further discussion of this topic. It is unclear to us how Jefferson County will be able to monitor or enforce compliance with the WMP, given its lack of specificity. The new provision relating to the installation of a fence illustrates this point. The Revised WMP sums up this vital wildlife management action in a single sentence, stating only that "the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns of PGST to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access to the 9 holes of golf course grasses" (page 8, first full paragraph). The Point No Point Treaty Council and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe sincerely appreciate the applicant's willingness to revise their plan to accommodate a fence. It is not possible however, for the reader to evaluate whether such a fence will be effective without at least a cursory description of the fence in the WMP. Please be aware we are not asking for detailed engineering specifications. There is a need, however, for the WMT to describe the fence in sufficient detail to allow the Jefferson County staff to evaluate whether the applicant has met the County's expectations for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife. To add to the confusion, farther down on page 8 (second bullet point) the Revised WMP continues to state that installation of a fence will be done "as a last resort." Several concerns we raised in our August 31 comments on the original WMT were not addressed in the revision. First, the Revised RMP still contains outdated information about the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd, including the erroneous statement that it is a migratory herd. Please refer to Section 2 (bottom of page 2) of our August 31, 2017 comment letter for further discussion of this topic. If the WMT is to be used as a blueprint for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife, it must be based on the best available scientific information. Erroneous information detracts from the credibility of the WMP. Second, the Revised WMT still does not contain an expressed, definitive, enforceable commitment that wild animals will not be killed when conflicts arise. This is also a concern of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Please refer to Section 6 (page 9) of our August 31, 2017 comment letter for further discussion of this topic. Third, the Revised WMT is still short on details of how the managers will evaluate the effectiveness of their wildlife management actions, and how they will respond if such actions prove ineffective. Please refer to Section 5 (page 9) of our August 31, 2017 comment letter for further discussion of this topic. The Revised WMP doesn't reflect some of the discussions we had in the field on the October 10 site visit to Black Point. One revision to the WMP regarding the strategic use of unpalatable plants to deter elk states only that the applicant "will investigate" whether such technology exists. No further detail about the landscaping of the golf course (such as the use of junipers and low shrubs between tee boxes and fairways) is provided, despite our concurrence during the site visit that such action is a key component of preventing elk from occupying the site. The revised plan needs to more thoroughly address the conclusions we reached on the October 191 site visit. Thus far our comments have focused on the absence of sufficient detail in the WMP and on the resulting inability of reviewers to assess risk and effectiveness of the actions proposed. Now thatthePleasantHarborprojecthasreachedthestageofformulatinganofficialDevelopment Agreement, we must also question how Jefferson County will be able to measure compliance with the WMT. In our experience, any statement of proposed actions that is intended to be legally binding must contain performance standards that are objective, quantifiable, and measureable. The WMT fails to identify such standards. Without quantifiable standards against which to measure performance, Jefferson County will not be able to monitor or compel compliance with the WMP. For example, the WNT uses terms such as "reduce," "minimize," and "prevent diminishment o£" In most cases, however, no baseline level is identified. We question how Jefferson County will be able to determine whether reduction of an impact or diminishment of a resource has occurred without knowing a baseline level. Even if the baseline level were known, in most cases the WMT doesn't specify the magnitude of the reduction or diminishment expected of a given action. How will the County determine if an action is sufficient to establish compliance, considering that no quantifiable objectives are stated? These shortcomings can be rectified by revising the WMT to make use of clear, unambiguous action verbs linked to quantifiable objectives. The plan must state how progress toward the objectives will be measured and what remedial actions will be taken if the initial action fails to meet the objective. We consider it a given that any credible natural resource management plan must have these basic standards. Without them, there is no reliable way for Jefferson County to evaluate compliance. In summary, it is our conclusion that the Revised Wildlife Management Plan still does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow an independent and unbiased PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor Revised Wildlife Management Plan Page 2 of 3 assessment of the probability of success or of the risks to wildlife. Nor does it contain a description of measureable performance standards that will to allow Jefferson County to determine whether the applicant is in compliance with their commitments to mitigate the MPR's impacts on wildlife. At some point Jefferson County is going to need a legally binding document that specifies the responsibilities of the applicant in sufficient detail that it will allow the County to objectively determine whether those responsibilities have been met, and to compel compliance if they aren't met. There are two ways to do this: 1) ensure that the WMT specifies quantifiable objectives, a description of how progress will be measured, and a description of actions to be taken if the objectives are not met, or 2) ensure that these standards are specified in detail in the Development Agreement. The Point No Point Treaty Council and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe respectfully urge Jefferson County to continue to consult with us regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR's proposed actions to manage wildlife. Respectfully, _ Timothy P. Cullinan Wildlife Program Manager cc: Randy Harder, PNPTC Paul McCollum, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Hansi Hats, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Roma Call, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Charin Godbolt, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Bryan Murphie, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Matt Blankenship, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor Revised Wildlife Management Plan Page 3 of 3 cc,, ' Occ /c ! lq r8 P, April 8, 2018 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR REo-01, IECEIVFF APR 0 9 2019 JEFFE:jiSON I urge you to look long and hard at this project before rubber stamping it. As you are probably aware, one of Wa States three highest priority projects is the removal of the causeway at the mouth of the Duckabush River, and reinstallation of a raised deck bridge over the delta so as to allow freer movement of salmon and other marine species. You may also want to realize that these are mostly part time jobs during summer, bang, along comes Labor Day and they all get their walking papers except for a few core people. Most of these jobs would be non family wage jobs as well. My wife and I have had a place here for 18 years and love the peace and tranquility, the wildlife, the seafood. We are not fans of summer traffic, which would increase dramatically if this project becomes reality. Have you considered a Pleasant Harbor tourist with out a clue pulling onto 101 in front of a log truck barreling along to the mill, or a chip truck barreling north to the pulp mill in PT or PA, or a compressed natural gas tanker heading to the pulp mill. I was almost run into the guard rail one day pulling out onto the highway by a cng rig and I watch out when pulling onto the highway. We live just south in the Mc Daniel Cove area. There are numerous wrecks and fatalities in that curve, a semi rolled there just the other day, and a chip truck about a year ago. I do not feel that this will help our property values either, people will buy the neat new condos over local real estate and will depress the market. The developers said they would hire local talent to build the project, they'll go with the low bid with no regard for locality of contractor. This whole boondoggle of a project is way too big for this area and is not what the majority of us moved here for. My great grandfather was an oysterman at Holly, right across from our place. We've been in Washington 4 generations since grandpa went north to the Klondike, we're now starting the fifth generation. This project is too big for Brinnon, period. Fred Stern concerned citizen an re ' ent hleDCDY, Northwest Watershed Institute Jefferson County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse N 'Na 4 APR 0 9 2018 000UNTY 3407 Eddy Street I Port Townsend, Washington 98368 voice 360.385.6786 fax 360.385.2839 email peter@nwwatershed.org j www.nwwatershed.org DELIVERED AT PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 9, 2018 April 9, 2018 RE Comments for April 9 public hearing on the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Master Planned Resort (MPR) development agreement and proposed zoning regulations. Dear Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners, Northwest Watershed Institute requests that the proposed development agreement and zoning regulations for the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR not be approved. The MPR, as proposed, represents an unacceptable risk to public resources, particularly the water quality and natural resources of Hood Canal. Deficiencies in the proposal for stormwater management were identified by Dr. Richard Horner, an engineer and regional stormwater expert, throughout the environmental review period, starting in 2007 and continuing to 2016. Yet, many of the issues raised remain unaddressed and unresolved. Approval of a development agreement and regulations should be withheld until these faults are addressed and only if the applicant can demonstrate that such impacts can be fully mitigated. Please include this letter and the following attachments in the public hearing record. Dec 6, 2007 letter from Dr. Richard Horner to County Commissioners (4 pgs) Jan 5, 2015 letter from Peter Bahls to David Johnson Dec 2015 Page 46 Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS, response to letter #11 Feb 2, 2016 email comments from Peter Bahls to David Johnson Feb 2, 2016 letter from Dr. Richard Horner to Jefferson County Planning Commission (7 pgs) Feb 3, 2016 email response from David Johnson to Peter Bahls Sincerely, Executive Director and Aquatic Ecologist RICHARD R. HORNER, PH.D. 230 NW 55TH STREET TELEPHONE: (206) 782-7400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 E-MAIL: rrhomerCa)msn.com December 6, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To Whom It May Concern: I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute to review the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR) proposal regarding the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the project on the water quality of Hood Canal and the groundwater in the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications to perform this review. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE I have 30 years of experience in the urban stormwater management field and 11 additional years of engineering practice. During this period I have performed research, taught, and offered consulting services on all aspects of the subject, including investigating the sources of pollutants and other causes of aquatic ecological damage, impacts on organisms in waters receiving urban stormwater drainage, and the full range of methods of avoiding or reducing these impacts. I received a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1978, following two Mechanical Engineering degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Although my degrees are all in engineering, I have had substantial course work and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry. For 12 years beginning in 19811 was a full-time research professor in the University of Washington's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. I now serve half time in that position and spend the remainder of my time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. Serving as a principal or co -principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has produced three books, approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, over 20 reviewed papers in conference proceedings, and approximately 100 scientific or technical reports. My consulting clients include federal, state, and local government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that work for these entities. My full curriculum vitae are attached. FINDINGS General Findings As stated by section 3.3.7 of the Brinnon MPR Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the basis of the stormwater management program is the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE] 2005), together with the Low Impact To Whom It May Concern December 6, 2007 Page 2 Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT] 2005). The proponent goes on to state that the stormwater management plan will be designed to meet the project's requirement for zero discharge of water to the Hood Canal from the golf course resort area and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the harbor. I now give my general impressions of this basic plan, to be followed with more detailed observations on each point. It is first necessary to recognize that application of the WDOE stormwater manual in no way guarantees reaching a goal of zero discharge. That manual does not feature management practices having strong capability to achieve zero discharge. The PSAT low impact development (LID) manual shows how to design drainage features that could reach zero discharge. However, that manual has none of the prescriptive requirements of the WDOE manual and is just a "how to" guide to employ once the components of the stormwater management system are selected. Hence, it does not appear at all that the zero -discharge goal for the golf course resort has any force behind it. Even if the resort can be held to zero discharge, the FEIS presents insufficient information, even for the level of a rezoning application, for a reviewer, and the public at large, to judge well the prospects for achieving the goal. While I recognize that more detail will be presented at a later stage of project development, the public needs some more information beyond that given in the FEIS to have any confidence that the project will function as advertised and to countenance a major rezone. The marina portion of the project will not be held to the zero -discharge standard. While the FEIS states that its discharge will receive "full treatment," it gives no information at all on what that treatment might be and what is meant by "full." As with the plan for the resort, the public must be given a more complete basis upon which to evaluate the quality of the plan at this point in project development. Outside of the immediate project area, the FEIS does not assess the water quality impacts of anticipated traffic additions associated with the development. The Transportation Impact Study indicates increases on a number of local roads and highways of hundreds of cars a day on average. Automobiles emit or mobilize numerous pollutants that enter water bodies and degrade aquatic ecosystems. The FEIS is inadequate as long as it does not give the public a means by which to understand the full environmental impact before being willing to see rural zoning changed to accommodate this project. Further Observations Zero Discharge from Resort Achieving zero discharge depends on effective implementation of the types of site design and stormwater management practices presented in the PSAT LID manual. Fundamentally, these practices come down to infiltrating rainfall into the ground or harvesting water from roofs and other surfaces for a use such as landscape irrigation or "gray water" system supply (e.g., toilet flushing). The FEIS states that both of these methods will be used but not the role each would play. The intention is to store runoff in existing "kettles," use it to meet "water demands" , and direct the excess into the ground (by 2 To Whom It May Concern December 6, 2007 Page 3 what means is not revealed). Even though I did not have much information to go on, I feel safe in assuming that the project will have to make substantial use of infiltration to reach zero discharge. Successful water quality protection by infiltration depends of having soils that will percolate water rapidly enough to drain surface holding areas in time to prevent various problems that can occur with excessive ponding times (generally, within 72 hours), but not so fast that contaminants will reach groundwater and pollute it. The natural soils do not necessarily have to possess desirable soil pore storage space and hydraulic conductivities themselves, but can be amended (usually, with organic compost) to function well. However, clays cannot be sufficiently amended to provide enough pore storage and hydraulic conductivity to percolate rapidly enough; and, conversely, coarse sands and gravels cannot be amended to slow percolation enough to ensure groundwater protection. The authors of Chapter 3 of the FEIS made no reference to the site soil and hydrogeologic data in Appendix 4 and did not use it to assess in even the most rudimentary way what it means for the prospective success of their plan. The data are very sparse, with the soils information consisting of only the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil survey results. Soil survey data are generally not site- specific enough for conclusive determinations of infiltration potential, which often varies considerable in quite small distances. The reported data show very gravelly loamy sand predominating, which if actually the case would tend to encourage the belief that water could be infiltrated successfully but could penetrate too rapidly. Nevertheless, an informed judgment requires more site-specific data. The public cannot be expected to accept a major rezone in their county until they are told enough to gauge potential success. Insufficient soil storage and hydraulic conductivity will render zero discharge an illusion. Overly rapid percolation will threaten groundwater, a potable supply source in a rural area, and reach streams on the site and other nearby surface waters as seepage. There is heightened concern about groundwater quality when a golf course is involved. Golf courses are large consumers of fertilizer and pesticide chemicals, as well as irrigation water. The common water pollutant least capable of interdiction in soils is nitrate -nitrogen, which is introduced to the surface in large quantities with fertilization, from where it can be carried along with percolating irrigation or rain water to the water table. Nitrate is the agent causing methemoglobinemia, generally in infants, when consumed with drinking water. Pesticides reaching drinking supplies are obviously also a major health concern. Treatment of Marina Discharge The term "full treatment" as promised for the marina is simply meaningless. Different treatment systems have varying efficiencies in treating different pollutants. In addition to terrestrial runoff from upland areas, marinas are sources of all the pollutants associated with engines and petroleum products, cleaning agents, and household chemicals, used right on the water. Their potential for release and in what quantities depend on marina activities, particularly how much maintenance is performed, but they are always a factor. Also, it can be expected that a resort of this size will lead to greatly increased use of the existing marina, which would itself increase pollutant loading. Some treatment systems can do an excellent job in capturing these various pollutants, others are poor overall, and some are mixed depending on the pollutant in question. The project proponents must state how they would handle and treat marina discharge before the public can consider their plan. 3 To Whom It May Concern December 6, 2007 Page 4 Potential Traffic Impacts Table 11 of the Transportation Impact Study shows the "Statesman" alternative to increase traffic by 6 to 89 percent on the various roads and highways in the project vicinity, with a 41 percent rise at one point on highway U.S. 101 (near Woodpecker Road). However, the origin of these figures is unclear and probably in error. My calculations do not agree when comparing the cited "Statesman" alternative traffic volumes with either the "Without Project" or "No Action" columns. For example, I got increases of 875 and 225 percent comparing "Statesman" Black Point Road traffic with "Without Project" and "No Action," respectively. I found the "Statesman" increase on U.S. 101 near Woodpecker to be 69 or 51 percent with the same respective comparisons. I was likewise unable to reproduce Table I l's percentages for the `Brinnon" and "Hybrid" alternatives. It would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to go forward on this major action with such anomalies in key information supplied in its support. Motor vehicles are responsible for water body contamination from many sources. Brake pad and tire wear introduce copper and zinc, respectively, both highly toxic to aquatic life. Wear of engine parts contributes these and other toxic metals, like lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. Petroleum products leak from engines, transmissions, and braking systems. Sediments drop onto roads from chassis and undercarriages. These pollutants wash immediately into receiving waters during rainy periods but also stay on and around roads for later wash off when rains come. It is reasonable to assume that the roads around the resort and marina complex would experience the most elevated traffic in the summer months. Even though there is not much rain then, the remnants would be in concentrated form in the first flush of fall rains. Concentration of toxic materials, such as the various metals in road runoff, is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life. The FEIS is an incomplete and thoroughly inadequate document in not addressing these potential impacts at all. SUMMARY The Comprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the Brinnon MPR proponent can provide convincing evidence that: (1) zero discharge from the golf course resort can be achieved; 2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment; 3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or result in below -ground delivery of pollutants to surface receiving waters, with particular attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4) marina discharge will be treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that source to the greatest extent possible; and (5) increased traffic will not degrade the water quality of Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well being of their resident and anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence must be made available to the public for another review of the proposal before its official consideration. I would be please to discuss my comments with you and invite you to contact me if you wish. Sincerely, Richard R. Horner r I 3407 Eddy Street I Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Northwest voice 360.385.6786 fax 360.385.2839 Watershed Institute I email peter@nwwatershed.org I www.nwwatershed.org January 5, 2015 David Johnson, Planner Jefferson County by email to dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us] RE NWI comments on DSEIS for proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort development Dear Mr. Johnson, Please add the attached letter from Dr. Richard Horner, dated December 6, 2007. Dr. Horner is a stormwater expert that raised many significant issues and concerns regarding this project during the FEIS review for the comp plan amendment. In reviewing the DSEIS, I see that the issues have not been addressed or mitigated. For that reason, the DSEIS is not adequate. Sincerely, Peter Bahls Director Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:52:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: RE: NWI comments on FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 10:00:03 AM Pacific Standard Time From: David W. Johnson To: Peter Bahls CC: David W. Johnson Got it! From: Peter Bahls [mailto: peter@ nwwatershed.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:44 PM To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: NWI comments on FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor David, Please include this email and the attached letter from Dr. Richard Horner, dated February 2, 2016, in the public record of comment on the FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor MPR and please forward these comments to the planning commission and Jefferson County Commissioners prior to the planning commission meeting on February 3, 2016. Northwest Watershed Institute and over 40 partnering organizations have invested million of dollars and hundreds of thousands of labor hours over the past decade in the effort to protect a portion of the Hood Canal watershed for salmon and other wildlife, including establishing numerous protected and restored habitats along Tarboo Creek and Dabob Bay. These efforts are now jeopardized by the proposed mega resort at Blackpoint which will probably cause significant regional impacts to the water quality.of Hood Canal and fish and wildlife populations. Dr. Richard Horner, a foremost expert in stormwater issues, has reviewed the stormwater plan for NWI and found it seriously lacking (please see attached letter of Feb 2, 2016). In his opinion, the stormwater plan is too general to assess whether it will adequately mitigate significant pollution problems likely for Hood Canal. In addition, greatly increased vehicle traffic on public roads related to the construction and use of the proposed resort is likely to cause significant stormwater pollution of Hood Canal. Although this issue has been raised by Dr. Horner and others numerous times in previous public comment, it has been completed overlooked in the FSEIS analysis. As a biologist, it is my professional opinion that the planned resort will also cause significant impacts to wildlife. The FSEIS and associated wildlife habitat plan stumble on the issue of impacts to elk. The FSEIS admits that the Blackpoint area is within the habitat range of the Dosewallips elk herd and further that elk may be attracted to the golf course and thus be at increased risk of fatality along Hwy 101. The solution proposed in the FSEIS is to erect a wildlife exclusion fence. Fencing off the property to elk will also likely exclude deer and other large mammals (deer, bear, cougar) from using the property. Thus, the wildlife impacts of this project are severe — not only is native vegetation going to be destroyed on 56-81 percent of the 231 acre property (depending on the action alternative chosen) but most large wildlife will be excluded from the property altogether. Added to this problem is the increase in wildlife road kill related to the greatly increased traffic forecast for Highway 101. The FSEIS does not adequately assess these likely impacts nor provide adequate mitigation. In summary, Northwest Watershed Institute believes that the FSEIS fails to adequately assess the full impacts of the proposed resort and likewise fails to provide mitigation measures for the "action" alternatives that are adequate to prevent longterm and significant harm to public and tribal resources. NWI recommends the no -action alternative to protect the public's resources. Sincerely, Peter Bahls, Executive Director Northwest Watershed Institute Page 1 of 2 3407 Eddy Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel 360-385-6786 Fax 360-385-2839 www.nwwatgrshed.org Page 2 of 2 RICHARD R. HORNER, PH.D. 1752 NW MARKET STREET, # 551 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 February 2, 2016 Jefferson County Planning Commission c/o David Wayne Johnson, Planner Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 by email to dwjohnson co.jefferson.wa.usl TELEPHONE: (206) 782-7400 E-MAIL: rrhornerlLcx msn.com RE Comments on FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC, Master Planned Resort Case Numbers MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Dear Jefferson County Planning Commission members, I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI) to review the FSEIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort (MPR) regarding the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the project on the water quality of Hood Canal and the groundwater in the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications to perform this review. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE I have 49 years of professional experience, 43 teaching and performing research at the college and university level. For the last 38 years I have specialized in research, teaching, and consulting in the area of storm water runoff and surface water management. I received a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1978, following two Mechanical Engineering degrees from the University of Pennsylvania in 1965 and 1966. Although my degrees are all in engineering, I have had substantial course work and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry. For 12 years beginning in 1981, I was a full-time research professor in the University of Washington's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. From 1993 until 2011, I served half time in that position and had adjunct appointments in two additional departments Landscape Architecture and the College of the Environment's Center for Urban Horticulture). spent the remainder of my time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. My appointment became emeritus in late 2011, but I continue university research and teaching at a reduced level while maintaining my consulting practice. Jefferson County Planning Commission members February 2, 2016 Page 2 My research, teaching, and consulting embrace all aspects of stormwater management, including determination of pollutant sources; their transport and fate in the environment; physical, chemical, and ecological impacts; and solutions to these problems through better structural and non-structural management practices. I have conducted numerous research investigations and consulting projects on these subjects. Serving as a principal or co -principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has produced three books, approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and over 20 reviewed papers in conference proceedings. I have also authored or co-authored more than 80 scientific or technical reports. In addition to graduate and undergraduate teaching, I have taught many continuing education short courses to professionals in practice. My consulting clients include federal, state, and local government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that work for these entities, primarily on the West Coast of the United States and Canada but in some instances elsewhere in the nation. Over a 17 -year period beginning in 1986 I spent a major share of my time as the principal investigator on two extended research projects concerning the ecological responses of freshwater resources to urban conditions and the urbanization process. I led an interdisciplinary team for 11 years in studying the effects of human activities on freshwater wetlands of the Puget Sound lowlands. This work led to a comprehensive set of management guidelines to reduce negative effects and a published book detailing the study and its results. The second effort involved an analogous investigation over 10 years of human effects on Puget Sound's salmon spawning and rearing streams. These two research programs have had broad sponsorship, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington Department of Ecology, and a number of local governments. I have helped to develop stormwater management programs in Washington State, California, and British Columbia and studied such programs around the nation. I was one of four principal participants in a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -sponsored assessment of 32 state, regional, and local programs spread among 14 states in arid, semi -arid, and humid areas of the West and Southwest, as well as the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast. This evaluation led to the 1997 publication of "Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management: A Guide for Program Development and Implementation" (subtitled "A Comprehensive Review of the Institutional Framework of Successful Urban Runoff Management Programs"). My background includes 22 years of work in California, where I have been a federal court- appointed overseer of stormwater program development and implementation at the city and county level and for two California Department of Transportation districts. I was directly involved in the process of developing the 13 volumes of Los Angeles County's Stormwater Program Implementation Manual, working under the terms of a settlement agreement in federal court as the plaintiffs' technical representative. My role was to provide quality -control review of multiple drafts of each volume and contribute to bringing the program and all of its elements to an adequate level. I have also evaluated the stormwater programs in San Diego, Orange, 2 Jefferson County Planning Commission members February 2, 2016 Page 3 Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Monterey Counties, as well as a regional program for the San Francisco Bay Area. At the recommendation of San Diego Baykeeper, I have been a consultant on stormwater issues to the City of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. I was a member of the National Academy of Sciences -National Research Council ("NAS -NRC") committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution. NAS -NRC committees bring together experts to address broad national issues and give unbiased advice to the federal government. The present panel was the first ever to be appointed on the subject of stormwater. Its broad goals were to understand better the links between stormwater discharges and impacts on water resources, to assess the state of the science of stormwater management, and to apply the findings to make policy recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relative to municipal, industrial, and construction stormwater permitting. My principal contribution to the committee's final report, issued in October 2008, was the chapter presenting the committee's recommendations for broadly revamping the nation's stormwater program. PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS MATTER I submitted a comment letter on December 6, 2007 regarding the Master Planned Resort (MPR). In that letter I expressed, elaborated on, and justified the following opinions, in summary: The Comprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the MPR proponent can provide convincing evidence that: (1) zero discharge from the golf course resort can be achieved; (2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment; (3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or result in below -ground delivery of pollutants to surface receiving waters, with particular attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4) marina discharge will be treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that source to the greatest extent possible; and (5) increased traffic will not degrade the water quality of Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well-being of their resident and anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence must be made available to the public for another review of the proposal before its official consideration. I understand that the marina has been separated from the MPR, and thus I do not comment further on the fourth point in this letter. I further understand that zero discharge from the full golf course resort has been abandoned, and a stormwater management plan has been presented. The proponent has since provided more infiltration rate data that satisfy my original concerns expressed in the second and third points. The remainder of this letter involves the fifth issue and the stormwater management plan. FINDINGS Traffic Impacts on Water Quality and Aquatic Life The increased traffic generated by the development will raise contaminant levels in stormwater 3 Jefferson County Planning Commission members February 2, 2016 Page 4 runoff from public roads in the vicinity, with negative impact on water quality of Hood Canal and aquatic resources. This impact has been totally ignored in the FSEIS and previous documents, although it has been raised by NWI and others in public comment numerous times. Issues specific to this point are: a) DSEIS Appendix L. Transportation states that traffic related to the resort will increase by an estimated 4,100 additional vehicle trips per day. b) Highway 101 and other roads that would see increased traffic skirt the edge of Hood Canal and directly discharge through road ditches to Hood Canal and tributary streams. c) Automotive vehicles are a major source of the full range of stormwater pollutants with petroleum derivatives and metals toxic to salmonids and other aquatic life being of particular concern in the ecosystem affected by the development. A variety of toxic effects on salmonids have been demonstrated from copper, originating in brake pads; zinc, stemming from tire wear; and these and other metals released to the environment through the wear of parts and fluid leaks. d) Chapter 3 of the FSEIS states that, "New pollutant -generating impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots, and pervious surfaces of the golf course, would introduce additional quantities of pollutants to the site during construction and long-term in the form of oils, gasoline, other mechanical fluids used to operate motorized equipment, and materials used to maintain the golf course vegetation. These pollutants would have the potential to degrade the quality of water being infiltrated into the ground if not properly treated." Yet the issue of vehicles causing stormwater pollution off the site is not addressed at all in the FSEIS. e) I expect that with this added traffic level, the increase in stormwater pollutants generated would cause significant impacts to the water quality of Hood Canal, which is already compromised, and the affected tributary streams, and to marine and anadromous organisms. f) The increase in pollutant loading can be quantified using an available model developed as an outcome of a research project for Washington State Department of Transportation to which I contributed.' 1 References: Homer, R.R. and B.W. Mar. Assessing Impacts of Operating Highways on Aquatic Ecosystems. Transportation Research Record 1017:47-55, 1985. Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. A Guide for Assessing Water Quality Impacts of Highway Operations and Maintenance. Transportation Research Record 948:31-40,1983. Chui, T.W., B.W. Mar, and R.R. Homer. A Pollutant Loading Model for Highway Runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE 108:1193-1120,1982. Homer, R.R. and B.W. Mar. Guide for Water Quality Assessment of Highway Operations and Maintenance, FHWA WA -RD -39.14. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1982. M Jefferson County Planning Commission members February 2, 2016 Page 5 g) The FSEIS does not discuss this issue at all, let alone make any assessment of potential pollution loading increases and their impacts. h) This is third time that this specific issue has been raised by NWI and myself: first, in my letter of December 6, 2007 on the FEIS; second, in the same comment letter resubmitted on January 5, 2015 for the DSEIS; and now for the FSEIS. Other conservation groups, including the Brinnon Group and Hood Canal Environmental Council have also raised this specific issue in their public comments. i) The FSEIS is the last opportunity for the public to gauge the cumulative impacts of the project and decide on an acceptable alternative. The FSEIS is inadequate and the project proposal should be denied unless the MPR proponent assesses the off-site traffic -related stormwater impacts and proposes mitigation measures as part of the FSEIS. Proposed Stormwater Management Plan The stormwater management plan is too general to assess potential impacts for such a major development proposal. The action alternatives involve clearing 56-87 percent of the 231 -acre property of native vegetation and topsoil and grading resulting in the movement of 1-2 million cubic yards of native soils. The impervious surface of the development alternatives will be in the range of 12-13 percent. The general level of stormwater planning and detail presented in the FSEIS and Appendices is inadequate to evaluate the potential impacts of such a large scale proposal. Issues specific to this point are: a) Somewhere between the EIS and SEIS, the proposed standards for stormwater treatment were lowered dramatically. Section 3.3.7 of the FEIS states that, "The stormwater management plan will be designed to meet the project's requirement for zero discharge of water to Hood Canal from the golf course resort area [emphasis added]..." In other words, the EIS proposed a zero -discharge requirement for the entire resort. However, the FSEIS requires only that the golf course fairways have zero discharge and allows for the remainder of the resort be treated to state standards and acknowledging that stormwater will flow offsite to Hood Canal. As stated in Section 3.3. of DSEIS Appendix E Grading. and Drainage Engineering Report (2012): Runoff from areas other than the fairways that discharge to adjoining properties would be permitted to leave the site following flow control and treatment that complies with SWMMWW requirements. Examples of these areas of the development include the Marina Center, Maritime Village, parking area fronting Black Point Road, wastewater reclamation plant, Maintenance Building and its associated parking area, and treated and dispersed fairway discharge to Wetland D along the east property line." This change, represents a significant lowering of stormwater protection requirements for 5 Jefferson County Planning Commission members February 2, 2016 Page 6 the resort proposal overall and is not acknowledged or assessed as such in the SEIS process. Furthermore, the proposed development will apparently not even comply with the reduced standard to provide for zero discharge of runoff from the fairways themselves, as required by Jefferson County Commissioner's Condition 63(q). As stated in the above quote from Section 3.3 of the DSEIS, the proposed development will allow for "treated and dispersed fairway discharge to Wetland D along the east property line". Wetland D occurs partly off the property and as stated in the Section 3.3. of DSEIS Appendix E Grading and Drainage Engineering Report (2012) "This wetland is the headwater of a drainage that flows easterly to Fulton Lake and continues easterly to Hood Canal approximately 0.5 mile to the east." Apparently, the proposed development will cause surface water runoff from the fairway into Hood Canal, in violation of the plan requirement. With the lack of specific stormwater plans as part of the SEIS, it is impossible to determine what other areas of the resort may not comply with the stated stormwater goals nor gauge the full extent of impact on the water quality and aquatic life of Hood Canal. b) The FSEIS acknowledges that stormwater will flow offsite to Hood Canal and Pleasant Harbor and states that stormwater runoff will be treated to the current edition of WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual, but provides no actual stormwater management plan. The Grading and Drainage Engineering Report in Appendix E recommend some LID methods that could be employed, such as rainwater harvest and use of rain gardens. However without specific plans and commitments as to how or where these methods would be employed, it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of the stormwater mitigation measures to function effectively in preventing probable significant impacts. c) Similarly, the specific construction and erosion control plan for treating over 100 acres of clearing and grading activity and 1-2 million cubic yards of dirt moving is left to a future Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. While this "kicking the can down the road" may have been acceptable in very early stages of an environmental analysis, the specifics are needed in the FSEIS to evaluate the project properly. d) To deal with the significant probable impact on water quality and quantity related to pesticides and fertilizers from the golf course, which the Jefferson County Commissioners identified as a priority that needed to be addressed, the FSEIS includes a proposed Golf Course Management Plan. However this plan simply provides an overview of potential best management practices, such as use of drought tolerate grasses. The plan does not provide any detail or make any commitments on the types or amounts of fertilizers and pesticides (herbicides, fungicides) that would be used, making it impossible to assess the potential impacts on surface and groundwater. Furthermore, no details or commitments are provided on landscape management plans for other areas of the proposed resort, where high use of fertilizers and herbicides might be expect to occur. In summary, the FSEIS has very significant inadequacies in failing to assess the impacts of increased vehicle traffic on the Hood Canal ecosystem and by incorporating a stormwater R Jefferson County Planning Commission members February 2, 2016 Page 7 management plan with insufficient detail to assure protection of that ecosystem from discharges from the proposed development. Approval should be withheld until these faults are addressed and only if the applicant can demonstrate that such impacts can be fully mitigated. Sincerely, f Richard R. Horner, Ph.D. 0-c- -Boccicllil DCD Monday, April 9, 2017 IF AP I I E . r Mark Rose JEFFERSON i P.O. Box 687COUNTY.. Brinnon, WA 98320 Testimony to BOCC re: Master Planned Resort Proposal, Black Point My name is Mark Rose. I've lived in Brinnon for 19 years. I'm a landowner, tax payer, and registered voter in Jefferson County. 1 strongly oppose the proposed resort in Black Point. It will not result in jobs or appropriate economic development in Brinnon, there are serious water quality concerns that are well documented and unaddressed, the transportation consequences have not been adequately addressed, the county will foot the bill for necessary infrastructure to support this resort, and the County has not adequately included the Tribes in consultation in the process. The proposal is way out of scale for a rural village and could have catastrophic consequences for impacted aquifers. It is disturbing that since the Brinnon Sub -area planning process in 2002, and the first subsequent proposals of an MPR on Black Point, Tribes have tried many times to have their concerns heard. Here we are, 16 years later, and the Tribes are still voicing the same concerns, without meaningful engagement or results. Summary of Concerns Economic Development: The workforce in Brinnon is slim, many workers will come from out of county, and local employment will likely be minimum wage, not family wage. Workers will have no investment in the community and burden services and infrastructure. This developer has displaced local business and kept local workers from receiving benefits through sketchy hiring practices. The resort will raise property taxes without benefits to property owners. Water Quality: There are serious concerns about salt water intrusion of adjoining wells, degradation of water quality that could impact recreational and commercial shell fish, marine life and the ecosystem of Hood Canal, as the Tribes, Department of Health, PUD, and others have testified. (Reference Oct 26, 2017 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe letter to BOCC). The water issue must be adequately resolved before this proposal proceeds. Transportation: Highway 101 is a twisting, turning 2 lane road that has a history of washouts, accidents, and downed power lines. Mount Walker, just north of Brinnon, ices up in the winter. Logging trucks frequent the road and tourist traffic is heavy in spring, summer, and fall. The burden of the transportation impacts will fall on the county and state. Cultural Significance: Simply, the county and the developer need to engage the Tribes in a substantive way and alleviate their concerns. Until that's done, this proposal can't move forward. Environmental / Wildlife impacts: Recent letters from Point No Point and Port Gamble S'Klallam indicate unresolved issues with a wildlife management plan. Clearly, this proposal as it stands is in violation of the Growth Management Act on multiple fronts, and SEPA as well. Best regards, Mark Rose REFERENCES: 12/8/17 Point No Point Treaty Council Letter to Michelle Farfan on Revised Wildlife Management Plan Concerns October 26, 2017 Letter from Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe to BOCC. August 31, 2017 Letter from Point No Point Treaty Council to Michelle Farfan, Department of Community Development, on Wildlife Management Plan Concerns August 9, 2017 Letter from Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe to BOCC. May 1, 2017 Letter from Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources Department to DCD. x April 9, 2018 ORD APR ® 9 2018 Thank you for your public service as Jefferson County commissioners. I would also like id,thak t e ; members of the planning commission. All of you spend inordinate amounts of time studying issues &, educating yourselves to provide leadership to our county. I for one, too easily take your efforts for granted. Thank -you as well for the opportunity to comment tonight. I understand the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort was first approved for exploration by our county government 13 years ago. It has evolved carefully and slowly into an exciting, ecologically sound development opportunity. There has been a steady drumbeat of negativity surrounding the project and partially in response to the opposition, the project has been fine-tuned with the finest science available. Today, I believe the project will insure the health of our beautiful natural environment and the welfare of our citizens. In some ways, as a resident of Brinnon in my mid -sixties, I can see wishing our idyllic hidden community to stay sleepy and quiet. However when I visit school and church with my 5 year old preschooler age grandson, I am impressed by the young families creating vibrancy in the school halls, the volunteer parent/teacher organization meetings and the happy voices inside the doors of our Sunday School classes. Young people are the future of our community! Young talent is invaluable to the future of Brinnon — if and only IF that talent stays here! I know that my self-centered, comfort seeking ease is not what is intended for healthy thriving families and communities! This project does not just celebrate the assets of our beautiful Olympic Peninsula setting, it is an opportunity to 'pay it forward' to the families and youth of our community and future generations of our families. Family is the environment in which entry level employees gain the attributes needed for stellar team -work and productivity. 50% of the bits of information that reach our long-term memory are retained before our seventh birthday. It then takes us the intervening years until we take leave of this planet to gain the final 50% of those learnings. The attributes which give shape to talented, productive and engaged adults are nurtured at a very young age in thriving families. In the 12.5 years I have lived in Brinnon, I have watched young family after young family leave the South County area. Employed parents raise families that teach pride in individual success and capitalize on the sense of achievement and success. This project will give creative all-important families the means and reasons to stay in Brinnon and be the asset our community needs for the future. Thank -you, Andy Visser 395 Lee Way Brinnon, WA 98320 Qe: Bocc /c, PIE -JAPING, Jefferson County Commissioners Port Townsend, WA 98368 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort To whom it may concern; JEFFEHSON CUUNTY First, I would like to thank the County Commissioners for allowing us a time of community input. A public service job can sometimes be rather complex, problematical and unrewarding. Hopefully you are here to hear our voices and make a fair decision based on the facts and permits presented to the County. Secondly, I would like to address South County. Wally has lived here all his life and I nearly 40 years. South County needs jobs and a reason for young people to stay and work in our community. Our children moved away because there were no jobs or opportunities. Without growth and opportunity these communities in South County cannot survive. This project has accommodated all and many concerns brought forth to them by community, environmental and tribal issues. It is now time to move this project forward. Thirdly, look at the tax income benefits for the county, retaining young growing families, promoting jobs: full time, part time and seasonal, profiting business, tourism, and tax dollars for local schools, fire and sheriff. Again, please vote tonight to approve the development agreement so we can start looking forward to the benefits of this project. Thank you, Wally and Peggy Pederson FA Ce.iDCD V E C GR ' 9 ZoneAPR0 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us) Zk COUNTYIopposethecurrentplanfordevelopmentonBlackPointforthefollowir,,g,cea Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services as well as needed social service for under employed workers in off season. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. The scope of this MPR is out of line with the current population. Four out of five jobs created will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Off season part time workers will be laid off causing a bigger drain on our already over burdened food bank, heating assistance and social services. I would support a more reasonable size development that does not over -shadow the town of Brinnon. The Comp Plan called for retaining the rural character of the small town. The draft development agreement now allows 890 units. The planning commission had previously agreed on 560 units. This number is constantly changing as are the percentage for permanent and rental units. If the voting population of residential condo owners becomes a majority, our small town voters will lose their political voice. (As in the `gentrification' of Snoqualmie after Weyerhauser's Snoqualmie Ridge development) The size of this MPR is out of balance for the needs of the town. This will further diminish the current business district. Jefferson County Department of Community Development should be assisting small businesses to promote local tourism, with such activities as; tour guides, fishing guides, glamping, hiking and birding tours, instead of pushing for this one large resort development to suck up all the tourism dollars. The Developer promised at a meeting in Brinnon, that no current businesses would be displaced by his enterprise. So far, 3 woman owned businesses have been affected. 2 (kayak and houseboat businesses) had their contract ended at the Pleasant Harbor dock and one realtor's rent was raised so that she had to move to home business. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. and create traffic congestion and dangerous driving on this 2 lane highway, Most of the fast moving freight trucking and logging trucks use Highway 101 . It is the supply route for all of the Olympic Peninsula and in summer tourists in slow moving camp trailers are thrown into this dangerous mix. We live at Rocky Point, where traffic backs ups stretch for miles when a car or semi loses control in McDonald Cove curve. We have witnessed dozens of accidents per year in our 18 years of living here. My concern is that emergency vehicles are blocked in traffic when this 2 lane Highway 101 is at a stand still and is the only way in or out of Hood Canal. Traffic victims are often airlifted to the hospital. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, the Duckabush shellfish beds, the wetlands, and to wildlife. To the Hood Canal fjord, everywhere is `upstream' . What lands in our basin, flows through the forest, residential areas, through the development and to the canal. Testing and monitoring is being done on the Duckabush to determine the cause of the decline in shellfish population. The shellfish beds of the Duckabush are already threatened and 1414.0beingclosedduetohumanactivities, higher population will bring more damaging impacts to this fragile environment.. Local Tribes have a say, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. I am offended at the thought of filling in a natural geological feature and even more offended that the developer thinks so little of the culturally important areas, that he proposes to turn the kettle B, a sacred site, into a fill location for grading spoils and holding pond for sewer effluent. How would any of our churches feel if we proposed to use their sacred church to store sewer effluent ? I urge Commissioners, Kier, Sullivan and Dean to reject this MPR proposal in favor of a smaller plan. Sincerely, Beth Stroh -Stern 66 Rocky Point Rd, ij WO zoo'. i P&i o ttv\- cow's "¢a( e rzl--A-Y I. n 2ao-i .r +- ter, Y e/J-t' ,; (q AAA -- eK rc,.6 In..,°(. aE,. To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners My family owns a small home 2 miles south of the proposed MPR on Hwy 101 I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by filling the kettle with construction grading spoils, injecting runoff and water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer thereby destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area and has sacred meaning to the local tribes, drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in adjacent homeowner wells. The neighboring well owners should have guarantee of clean drinking water. Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. The scope of this MPR is out of line with the current population. The promise of more taxes from higher property values only makes sense if you are a land speculator, not a long time home owner. Why should retired folks on fixed incomes be made to pay for increased fire and police needed for this growth? I would support a more reasonable size development that does not over take the town of Brinnon. The draft development agreement now allows 890 units when the planning commission had previously agreed on about 560 units. The numbers presented have not been consistent. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. Our family's home is at Rocky Point, where traffic backs up for miles when a car or semi loses control in McDonald Cove curve. Many accidents per year have occurred in the 18 years our family has owned here. This makes me realize how shut off our area becomes when the only highway in or out is 2 lane Highway 101. Traffic victims are often airlifted to hospitals. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc from the additional car trips, harming water quality in Hood Canal, in the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. In the Hood Canal fjord, everywhere is `upstream' and it all flows to the canal. Testing and monitoring is being done on the Duckabush to determine the cause of the decline in shellfish populations. More traffic equals more toxic metals in the canal. According to the Wright Johnson study, the Brinnon area average median income is estimated at 33,077. The average amount Brinnon workers can expect is 80% less of the AMI amount is estimated at $26,461. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs, as when Walmart moves into an area. In the off season, part time workers will be laid off, causing a bigger need for social services to support them. Laid off workers will have to rely on our tax dollars and social service such as food bank and energy assistance to subsist through the winter months. The promise of no negative impact to existing Brinnon businesses has been a false promise. The Developer promised, at a meeting in Brinnon, that no current businesses would be displaced by his enterprise. So far, 3 woman owned businesses have been affected. 2 (kayak and houseboat businesses) had their contract ended at the Pleasant Harbor dock and one realtor's rent was raised by the developer so that she had to move to home business. The size of this MPR is out of balance for the needs of the town and natural constraints of the Brinnon area. It takes the business center and moves the activities down the highway 4 miles. This will further diminish the current business district. Jefferson County Department of Community Development should be promoting small businesses to promote local tourism, instead of promoting one large Canadian resort development to suck up all the tourism dollars. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe was left out of discussions and is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. I am very offended at the suggestion to fill the Kettle B with construction spoils and sewer effluent. This is so disrespectful! How would any church feel if we proposed to use their sacred church to store biosolids or effluent ? The latest report said the plan is to dump the biosolids at Shelton. Shelton has not agreed to take them. This MPR is too big and beyond the comp plan description as rural area. Sincerely, Naomi Stern RECEIVED C-9 To the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners <jeffbocc@jefferson.wa.us> APR 0 9 2018 My husband and I are Brinnon residents We have owned and lived just 4 miles south of Pleasant Harbor for 18 years. ' V.) . N I oppose this Master Planned Resort as it is proposed. I support a smaller plan, more in keeping with the Comp Plan and the goal of preserving the rural nature of the Brinnon and the surrounding area. The numbers of units proposed by the developer have changed from a 890 then down to 560 then up again to over 640 and no one knows what the final number will become. There are better ways to help the health of our area than to inject a large increase in population to a fragile environment. Why would a tourist want to come to this jewel of a harbor, in this beautiful fjord, with abundant shrimp, crab and clams to harvest, with birding and hiking trails, full of wildlife and glorious vistas, next to this spectacular mountain range that plummets down to the depths of Hood Canal, just to get a massage, ride a waterslide into a swimming pool or drive a golf cart to a tee on a manicured lawn? This area has so much more to offer tourist and residents. Jefferson County Department of Community Development has been pushing for this out - of -place, over -sized MPR. Instead of promoting one large development for this Canadian firm, JCDoCD's `Community Development' job should be to assist small business owners, who actually live here to develop tourist related activities involving this unique natural area. We need businesses that cater to; hiking, game hunting, camping, mushroom hunting , birding , fishing, crabbing, shrimping, clamming and even `glamping' would employ local people who know this area to share their knowledge with tourists about this truly special place. If the county wants jobs and progress for the south county, they should push for high speed internet service so that owners of cottage industries can work where they live. These activities are more in line with the goals of the Comp Plan for this rural location. Small businesses will have less damaging environmental impact than turning this quiet town into a congested traffic nightmare so that the developer can host events and conventions that have nothing to do with the surrounding area. It will turn away tourists who actually come to enjoy the serenity, quietude and natural wonders of our area. The developer stated at a meeting in Brinnon, that he would not build a competing gas station and his project would not displace existing Brinnon businesses. However a short while later, he ended his contracts with two marina based business owners, when they would not sell their businesses and client list to him and work for him at reduced wages. The kayak rental business, the houseboat business, who was threatened to end her rental agreement in the midst of her busy season, and the local realtor, who was priced out when Garth Mann raised her rent and she had to relocate. Three successful women -owned small businesses, had to move from Pleasant Harbor and start over elsewhere. This MPR Developer does not have a good track record of keeping promises. Highway 101 is a two lane road with hazardous curves and speeding traffic, including log trucks and freight haulers delivering to all of the Olympic Peninsula, as well as slow moving vacationers in travel trailers. We live just south of McDonald Cove, a hair pin turn that sees dozens of accidents every year. Our neighborhood is blocked in when these accidents occur, causing back ups for miles and preventing emergency vehicles from easy access to injured auto accident victims. More cars traveling to our rural road will increase these incidents, as well as increase pollution from road run off which drains into Hood Canal, essentially killing the goose that lays the golden egg. What benefit does this MPR offer to the local community? Low-paying, seasonal part-time service jobs, that disappear in the off season, creating a drain on the already burdened social services such as, food bank, heating and rent assistance programs. The Developer claims 2000 jobs will be created in a town with 6-800 population. Where do these workers come from and where will they live? How do they become part of the community? The developer claims the MPR will raise our property values and taxes! Unless we are house speculators or realtors and want to `flip' our houses, most residents hope to keep their homes with stable values and not have to pay more in taxes to fund the increased population of schools, highway, fire protection. How big do we want to grow? Who benefits and who pays? Pleasant Harbor Resort's promotional video states 30% of condos will house permanent residents and 60% will be short term rentals. 30% of 640 ( the latest of the changing figures?) is 192. If this block of voters decide they want more gentrified services for this tiny community, our voting power will be lost, as happened when Weyerhauser's Snoqualmie Ridge Development took the voting majority over the adjacent small town of Snoqualmie. Many of the older residents on fixed incomes and young families could not afford the tax increases to pay the bill for the expanded sewer, new schools, road improvements, police and fire services and were forced to sell and move further out away from the town they loved. Follow the money. Who benefits and who pays? I urge the Commissioners to represent the best interests of the people of their district instead of the developer who lives elsewhere. Reject this too big MPR as currently proposed. Thank you, Beth Stroh -Stern 66 Rocky Point Rd Brinnon, WA 98320 CC" -66cC 1C A y 9 I g Kirie C. Pedersen Post Office Box 687 Brinnon, WA 98320 Board of County Commissioners Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 9 April 2018 Greetings Commissioners and local citizens: i APR 0 9 201B My testimony this evening has a title. It's "Saving Paradise," published in Still Point Arts Quarterly, referencing my attempt to communicate why it's important to protect and preserve fragile ecosystems such as Black Point and Pleasant Harbor, site of the proposed resort. The article is available for all to read at my website, www.kirieped ersen. coin I have deep roots in the Brinnon Community. My parents settled here in 1945, and I was born here in 1951. As far as I'm concerned, there are few places on earth more beautiful. All I ever wanted was to return to Brinnon, build a cabin on my own land and raise my own family free in the forests and beaches as I'd been raised. And that's what I did. For the past thirty years, I have been a homeowner, taxpayer, and community member. When I first moved back here thirty years ago, Jefferson County had something called the Planning Office. They got some kind of grant, and hired consultants to come out to Brinnon to facilitate a workshop. They wanted to know what we wanted for our community. The room was packed. The consultants broke us into small groups, and each group brainstormed priorities. Then each picked its top three, and we returned to the large group and wrote it all out on huge sheets of paper. What was odd was how much we were all in synch. We wanted the same things: protection of our rural environment, our forests and beaches. A safe place to raise our families and to retire. Locally -based family-owned businesses. Better bicycle paths along the edge of the highway. Wildlife protection. Not one person mentioned a huge resort. About fifteen years later, a different type of meeting was being convened. This was to discuss a Brinnon Sub -Area Plan. And from the beginning, a Master Planned Resort was tacked on. From that moment on, discussions were no longer pleasant or nice. Our community felt fractured. Please help us create locally owned economic development of human scale, with community- based values, in proportion with our remote rural location on a fragile inland sea. Please say no to a large-scale resort, and help us preserve and protect Pleasant Harbor as everyone's paradise. Thank you. / cc BoaI CH R E r, E, wErDCS10-101(11(7 - R 0 9 2018 July 6, 2016 JEFFE 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 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. 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 6`h, 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. 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. Black Point between two estuaries Hood Canal 2 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: 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. In 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). 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. 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. 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. 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#01-0105-09) 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. 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 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. In 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 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 20`h, 2016 (later extended by the BOCC to July 11`h, 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. It 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. In 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 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 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 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: and 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." 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. 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#01-0105-09 0 The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC careful consideration of the following: The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golf course 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 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; 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. 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.g. 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 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 of the proposed regulations. In the interest of completing the technical process agreed upon in the April 18"' 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 LNP 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. 7 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 at 7/6/2016 PC public meeting: In Favor: Cynthia Koan, Chair (District 1) Lorna Smith, Co-chair (District 2) Mark Jochems (District 2) Tom Giske (District 3) Opposed: Richard Hull (District 3) Kevin Coker (District 1) Abstaining: Mike Nilssen (District 3) Absent: Gary Felder (District 1) Matt Sircely (District 2) O aJ Q N O 'Oj 'O j L O 'O y 'u O 3 Y 'O L .9 E y a ..0+ a0+ O OS L O O6 m E V m ONOQU N Ym m aO m O ° E m U,) c o mE° -cxpl a O o (D a, v 5 Q 0m ,. mo 0 O d . T vmN cu $a a° O ' m v > i m° •3E mms s ° °X 3 E ,.q wm M _2c° O2m o EYvvaEOctmv E0cEoo uma Q N 0 E(DE 3 co> X o o cNoaot ", a -0 C N C 00 u,1°Y dO i Q y' Uimoo C Ov ' m^ N 03 O o o odNm3 0 0 c mN a E L wwu d om mE O 'O7 'O o LB Om0HmNm o 'S m o- 0 3 a0i c> Y E .n a ° o 0 L. CP L o_ u 3 a -o S U L... Q>° .L. .L, m a' H m 3° o m S al E N L C a' d Q1 C O C O Y m N—f0mOmNVm+ C N f E u E E S N u m a E 'E N 0 m O 'O > _o O_ 'O O Y +L+ 011 L O) c o Z U O .N u •N aNi E Y s a o m -o j N Y U u c w N O o w m L m 3 v ° m G 41 y 1 rn y N o d m m d N r 'D L E m '> V7 C -O N ° Y C N O d C N 7 N m V- U - C N C U N 3 m 2 y v' z m' v IQms _6 s C (I` m m o a ° 3 L a a E E o° o m E c c H u 3 — m -O O m— ; 7 a ` m o y m E 3 y o _rn m a u_ m— a° m 0 m O _° -O al N E J C r Y i m 0 N N _° u m ro 3 3 r E -2 p= m y rn m Q LL '° rn Y C >, o- c: m O — o a E EL s o m v 3 -0 3 m ma .- E E m E o d .rn m N > w m Q .D o Ya> o m m o E c -o o OjOO w -w O ° QmmQ> n°t O o C > v LL S P O JT O @ :.= m 7 L C c & N Q P a F 0 C O C L 7 u 0 c E O N G d N a A O aJ Q N O 'Oj 'O j L O 'O y 'u O 3 Y 'O L .9 E y a ..0+ a0+ O OS L O O6 m E V m ONOQU N Ym m aO m O ° E m U,) c o mE° -cxpl a O o (D a, v 5 Q 0m ,. mo 0 O d . T vmN cu $a a° O ' m v > i m° •3E mms s ° °X 3 E ,.q wm M _2c° O2m o EYvvaEOctmv E0cEoo uma Q N 0 E(DE 3 co> X o o cNoaot ", a -0 C N C 00 u,1°Y dO i Q y' Uimoo C Ov ' m^ N 03 O o o odNm3 0 0 c mN a E L w wu d om mE O 'O7 'O o LB Om0HmNm o 'S m o- 0 3 a0i c> Y E .n a ° o 0 L. CP L o_ u 3 a -o S U L... Q>° .L. .L, m a' H m 3° o m S al E N L C a' d Q1 C O C O Y m N—f0mOmNVm+ C N f E u E E S N u m a E 'E N 0 m O 'O > _o O_ 'O O Y +L+ 011 L O) c o Z U O .N u •N aNi E Y s a o m -o j N Y U u c w N O o w m L m 3 v ° m G 41 y 1 rn y N o d m m d N r 'D L E m '> V7 C -O N ° Y C N O d C N 7 N m V- U - C N C U N 3 m 2 y v' z m' v IQms _6 s C (I` m m o a ° 3 L a a E E o° o m E c c H u 3 — m -O O m— ; 7 a ` m o y m E 3 y o _rn m a u_ m— a° m 0 m O _° -O al N E J C r Y i m 0 N N _° u m ro 3 3 r E -2 p= m y rn m Q LL '° rn Y C >, o- c: m O — o a E EL s o m v 3 -0 3 m ma .- E E m E o d .rn m N > w m Q .D o Ya> o m m o E c -o o OjOO w -w O ° QmmQ> n°t O o C > v LL S P O JT O @ :.= m 7 o .i m m N u m o E o 3 >, c u v c -o v w o2 u 3 3 ` « R d E .N `o c m O E 7 c o o m ? R -u 3 c rnm rn o Z o Y 1 rm 0 ,'1 s o m a E N c a) C V ` EC w d a)0) n o p O O a E > 0 « o y m 0) 0) Y R RE .R a a) m Y M « 2R w. 01 -0 mC > CM N ID @ ' Oo L S ' C C) Cu O Oiu O d C - C o o NC 3 -o rn o Nd 0 O O C L C N v N N v N rn E c a 0 E« Q m 3 E 0 o fol7 .a m o' O1 o a. s m o u o o- s > DN 'C U L .> 0 m T C C N N .3 N RTa, C C O Coa@ 'E w@ m Lt` p 3 p ° c `w E N R a) 0) L •0 v R N N J T p O o o N N O L 0« rn 3 E F«« E o 5A N m 3 0 3 N -D _O m a) N C R @ -O t -O Y >. L O) « d y c C L a) m N 'O is m C -0 O u -O C R N J C O) @ E C J N D « « @ ° 0 O C0-0-M-5-2 R ,t @ U 0--o '0 O J • '0 « a) @ S p N C 'U O ° O p) @ LI) T c m m Y -o o 0 m 3 -. o > > °_ U« O -a m 0 c -0 c E m O B N @ O N n N '0 N d C-0 R T R w y c -0 N N Y N 0 a R N> m L c y@ a L v -d -p -0 « c E v m m p ` R 3 a, R 3 w Y 0 LUZ N C L R O E L~ U" @ N V . T@ @ E R _p ; N N «> U1 R ' 3 w C C @ E a) yo a9 . y E o s 3 v@ J g@ N E 3 m r ca °p « @ m @ a) rn@ o _ m -0 .N __ o L a m o d" N @ c E y .0 d o 0 c E ° O O N @ R u @ U O > H @ O L C O @ S C @ y @ O o « R L « L . J Nm ao odd YS° ima 0 oro )m E -m ° m c °o ° r m o m dV E OO Q) O FoEyuo o 0 n E A0u0p -0 4 V w a) E N N- Cr L«3 O COV) O - 6 t2C@COD_ v L 0 ° E O R O O0) O oEO) C 0t2 -0AOC p OO_ C L Oo n.0«E° c0o42Eo « = TO>r EE N Q- ,d « L« FFE -o _Q 0) o F N a) O C C 'm c 2 O E a) °- ON O N d) c « u N ° O L N -O C R m U 0 E N J .O E N 2 _O A T O y -O Ir - WOE 3 ° C O ,L p 3 c La) N a7 u 7. L E O a O >, Y L`' m O O m 3 0 m c E o E a) E o w o c R N u R o m o m o u_ E R •> LaR0OOrCO_ R R Y u E d c o 0 N L y r o o 3 s °« m° a o 9 -° C L @ -p F°- d d 3 w O? j J 'O o« ru i o . 'O -0 O c V m y0NO E u 'Om U) O w> o O . O E oN E ou c.G_ aai N cj m3 zAU wm y aO v o m O L Y v r a> L N N L O 3 ON O O J V E>« N R 0 v R >E•. D7 o u J 3 .3 0 R a m -o > o u 0, R L ° C o - -o d `m 3 0 a, om 'E @ _0 R o Y Y m v o J u a m C - V E •2 -0 N N 0) N a) d d 3 O v S R V > .c C O_ a, a. T C r « aL+ a o Y > 0 J C .v m > E o L N w w v c ' i o O Q Q N Y a J O O N R c Y m c a) o c u O U m° y T« c 0) m 3 Y ' S~ ' O ° O C aoO@N3vHS7 ..Q E o u a v E 0 0 @ @ o_ N v c 3 a E J a ON C0 -cca) O L a. 0a) YQR _ aCa' cc0- - OJ6y, - @N O CV O O O 3NdNLUCOQ. NC R 0a) odum,+ N' arvN` o uRQN O •E a _ W ° @ umm Em v o NE ja9 w 'Na, @ u> s p 0-0 p « 3u0 - o oo E 0) 0 Yu a; a 0 E O UO > l 'c ao -p ° Y 7 -p _ a«a- O 0- s o° o ° 0c c • @am . 9 f m 0 J -0 > o a) C t-0 u `,a °~ ° Y > @ a y« vYo3N y @ U a) N E d E ( a, o 'y @c ° o a °= Y m 3 n m a) C 0 3 m E o c 3 0_ m t m m ° o c o o am • p °" 0W 0> m -p N Y - d m @ -p u~ U J c `m -0 m N C u y T d N d O . O` Y N w o° c m 3 p °' a w u 3 N c N u 0f0 dr « -Oc m O m L N c« u 3 R S O a 0 a) d 3 p C OREVO .i ' Q L - C E m T N N + O N L J •> w c> 3 v^ E o Q E L E .(D c¢ s« E o v c J v c> N w° i R« « .n O c a) a) o« F 0 o o L¢ o 0@ c p m> O d E iE 7VQ_ O f0 R u @ Q u O 0 Q •3 > 3 0. 3 u u 7 2 Q 9- z-0 R U N i N Vf t t_O C 'O 'D -O m m yO Ol -Om w -O - 0 0 C 0 l N N -O tm OC N C`=YNs'O C ? N O m O O Oc•w yFn m m -O d m T N ,- L i. N a m m C H R w m N y "C L V w -O C 3 Y 3 y L _ N t0+ N O O DQ m p U O m d0W. E > `-° m c u ao. m 3 L u p d A L- N L >o ~[ o x -a 3 0C [ 3 O O — A N L. Y N O ~ m T w i •3 m~ Y O H -0 • ~ w m O c N o_ 3' o t 'u >_ v E s m y' a -V E m d a m p r o O > yO m m X'O E V O s y ry N O O -O V .- m .L. o N > Q E 0 01 Y N m d Y T m E O a N U O N 10 N T N N O C T w m w E -6 o 'O m> 0 O O E ro ro-u c m >, O m Y T O m >, m o w O O m m N C J O m m- L1J N t' E ' a N O N YO j m m m ` Ol N T O N " L ^ o d s Q m , 3 y ', o y E w Ol m g vj 'S v m 3 u o_ p m' ° v a c m m o o 3 ° rn> . o rn c u c m>°- m m o o_ Lt c `m °' c[ c E -c 0 0 0 o c° M o U, v 0' u i . ° o Cl o > m rn A> c Y N o n EElHmdmoonvaxiaco° m 'o o 0 c a o u° c a o o N1 m E • - m c Y d u c , E .0 v y Y >, N Q u „_ m Ln „ N L L m o_ N m Y c c Q o v v • 0 4% Q O d d •= u N m ai a°` c ` r a o o 5 p ?a m v o o c E o o c „'o a c` '> m 3 m E u Z o i- m a i 0_ <n . m m w `u 1] w o p -a '> @CVd-' NyC Ny NmU 3' 2 O -O L O C m yL d. QNd6... 00m 0 cE` cT 0u3ONycO_ f wNmNm y' Ua° p` m 5 ocmo O LCL— mo No CaLp oONoa> EpcID c o c u i mv m _T_6oo u o v m s.wmc_ O c10N4) OmEO C L Om N N NN>° c T O) c o a, wu , p u o-0 15 OO mmNcuSm 0d c- m ` w u omC3 m a+ omN+ rn u y° m E o moqpoyuCcNNYCUNWOt N V 00d' o C C N 0 2:- c Lam>-• Y E 00 L EN2 o m m Y` a o o 0 L -a CCwySo m Norn N -0 " w c -O10 m o dm d ° E o E o E o° E a « E`oo°wc N E E o mm N N cY0o O Yc N m uo 0 O O o C o Z O 7 0m No00mmao3900) o u- 9 09 LOmfyE6j) u E 2;o_ O N 3 N Y p m Y o ° • 'D N ad+ m N 0 m ad- . l E E L p cE O v y @ m a u. N m U d E :a U C vd 4 d 2) + L O C T 7 i p . E n T C O.• L 1 Y Y0O _ c movcEm3L.• >. o m T '^ o m y c U`° C L o c o o . ° v m E .° c s c Z E c o Q E v m . L a i q y E o m J E o° m v c° v •E E m L° E N v N -dp .a S ON u N 6) o d o„ Q U O O p• p C O w .Oi N y o N U .0 > C C V E m V 3 O y m N a N m N O S t O7 N 'C mme % c- 'E -u .m o m y O N d T o v c c m o c L O1 E L m ._ Ui Q O U J m C V m O L E m -0 •p u C Oo y O v Y m 0) p c AOYmdN -0 C C Y v c v o° vo c E : am c H m 3 a v 3 s" `o o aE v v m O m emir m N s c m, 3 m o E E oo) a v -p L -0 m Y m p -p c> V u w m J L J O V N d v U C O C S C L N C t S E ° ` C m C V O m d p ° a Y o N -p m > 'u p « c d °' N 6) L 7 ,c m 'C c0 .V J m c odCEoppCdUv - C J U m N J O _' O_ m J O = J v Y N N O m c O m v J y J Z v v O m N O_ m -o d L U O7 E O C J ' u) N T Y ? 0 9 d_ or d L T V E p O L u ° u.- -° N D_ m m 6 y L 01 m m D m N Y Y 0" v c w E m rn c c v o a m E o ENyNNcLQmrsYNY 'Y O° m c L m m > ', ' 'w " Y m N 'O N !nLmYdC3 N E N N 3 Y T u Ol `p m d' > > 3 c — m d v - m v a y m o r c N o •c •c v E Q o o 0Sum33mmsmuNcNmoo_ m m r c 0(t >> m U m 3 m` J L m` N A tN0 ay+ C— d dN T T c 5 -vo c N p a E 3>' d N a m 0 ° _v v L of c m a) " O_ O _O L . a) ° L > E o E Q c 3 6) C 9> O v y Q a>i 3 0'- m p E m> v w 30 ' C d •C Y O E D o° O c v.5 -0 D N m C ca ' v v v v u v 3 o Q O N oo 6 a -o .N o a m yaWNo ,J cp > c c v E u m p '0 v y o v 0 °u E y a o L - m w o H YQ) Q — m 4 .N m U N m m N 0) Nm ? m ^Nd cQ1 -0y E vE 3N r0 - O° m-'@vE L 0Rpu N Y A s Ym+ m O) mN Op3) C C OCym C i0 e v m L m 3 yv E N rnc com u o v u H o v o 6 v c Yow00 m o> v o m° 3 o C n E L m c N°° `w d m o o E LO c N o y°° v ' L u a u 3 u . c w `oQoamicm> O r Q p ` a m aci c m R :n c v L E m 3 .X a 3 v m E o v Q mdmaE v, c` T pmacpv _Ov u Lu °om LvL Hvi aaT —• muE U CO CQ) O Cm m m Np m O G E > 0 va° 0 E O o O ° S° NCO m!.;mT" Nc2 .v' NDJ YUr mo Y v° iN; " 6Cmm UsCrn3 oY° E 0 o Mm X o ' o o_ m 0)v 0 v> aYQ0O,c o 0 TE0c m2sOd mDy° dE 1 YmO aLL — CuEL s O O p dOmmvvmNLvL H O L o E ' -o y •Q d L c C, avi m s m Q E 3 v o o f m u v m 3 N E 3 0_ Q ll m e - a U C J m -V M a) H m0) u mv ` v Nm o rnN v o c O O -0 v v C v o O E Y 6) N c D Lv - 0c m c d > J >° o c o o v _ ° m := Yc Cvp YmNE . m mm °O O '0x O m n cC V vd Q a u v d v p) 1wNd m o O O O_ O cm c ON N C U p T O O c Jv m OdN m O m YDV' C:, O Y vE E E O u T 8 N d d S «dv oE pc v E O 0) E ocvmY ' o m - p O m a c.r- L` y, Om- n Eu o mc - -0N yE w.v L 0 T N2 a C 0Ct0m LOLo°o 0- a) L m o N L u U c L L m v E 0« O L L + v- m c N v aTi E E °- o c '_' L y J a o_ ''v' g Q c L 0) c° c,`_ 16 m E E L 7 v N" C C C v m _ E D_ N p L O 1 v Y O N> OU m a w p s N o v a p y 0 0 0 L m L c r U 3~ o E° 0 5aoa_ a w 3¢ LL E 0 -o E L m 0) u 0 u m — a O v Vi 4-r Rj cl a y O O un O N A tN0 ay+ C— d dN T T c 5 -vo c N p a E 3>' d N a m 0 ° _v v L of c m a) " O_ O _O L . a) ° L > E o E Q c 3 6) C 9> O v y Q a>i 3 0'- m p E m> v w 30 ' C d •C Y O E D o° O c v.5 -0 D N m C ca ' v v v v u v 3 o Q O N oo 6 a -o .N o a m yaWNo ,J cp > c c v E u m p '0 v y o v 0 °u E y a o L - m w o H YQ) Q — m 4 .N m U N m m N 0) Nm ? m ^Nd cQ1 -0y E vE 3N r0 - O° m-'@vE L 0Rpu N Y A s Ym+ m O) mN Op3) C C OCym C i0 e v m L m 3 yv E N rnc com u o v u H o v o 6 v c Yow 00 m o> v o m° 3 o C n E L m c N°° `w d m o o E LO c N o y°° v ' L u a u 3 u . c w `oQoamicm> O r Q p ` a m aci c m R :n c v L E m 3 .X a 3 v m E o v Q mdmaE v, c` T pmacpv _Ov u Lu °om LvL Hvi aaT —• muE U CO CQ) O Cm m m Np m O G E > 0 va° 0 E O o O ° S° NCO m!.;mT" Nc2 .v' NDJ YUr mo Y v° iN; " 6Cmm UsCrn3 oY° E 0 o Mm X o ' o o_ m 0)v 0 v> aYQ0O,c o 0 TE0c m2sOd mDy° dE 1 YmO aLL — CuEL s O O p dOmmvvmNLvL H O L o E ' -o y •Q d L c C, avi m s m Q E 3 v o o f m u v m 3 N E 3 0_ Q ll m e - a U C J m -V M a) H m0) u mv ` v Nm o rnN v o c O O -0 v v C v o O E Y 6) N c D Lv - 0c m c d > J >° o c o o v _ ° m := Yc Cvp YmNE . m mm °O O '0x O m n cC V vd Q a u v d v p) 1wNd m o O O O_ O cm c ON N C U p T O O c Jv m OdN m O m YDV' C:, O Y vE E E O u T 8 N d d S «dv oE pc v E O 0) E ocvmY ' o m - p O m a c.r- L` y, Om- n Eu o mc - -0N yE w.v L 0 T N2 a C 0Ct0m LOLo°o 0- a) L m o N L u U c L L m v E 0« O L L + v- m c N v aTi E E °- o c '_' L y J a o_ ''v' g Q c L 0) c° c,`_ 16 m E E L 7 v N" C C C v m _ E D_ N p L O 1 v Y O N> OU m a w p s N o v a p y 0 0 0 L m L c r U 3~ o E° 0 5aoa_ a w 3¢ LL E 0 -o E L m 0) u 0 u m — a o d V a N ` m C N T C Y a d N N m v a m m a" E ' a m y' vo E v 3" o c° s J o o v c° .v L 'E E .p E° o o E a E vR o `v o v E o Y U - aE) ' n v `u° o N o- v c .c -o o E 3 o Q C rn R y o m v ooJa) o v « m o Y a m- a N N m m m o o o a m m m -° m `ca , m ai -JO f6 an d -' s 3 o u m m J o U p C N a Y m a v c E c m aa '« 3 m° v N 3 v> m i 's u E o N m 15 E .` N a) E c m R Q- > v 9 .c J o 3 L p v^- y E v v « v Cc O 'O v m R N v a) v 3 R T L ' T C S OZo00 _ E ti °° "E m «° c v r E o N J Y V a+ • N O N O O« S O N 'D v m a_ O m m N m O a m L L d N Q u m m 0 E L 2 m 3 0 t, c 0 c= m N of c o m m Y °u o E aR L a o° E R a o o c m i n a m o N E> a)> o C> o a L> '- y a w .c m ° ° u a s v v ° a ° o L > '> v° v c N E •c v v c 3 c R v E v v i m-« u- o mo v c yRT, v L° - E c Z v «s, v% d d Q E `m p) s a u°i A 4 d E ° m« O a m v C N 'cr . L R- r E T u N Q N p T N V > a >> ? -O L a N « m O N N N = a Y R d N L O C- v a ° > R N L T a) ++ m L 'R L o a E « m a o R a E 3 4- s v .3 E v C N -N- m . v, y v E Y E m m c s `m - C N O m v o ' N O > Q Q o L .N v- p C v to >. v N R v s O'C o O m Q o 'u v m u u N 'o io O v . E 2 3 E' m N an d .`-^ N d a > a cm a c v a a, `O N v .' m e a u N = V ,' .L 0 C .T -G avcmdccRcvcc m O am, C J R R O N N C > m O v m d R R N 2 7 m @ > >. O t N. C V L OU V a0 .0 C D_ O O m S 7 O m N +N+ O_ .0 -O > m O Y « w a) E m a7 N N o , E N O u u m N L c u m U m m v > Y O T Q a a O O m C T R -° -° L R Q m R>d Y R a m O m _° N Q Q OO F a) C N n N . .m E Q N N V v G i N v m >, Vi C p N E m v m n o L o N o aVmO m0 d,N dv ° c O> CR > '> 0 0 R 4 nLL 0) u E 3 0O0 E uoooNmoR ° RON O m O_ O m O '0 O O uJi E m c N m ZmN m O> c_> y '. 0 Lc o c E 0 o °° 0 a m o > -o aa) c` v 0 cc yO CW cc C m v OOv m JO ° OOOE O> ° mN O c O v ooVcvavL3> E mYpFcO u y L ao61 aN. aEmR a v a aa, a mr -2J=m=-JaO yvv m m m OOQm' ^ o o " N o iN m 3 v ° a Jo y O V O_N R O 47- CCOL Jc m c a r v upoUNYLcv O_ c C1 m a v y Y OIDp m -Op ,+ o v Q a N 3 m m d O s a '.N-- m e m Q v° OR« C O° V m O vmEEE a a o_ avi ? .} ' m `° 3 m F-- v o o o cN m a N o Ni v` v aNi « E °- 'c (D -Q m m o a u m Q R i v a .4 m y N o a 0 N a .c u) Z L .v+ a C J 3 3 N := v° n al' y o R2QNOCYEm3 a 'm N r N T .' o oa0p )n J a m `O « a R > u m c E ai ° .E c E v 0 c > N v c m S 2 p . v a v .v, v o i N 3> o(n J E iL m«U O 0- a) 3 o L, m v -o o y v 3 a c Y .L d m o N 6 o c N T C o a N c 6 r v v -o EvY -O m O J E 'c v m O - a m L E y ,Q) o u; c N v c R 0, m Emo « > E Ya R y a N J o a m 3 L o m- v m o —Q o°> v c 3 c a 0 mmvEo )i m ' E rn c x J E> d> d v v m y0 O N Q) L > O E Y a aC L L _ 7 Q m 0 v N a R m N N .> . C 2 Lv N c _ m a d J> v m a y E u v a m a x o N m o vERi o c J •° o m c o E d OvD °- N o . N -v0 O E vvi m ° w p" v c L v Y v u Q m v v c m '^ c m c> o J u N v p a E o_ u J c o 3 n. v R T u v o c « c N o 0 o a « m o o s N o L u- o c ' N m E o o u v R O o) R o f ° R mmac°° v v m o vas n 0= T v m 0 3 o c o . o N v c c >i J T C c 3 uJi E C N N m m C t3 -a N o N aR`-• m L O d v Y N Q .N « k -Foy 'c m c v_ 0 3 R R r c J E a c R c o v Y m D E« N Y y °) c N jL, d m 'E o o o o m o 0--. E ' c a m .c E r O«° v y a N T R p aR ° v° p o a `m v v o«a E a v .> > .«° N v N °- o m= °) N o c v s —>' c u> u o_ M— -aua @ o o J L C O O L Y a L °>- »«_ a N y m R p L O > LmCOv> .d « a) u a z m m o . m a y E m o? a ° a c N m L F O R o a w d v. m 3 0 a > m 3 a . Q« o 0 o« o a o c o o ao o m o a m c o« v C `mN N V L t O J O al p o« O C .y U T N T N m N >O m(0 m O_ m L m L >- O .N N > Y N O L C E += m a a .° ° Q. C R a a J 2 > a C - o L v R - o C « m v T m - O m O,y v O O v v v x a) O 0 Q E« E m a E m m$« ° a m« c 0 i r 4 PCI 4. 4.J rOs y L ao61 aN. aEmR a v a aa, a mr -2J=m=-JaO yvv m m m OOQm' ^ o o " N o iN m 3 v ° a Jo y O V O_N R O 47- CCOLJc m c a r v upoUNYLcv O_ c C1 m a v y Y OIDp m -Op ,+ o v Q a N 3 m m d O s a '.N-- m e m Q v° OR« C O° V m O vmEEE a a o_ avi ? .} ' m `° 3 m F-- v o o o cN m a N o Ni v` v aNi « E °- 'c (D -Q m m o a u m Q R i v a .4 m y N o a 0 N a .c u) Z L .v+ a C J 3 3 N := v° n al' y o R2QNOCYEm3 a 'm N r N T .' o oa0p )n J a m `O « a R > u m c E ai ° .E c E v 0 c > N v c m S 2 p . v a v .v, v o i N 3> o(n J E iL m«U O 0- a) 3 o L, m v -o o y v 3 a c Y .L d m o N 6 o c N T C o a N c 6 r v v -o EvY -O m O J E 'c v m O - a m L E y ,Q) o u; c N v c R 0, m Emo « > E Ya R y a N J o a m 3 L o m- v m o —Q o°> v c 3 c a 0 mmvEo )i m ' E rn c x J E> d> d v v m y0 O N Q) L > O E Y a aC L L _ 7 Q m 0 v N a R m N N .> . C 2 Lv N c _ m a d J> v m a y E u v a m a x o N m o vERi o c J •° o m c o E d OvD °- N o . N -v0 O E vvi m ° w p" v c L v Y v u Q m v v c m '^ c m c> o J u N v p a E o_ u J c o 3 n. v R T u v o c « c N o 0 o a « m o o s N o L u- o c ' N m E o o u v R O o) R o f ° R mmac°° v v m o vas n 0= T v m 0 3 o c o . o N v c c >i J T C c 3 uJi E C N N m m C t3 -a N o N aR`-• m L O d v Y N Q .N « k -Foy 'c m c v_ 0 3 R R r c J E a c R c o v Y m D E« N Y y °) c N jL, d m 'E o o o o m o 0--. E ' c a m .c E r O«° v y a N T R p aR ° v° p o a `m v v o«a E a v .> > .«° N v N °- o m= °) N o c v s —>' c u> u o_ M— -aua @ o o J L C O O L Y a L °>- »«_ a N y m R p L O > LmCOv> .d « a) u a z m m o . m a y E m o? a ° a c N m L F O R o a w d v. m 3 0 a > m 3 a . Q« o 0 o« o a o c o o ao o m o a m c o« v C `mN N V L t O J O al p o« O C .y U T N T N m N >O m(0 m O_ m L m L >- O .N N > Y N O L C E += m a a .° ° Q. C R a a J 2 > a C - o L v R - o C « m v T m - O m O,y v O O v v v x a) O 0 Q E« E m a E m m$« ° a m« c 0 i r a) p NE w o c c 'C ` m O ° a C E o m y m E m` E v° m o c0 C N __ O) Y m a Y> fl- 0 O_ O_ O m 3 ` m E d m° S c m m c o p -O O H E ° L - N vi m C N a. a c c m c L -° m> c o> O Y m w Y A m O C a+ m N 'C O C C U C O O Ym c C Z O c o 0 m O) 3 c s m N O 2 E • .R m o yi0NCOUCya m m uo > m u E° S E a .o m q3ammm4@EaNamo0mmoavL3 N cC a -MN .0 ° 0= 3•;° c m m y rn m CID 2o o) L _ m mN CN i N C ma - E O 0Nm -0 u' L 0 OC3am` S E° L. s a Y y° Q y m y H y O N O) a N -O O C cl a) (D N a O O) O) C C (D a) N 3 'F+ —Y N a) C o c-0 c C N j h O s m U N ,O m 0 .• C O o C C O N O C .0 ° a I- d m N N a ET C C H m> t E S O a1 C m C m +, p N O U N N E .> 0 .. L N t m o m m O v N Y 0 c s o 0 c N m !^ p C[ Q N N N a U L m Ha) aIO+ • V m m o C 2 a) E s m . E m E° mmmmm o x d m 0 E E o m= u _ O V Oo U N Y m 3 U)-0 3 omo_ 0_ ° Q N F2 m Z) m m n j (D d T m m T a N T ayCYCA E m 3> 0 m 'E o . > a 3 m° ,> a v o> N O N T a o a Y h E - a" Cm U O m c O OO) a, a > 3 N c L Y N m N N N N N m m N ° o O_ E y a F- O a) ,n N E` m ..a c H Y o C m a aNi a> E y 0.. m L p -a m I c y° >, a m Ycm— y m a s c o o L m >, m u a m m N m " U - 3 m 0aoSEvacmm33 ° a m° m "n y_ m H rn c r w O O m C N S C N —° N ._ ° '70c m Y E H v s° ° o Ep_ a oE m Q2 ° Oy °' _ ° °° L py -M my c3 mv c ya o u °0) 0 m oy C ;a o >- o m i m0) 30 E E La CLOCYSOO3NyC ' C C C m C m N O_ N '9 L m Q) 2 m N O_ U E I Nmnooc3TaY m . S o o° -C 5 m_ CC, -v E c a m m 0 °? ° c 0 s° c 4N Uc .20EOdOp yEy3a Y O p o -cccu0of° E0Q0) i mQ E m O v N m c c rnrn om z 0 m 4Y E mm}` Uy_ E N o) a, '_ a' V y m o ° C o 4J m m m o U)— E L ma) L YO a E O_ u C 3 LOp -O C y U N -O m O a N c d rn _ S m D m o a m m o c O_ °° c • a ur a s a 0 m m C 7 >' E y c O a L O N 'N a O_ Y J m MN ° m C u O L N Ca0 m m m O) c a+ :E ON a O N F- rn 0) o c a> L O 2 Y C m O N o ur - mm m v 'L aci w v ) E C .2 03 u Q E c -° 3 m yv0 U0m c - m U) >, v N 00 D N N c - C m LdCYdmma1 ° w 0 m t a7 m m _-u N y m 3 m L 3 y w 9 w v r 2 y O 0= E O w u m c c m t Z6 C.0 a N O ti r 0 H y v y o_ o a E m 'c 2~ o 3 0 muOo_ o a m m d c U mmi OL d m C N U_ N N N C u C R d o 'o v` v —' — N v 3 0 o S° u a °o o p y ° .a c' y E Q v s >; O_ c m y m v o_ um) T 3 3° s 'p o r a N ° C 'm A d m° a 0) O N E NN O_ O O s 1 c a 0- m m 3 c m Y a o_ R d L v lo m o E o O y' m 3 Y E o c m a_ u `o a) o T u_ o °a c m=- E °- m a) 3 m o u 5 Q- c m om' o c_ E m o 3 ° x O) O O , C V a .p o 0 o- -O ° L Q OU o E o— E a m r c ..- o >> 1 a) p m a o) o y o) -6 O o O N Y m O m T O O C O . O a m c C N m « N E o o a) N C , LN, O N Oa o m O cao.°a c`Lpmmo_c NE°a 3 w O m U C u O ° ° C > W p s E w . d v o , N m c o m o c y a oE> u E a) ELummm> 2 c o_ ' a c o m> c A Iq lo C- q RECEIVEP APR 0 9 2018 J EF E H fl, oOFt IONERS LCS ted TletA- t kAA A/t,,,Lc,7L e-4meA C S O-AJ-4, MatA - -7lqA.0- VV 42,ed-k 14 'll -e- x-ztlo mi -Q, C -T -I-QzL I -D CtP C) tv A*AA-40 tt,LAwt,&iat 2?Ac4w dc, M vo, Tom CC ` BDC /C 1 Al VEDr_ April 9, 2018 APR 09 2018 Jefferson County Commissioners, v , COUNTY a.. 1 F) I've lived in Brinnon for 17 years. I've managed Pleasant Harbor Marina for 10.5 years. Prior to that I worked with my husband as a boat captain operating our own small business out of Pleasant Harbor. Managing a business in Brinnon is a challenger We have a good but small local customer base. -We have seasonal visitors. We have a limited number of local people willing or able to work. -We have a great facility that the MPR applicant owns.4Garth Mann spent a great amount of money improving docks, fuel system, buildings and amenities at the Marina. We still have work to do. -,Because we have limited off-season business we're forced to cut back on hours and employees. I think most businesses in Brinnon do the same. My daughter with her husband and their two sons wanted to live in Brinnon. She ended up moving to Silverdale, so her Husband could find work and so her boys had more opportunities in school. The Brinnon School is great, but it's hard to provide everything with the financial support they have. a Our taxes go up every year, we see little or no benefit. The taxes generated from this project construction and operation will be a great help to our local school, EMS and Police services and the county. Please vote to allow this project to move forward, helping us to provide year around employment for working families in the Brinnon area. Diane Coleman 294 Green Mountain Lane Brinnon, WA cc 6CCLIC p ILI" RECEIVED T cD q t g Black Poiri aster Plan _Pf jr.. ERr OP APP 9 9 2010D MPT1. Keeping a really fine hospital, law enforcement, first responders, para medies and -rte takes money and people don't want to pay higher taxes so we have to grow our revenue from projects and commercial businesses. The Black Point project will mean a couple of million dollars of badly needed revenue. 2. This will make the businesses in South County much more profitable. It will also help Port Townsend because people will visit P.T. for food and entertainment and friends will visit the people at Black Point and they will spend money locally and in P.T. 3. Jefferson County will be able to afford a badly needed deputy in South County. Schools will benefit and have more revenue. Most of the people will be older so there will not be many school age children. 4. To have a viable economy money has to circulate through the county. The residents and visitors to Black Point will bring money in from outside the county which will be a big benefit to the economy in Jefferson County. 5. There will be hundreds of jobs building the resort and jobs created to maintain the buildings and grounds. We have hundreds of homeless people in Jefferson County and we need jobs badly. I strongly support building the Black Point Resort and believe the environmental considerations can be kept to a minimum. James Fritz 271 Crutcher Rd. P.T. Wa 98368 Cell 360-316-9635 and E Mail jfritz@olypen.com Copy B.O.C.C. and the County Planning Commission CC '. TOCCIC . EIVEDDCSORD' March 26, 2018 APR p 9 2018 To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development and JEFFERSON ' T Jefferson County Planning Commission r 0 nAll N N E RS 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject: Comments on the Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort The purpose of this statement is to show why I have concluded that a majority of the Brinnon Community is now in support of the Pleasant Harbor Resort development. As a historic fact, eleven years ago, I was a Planning Commissioner for the County and was selected as the Committee Chair for a series of Scoping Level Development Proposals to the Brinnon Community. These meetings were very constructive and involved what is still considered to be a large representation of the Brinnon area. The feedback collected was organized and classified for use by both the County and the developer and resulted in the attachments to this statement. As you will see 30% of the comments were that the project was too big and not good for the community and 62% were directed towards environmental concerns such as waste water and water availability. All concerns about the size of the project and the environmental impacts have been addressed and resolved by the developer. Therefore, it should be concluded that if the same level of effort were to be taken today as was taken eleven years ago it would result in a favorable response. In closing, the readers of this statement should be aware that there has been and always will be organized opposition to most any development project. Those involved with the opposition are often supported by outside interest groups that are determined to succeed in their goals to stop development based on environmental and social concerns. Their tactics are to constantly pressure the process in such a manner that those involved begin to believe in their position and that they represent the majority. This coupled with the fact that most often that there is a silent majority of people that get tired of having to constantly support worthy projects that they believe in. This fact is evident of what has taken place in the Brinnon area over the past eleven years. Please support this worthy project. Sincerely, t Bud Schindler 270 Rhododendron Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 March 27, 2007 MPR Comments Classification Matrix Alternatives: 1. No Action 2. Brinnon Sub -area Plan 3. Statesman Proposal 4. A Hybrid between the Brinnon Sub -area Plan and the Statesman Proposal Nine areas of Probable Significant Adverse Impact (PSAI) for each of alternatives above: 1. Shellfish 2. Water 3. Transportation 4. Public Services 5. Shorelines 6. Fish and Wildlife 7. Rural Character/Population 8. Archeological and Cultural Resources 9. Critical Areas For each PSAI above, the impacts will be classified as: 1. Direct Impact (e.g. filling of wetlands) 2. Indirect Impact (e.g. increased flood risk) 3. Cumulative Impact MPR Comments Recorded at Scoping Level Presentation Merits Against MPR: 30% Too Big 26% Not good for the Community 4% Environmental Concerns: 62% Waste Water 17% Environment in General 13% Water Availability 9% Traffic 7% Shellfish 4% Wildlife 4% Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen 2% Sewer System 2% Shoreline 2% Merits for MPR: 8% Improve Tax Base: 4% General Economy 4% 0C. -i3occ clq q h APR 0 9 2010 March 26, 2018 JEFFERSoiv COUNTY To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development and 0 M S Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject: Comments on the Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort The purpose of these memo is to provide general comments in support of the Pleasant Harbor Development Agreement. My comments are based on the fact that parity will exist between the development effort and the community outside the development. As such, we are confident that the following improvements will be realized: Senior Nutrition Program and Meals on Wheels for those unable to travel will improve; Brinnon Schools operation and maintenance will be easier to finance as growth in attendance occurs; Brinnon Fire and Emergency Rescue funding support will increase such that those in need of rapid response will not be not be required to travel long distances when time is important,- 0 mportant;• Living wage jobs for our community will grow as will the population. Our area has been devastated by both the demise of the logging industry and current economic conditions that persist in an isolated rural region; Senior Health Care will improve such that traveling at least an hour in either direction will be minimized ; Environmental improvements of Pleasant Harbor and the surrounding area will continue to take place. According to the developer this project will be the most environmentally friendly project in Western Washington and will be something our community can always be proud of; Parks and Recreational activities will improve leading to a variety of activities for both tourism and the community; The Brinnon Village Center infrastructure will improve. The systems for water, sewer and roads will improve and will result in healthier and safer environment for local residents; The tax base for our community (and for the county) will grow leading to improved revenue for the county and hope for lower property taxes for our community. I support all aspects of the development and encourage its approval. The synergistic changes brought about by the resort are very important to our community and, as such, I urge the county to approve its development. The improvements realized by the development of the Pleasant Harbor Resort will provide hope that Brinnon will again be a vibrant community. Sincerely, l Valerie Schindler 270 Rhododendron Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 cc 6ccc JcH q 19/1T i E E s Dear Board of County Commissioners, r 7 RUC -o ORD APR 0 9 2010 I attended the Planning Commission meeting of March 21" and support the following decisions_ that they reached. First the Planning Commission recommends Kettles B and C be retained in their natural condition. Kettle B at 15 stories deep and 12 acres is a unique geological feature of the Olympic Peninsula that if my lungs allowed, would be an amazing place to experience as it is and has been for the last 10,000 years. Secondly I ask that you require the developers to ensure financial stability and viability by taking the precautionary step to require bonding so that when they recoup their investment and the development needs maintenance, they don't just walk away and leave us holding the bag. Finally the Planning Commission is asking that you work with the developer to reduce the amount of units. I fully support this. I could envision an eco -tourism development that used the kettles and the rich natural resources of our county in respectful ways. Golf courses, over 50,000 feet of retail space and close to 900 residential units is not respectful to the rural character of the Brinnon Community or the natural conditions of the area. Furthermore, I support the request of Donna Simmons, president of the Hood Canal Environmental Council to extend the public comment deadline until decisions have been reached on how to treat the kettles, assigning responsibility for water quality monitoring and enforcement, hopefully with an eye towards monitoring the health of the shellfish beds, redoing an economic analysis and dealing with the impacts of over 4,000 auto trips a year on 101 to the environment and the elk herd. Sincerely, Julia B. Cochrane 1175 23rd Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 willowtreegolypen.com 360 821-1926 Cc6occic-A g1111F PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM T 5d, 46 J R r 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE Kingston, WA 9AWN Oh April 9 1 171 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us SENT VIA EMAIL Dear Board of County Commissioners, APR 0 9 2010 F cE Irl S ` Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding Jefferson County's proposed Development Agreement and proposed Development Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). I am writing on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (Tribe) to provide comments and inform the Jefferson County County) Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that the draft Development Agreement does not comply with the specific conditions of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 and does not meet the required state and local regulations. In addition, it does not provide appropriate mitigation for potentially significant adverse effects. Although the County has met with representatives of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe on several occasions, our concerns have not been addressed in the proposed documents. Therefore, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe opposes the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement as written. The Tribe also opposes the adoption of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 17 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County code. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes that were signatories to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933.1 The Treaty reserved for the Tribe the right to engage in fishing, hunting and gathering in its usual and accustomed areas. These rights were not granted to the Tribe; rather, these were pre-existing rights that were reserved when the Treaty was signed. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members have deep ancestral ties to their traditional use areas, which pre -date the signing of the Treaty by thousands of years. Based on Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members' unique historic relationship with and knowledge of these areas and the natural resources in these areas, they will experience significant impacts from the proposed MPR project. For at least 17 years, the Tribe has commented on the proposed MPR at every step in the review process, beginning with the County's first proposal for a Brinnon Subarea Plan in 2001. The Tribe has repeatedly commented about concerns that potentially harmful effects were not being addressed and that important resources would be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. During the course of the process, the County has consistently minimized or completely ignored the Tribe's concerns. Here again, the proposed Development Agreement and Development United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020, 1039 (W.D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Boldt II). PORT GAMBLE SWLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Regulations give only a minimal mention of the local tribes and reflect the County's inadequate process for tribal consultation. Requests for the protection of culturally significant resources have been ignored. Requests for the development of a Stewardship Plan that ensures tribal access, in order to allow members to hunt and gather, have been ignored. The lack of any meaningful consultation in order to ensure the protection of important cultural and natural resources has resulted in an unacceptable proposal, which the Tribe must oppose. 1. Need to Correct Inappropriate Development Agreement Language Concerning Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign nation, meaning that it exists separate and apart from both the Federal and State government. The Tribe is an independent nation, with an independent government. The Tribe has undertaken its own study of the project area and has determined that the kettles and wetlands in the project area contain cultural resources, in need of protection and preservation. The Tribe has made both the County and the Developer aware of this fact, on multiple occasions, and has urged the preservation of the kettles and wetlands. The proposed Development Agreement contains a provision on cultural resources, titled "Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance." In the provision, the County and the Developer propose that only one kettle will be preserved, and only if prior to Developer applying for a grading or building permit ... the PGST applies for and receive a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.. Accordingly, the Developer is: (1) only required to preserve one kettle; and (2) only if the Tribe receives: (a) a determination on the listing of the project area; (b) before the Developer applies for grading and building permits. These requirements are unacceptable. First, the preservation of the kettles and wetlands, that a tribal government has already determined is a cultural resource, should not depend on the validation of a state government. The importance of the site, as recognized by the Tribe, should be sufficient to warrant protection and preservation of the site by the Developer, regardless of any listing with the State. Second, the Tribe already submitted an application with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to list the property as a Traditional Cultural Place. However, the review process is time intensive and involves the gathering of information that is not readily available. The review process could potentially take years. Under the proposed Development Agreement, if the Tribe does not obtain a determination on the listing of the site prior to the Developer applying for its permits i.e., the next stage in the process after the Development Agreement and Development Regulations are finalized), then the kettles will not be preserved. This time requirement is highly inappropriate, as it subjects the preservation of important cultural resources to Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 2 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 the administrative review process of the State. Essentially creating a race between the Tribe and the Developer, seeing which entity can have its documents processed faster. This is an unacceptable way to provide for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. Despite the title of the section, the Tribe fails to see how its provisions recognize the cultural significance of the area. The Developer Agreement should require the Developer to preserve the kettles and wetlands, without mention or reference to any State processes. 2. Significant Errors and Areas of Noncompliance in the Proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations The Tribe has several concerns with the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations related to density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, sequencing issues with the Development Regulations, and failure to meet the required provisions and conditions of Ordinance 01- 0128-08. The following sections describe each of these issues in more detail. a. Need for More Appropriate Density Allowance for the Proposed Master Planned Resort The Tribe is very concerned about the massive size and scope of the MPR, which is planned for construction in a highly sensitive area that was previously zoned rural residential. To address these concerns, we propose a decrease in the overall density allowance. We also recommend implementing a conditional approval structure for each phase of the development, based on the Developer's ability to meet required performance standards. i. Need for a Reduction in Overall Density of Master Planned Resort The Draft Development Agreement, Section 8.1, proposes 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space, and indoor and outdoor recreation spaces. This will essentially create a large town on the outskirts of Brinnon, significantly changing the landscape and greatly increasing the intensity of land use in the Brinnon area. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Brinnon's total population was 797 in 2010.2 With the proposal for 890 residential units associated with the MPR, and assuming 2.5 persons per household, we would expect to see an additional 2,225 people residing in the area at full build out. The number would more than double the population of Brinnon and would be comparable to the population of Port Ludlow, which had a population totaling 2,603 residents in 2010.3 Under the current proposal, the rural character of the Brinnon area will be lost and replaced by a more urban land use. Having short-term homes for a portion of the 2 American Fact Finder, United States Census Bureau, Brinnon CDP Washington, 2010 Total Population. 3 American Fact Finder, United States Census Bureau, Port Ludlow CDP Washington, 2010 Total Population. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 3 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 total residential units does not necessarily limit environmental impacts and may actually increase the amount of vehicle traffic, vessel traffic and recreational shellfish harvesting. The Tribe recommends that the County re -consider the total density of the MPR in comparison with that of nearby rural towns and resorts. The County should reduce the total number of residential units, both permanent and temporary, to a more appropriate and manageable number, by at least two-thirds of what is currently proposed. ii. Need for a Conditional Approval Structure for Master Planned Resort Development Under the Development Agreement proposal, the Developer may be expected to correct any areas of noncompliance before being allowed to continue to full build out. However, the proposal gives the Developer unlimited time to do so and guarantees the approval of full build out to 890, units no matter the circumstance. As proposed, the Development Agreement does not provide the County with options for holding the Developer accountable if things go wrong. The proposal does not describe how the County would respond to any areas of noncompliance that occur after full build out. Additionally, the development would proceed even if there are failures that cannot be corrected, such as with saltwater intrusion in groundwater wells, for example. According to the proposed Development Agreement, if saltwater intrusion occurs the Developer would be required to provide potable water to the affected residents but then would be allowed to continue to full build out, even with the aquifer being permanently degraded. Given the enormous size and intensity of the proposed development in a highly sensitive natural area, the Development Agreement does not go far enough to hold the Developer accountable for potentially significant harmful effects to the environment. The County should implement better safeguards to protect our valuable resources. We recommend that the County consider removing the full build out of 890 units from the draft Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Instead, the Development Agreement would include only the first phase of the development on a conditional basis. Remaining phases would be approved at a future date, based on the Developer's ability to meet specific measurable performance criteria. The development under Phase 2 would not be approved unless the Developer was able to demonstrate in Phase 1 that performance standards had been met, as specified. For example, the Developer would demonstrate that no saltwater intrusion was present in groundwater wells; degradation of water quality had not occurred; all monitoring requirements had been completed; wildlife management criteria had been met; wastewater treatment facilities had been approved and constructed; downgrades or closures in nearby shellfish harvest areas had not occurred; required mitigation measures had been implemented, and so on. Failure to meet specific performance standards during the build out period may indicate a likelihood that impacts would continue into future phases and even after the Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 4 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 build out is complete. Therefore, during Phase 1 the Developer would be required to correct any areas of noncompliance and would not be approved for any further development if performance standards were not achieved. In the event of failure to meet performance requirements, Phase 1 would be considered the end of the MPR build out and no further development would be allowed. Likewise, if Phase 2 indicated failures in performance, the Developer would not be approved to continue to Phase 3. Given the enormous size and intensity of the proposed development and its risks to the integrity and character of the area, a system of conditional approval would provide a useful tool for holding the Developer accountable and preventing significantly harmful impacts in future phases or after build out. b. Need for Enforceability and Specificity in the Development Agreement and Development Regulations The draft Development Regulations and draft Development Agreement lack the specificity and enforceability that are necessary to ensure the protection of resources over the term of the agreement and after build out. It is not clear in the documents whether or not the County will have the appropriate measurable criteria to enforce the development standards. For example, County staff recommended revisions Development Regulations Matrix Item #5) require that Development Regulations include the following restrictions: "Short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone." This requirement is consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08 Condition 63aa, which calls for 65% of rental and time-share residents per JCC 18.15.123(2). However, the Development Regulations do not explain how Jefferson County will track and enforce a 65% short-term residency and for how long. Without specific enforceable measures in place, the Developer or a future owner would be able to replace short-term residents with permanent residents during and after the build out period. A transformation from short-term to permanent residents is likely to have a significant impact on the wastewater system, water supply and water quality in the area. The environmental impact assessment did not consider these effects. According to the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan, the vision for the MPR was very different from the Port Ludlow MPR. It states that, "We envision the Black Point MPR to be significantly different and smaller in scale than the Port Ludlow MPR in that it would be less structured towards development of permanent residential accommodations and more so towards providing recreational opportunities and support services for the traveling public in a manner that will benefit local residents." 4 Without a specific method for tracking and enforcing the short-term residencies over the course of the MPR build out and after build out, it is highly likely that we will see an increase in permanent residents at the MPR, which would more truthfully resemble the Port Ludlow MPR. 4 BOCC Preferred Alternative Draft, Brinnon Subarea Plan, May 1, 2002, p. 45. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Other sections of the Development Agreement that will need more specificity and enforceability include water quality monitoring (Section 6.2 and Appendix N), water supply monitoring (Section 6.2, Appendix 0), wastewater treatment (Section 6.2, Appendix I), wildlife management (Section 8.8.4, Appendix P) and others. These sections of the Development Agreement lack enough specificity to ensure appropriate implementation and lack provisions for establishing a County tracking and enforcement system. The Development Agreement and Development Regulations should outline more specific requirements, such as type and frequency of monitoring, frequency of reporting, and a more detailed process for identifying and selecting a wildlife fence in coordination with other entities. Additionally, a more measurable system of enforcement and penalties for any noncompliance both during and after the build -out period should be clearly identified. c. Need for More Appropriate Agreement Terms and Build -Out Period The draft Development Agreement Section 2.2 states that its Term is as follows: The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date to five (5) years after the end of the build -out period described in Section 2.3. The Build -Out Period is defined in Section 2.3 as follows: The build -out period for purposes of RCW 36.70B.180 shall be twenty-five 25) years from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases described in Section 10, whichever is later. In essence, the language as written provides the Developer with an endless Development Agreement term and limitless time period for the MPR build out. It is not clear why the County has provided the Developer with this extraordinary build -out term. The term of the Agreement should have a firm expiration date with a specific limited period for MPR build out. We recommend a ten to fifteen -year build -out period and Development Agreement term that is from the effective date to the end of the build- out period. d. Need for More Appropriate Sequence for Development Agreement and Development Regulations Review Process The process for reviewing the draft Development Agreement, its appendices, and draft Development Regulations is puzzling at best. According to State law, RCW 36.70B.170(1), "a development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." The County's proposed Development Regulations set forth the permitted uses, density standards and zoning development standards and cannot duplicate existing local Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 6 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 codes for stormwater, critical areas, land division and site development.5 Therefore, it is understood that Development Regulations would be in place before determining whether or not the Development Agreement is consistent with them. The MPR Development Agreement Section 8.1, Permitted Uses and Density Standards; Zoning, gives reference to an Appendix A, which is Chapter 17.60 of the Jefferson County Code, the proposed amendment to the Development Regulations. However, Development Agreement Appendix A is blank, and the Chapter is not actually provided because it has not yet been adopted by the BOCC. The simultaneous review of both documents is highly problematic for reviewers. Since standards and zoning regulations are only provided in draft form, it is impossible to make an appropriate assessment of Development Agreement compliance. We support the July 6, 2016 comments of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, which include the following paragraphs: In the absence of such regulatory directives as required... 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. In line with the above comments, we recommend that the County first consider whether or not the Development Regulations are appropriate before attempting to consider any adoption of the Development Agreement. The approved Development Regulations, rather than the draft version, must be made available to reviewers so they may determine whether or not the draft Development Agreement is consistent with the regulations. e. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128- 08 Conditions In January 2008, the BOCC approved Ordinance 01-0128-08, adopting a proposal for the MPR with conditions. According to the County's staff, the Development Agreement "is the best vehicle to ensure compliance with 30 conditions."6 However, it is Jefferson County Informational Briefing Presentation, January 8, 2018, p.16. 6 Jefferson County Informational Briefing Presentation, January 8, 2018, p. 8. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 clear that the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations fail to meet the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. The Tribe has identified multiple areas of noncompliance, as described in the following section. i. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(j) for Tribal Consultation The Tribe has attempted, on several occasions, to meet with the County in order to participate in meaningful government -to -government consultation regarding the MPR project. The Tribe has been operating under the assumption that they were invited to meet with the County in order to provide a detailed discussion of the Tribe's concerns in regards to the MPR Project, in other words, to have their voice heard by the County and the Developer. To date, the Tribe does not feel as though its concerns have been heard or addressed. The Tribe is concerned that it was invited to participate in discussions merely to fulfill a procedural consultation requirement and that neither the County, nor the Developer, feel any need to resolve or address the Tribe's concerns. There have been several meetings that have brought the same issues to light, again and again, with no resolutions reflected in the proposed documents. This is not meaningful consultation. For example, the Tribe has emphasized to the County, on multiple occasions, that the Kettle Ponds and Black Point hold cultural significance to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has asked that the County and the Developer modify their proposed plan to destroy the integrity of the Kettles. The Development Agreement language that the County put forth to respond to the Tribe's request does not address the Tribe's concerns. Instead it evokes further frustrations and puts pressure on the Tribe to take responsibility to prove the cultural significance of the Kettles. Then, the Tribe was asked to review the proposed language and did so in a meeting with the Developer and the County. The Tribe submitted comments on the Development Agreement language. The revisions the Tribe made to the language were not taken into consideration and the suggested changes from the Tribe were not made. In essence, all of the Tribe's efforts and discussions were a waste. In addition, although we discussed the development of a stewardship plan that would ensure access for hunting and gathering by tribal members, such a plan was not included in the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Recently, a neighboring Tribe has expressed views that do not align with the views of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. However, the County must remember that the tribes are sovereign nations, meaning that each tribe is separate and individually govern themselves in all aspects, including cultural heritage. No other tribal, state, or federal government has the right to dictate to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe the cultural significance of the area. As each tribe has differing historical accounts, each tribe may ascribe a different cultural significance to the area. The County should recognize that one tribe does not speak for all of the tribes in the area. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 ii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for Protection of Nearby Natural Resources including the Protection of Shellfish Harvesting Areas Ordinance 01-0128-08(60)(iv) finds that pursuant to JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c), the subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and anticipated land use development, including compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Development Agreement, Section 6.1, calls for the Developer to recognize the importance of Hood Canal being "just as important to the success of the MPR as it is to those who use Hood Canal for recreation and subsistence." Section 6.2 requires the Developer to address demonstrated impacts of the MPR on nearby natural resources, including water quality both on-site and off-site. JCC Section 18.15.126(g) for master planned resorts requires the following: A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the development. The Development Agreement fails to provide any protection for shellfish resources adjacent to the MPR, as required. The Development Agreement does not include a description of how the MPR would minimize or eliminate any harmful effects to the shellfish beds, does not consider the potentially significant effects that 2,225 new residents would have on nearby shellfish harvest areas and does not include any action plan to address potential closures or downgrades of shellfish harvest areas. The proposed MPR would be located just minutes from two adjacent public beaches, on the Duckabush and the Dosewallips Rivers, which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area and to the general public. The proposed MPR will create an increase in recreational harvesters, both short-term and permanent residents, intensifying the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves in Hood Canal is sporadic and increased pressure from additional harvesters without an annual enhancement would result in a decline in the existing resource over time. We are also concerned that additional contaminated stormwater runoff, increased vessel traffic and contaminated groundwater could result in significant water quality degradation in Hood Canal leading to additional downgrades in the status of the shellfish harvest areas. In 2015, the Washington State Dept. of Health (DOH) reported that one water sampling location on Dosewallips and two Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 9 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 locations on Duckabush were in Threatened status and additional locations on each tideland were falling into a concerned status. In 2017, we received notice from DOH regarding Hood Canal #3 Growing Area on the Duckabush River. In response to DOH marine sampling results from areas near the mouth of the Duckabush River, failing the 901h percentile fecal coliform NSSP standard in 2016 and 2017, DOH will be downgrading a portion of the Hood Canal #3 Growing Area to Conditionally Approved status. The presence of the MPR, in addition to other development, increasing vessel traffic, stormwater runoff, and other impacts in the region will have a cumulative effect on shellfish species. Additional water quality impacts from the proposed MPR in these sensitive areas would likely result in additional shellfish area downgrades and closures. These impacts have a significant cultural and economic impact on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has proposed a mitigation plan for the shellfish impacts of the MPR (See Appendix A) to the County and the Developer; the mitigation plan included seeding beaches on the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers with clam and oyster seed. The shellfish mitigation proposal is based on only 1% of the MPR population, while an even larger increase in recreational harvesters is likely. In addition, the mitigation proposal does not include the harvest of other shellfish species, such as crab, that are also likely to be impacted by the MPR. However, the shellfish beach mitigation, as proposed, would provide a benefit to the Tribe, and to all tribes that harvest in the area, as well as the general public. The Tribe has not received any official response from the County or the Developer regarding its shellfish mitigation proposal. The Tribe's shellfish mitigation plan was not included in the draft Development Agreement or Development Regulations. The County cannot claim it has met its requirements under Ordinance 01-0128-08(63)(j) for consultation with the tribes while at the same time ignoring the Tribe's proposed mitigation for impacts to shellfish in the adjacent areas. In addition, the BOCC cannot claim it has met the requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for the protection of nearby natural resources. iii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and Chapter 18.22 JCC for Protection of Critical Areas State law requires that counties ensure any Master Plan Resort is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas (RCW 36.70A.360(4)(d) Master Planned Resorts). The Development Agreement Section 8.4 Critical Area Standards states that the allowed uses within the critical areas of the MPR "shall be determined based upon the Jefferson County Critical Area requirements, Chapter 18.22 JCC", which is found in Development Agreement Appendix C. In addition, Development Agreement Section 8.8.7 addresses compliance with Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01 - Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 10 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 0128-08, which describes a required "conservation easement protecting any wetlands and their respective buffers identified or created on the Property." We are very troubled by the Developer's plan to remove 20,700 sq. ft. of wetland and associated buffers in and around Wetland B of the MPR, in direct conflict with state and local regulations, and Sections 8.4 and 8.8.7 of the Development Agreement. The MPR includes the placement of 300,000 cubic yards of fill in Wetland B for the purpose of placing a plastic liner and creating a stormwater/wastewater storage basin in Kettle B see Development Agreement, Section 10.1.3 Phase 1 and FSEIS). Therefore, the proposal is in direct conflict with Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance and Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 for the protection of wetlands. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations lack any explanation for why the County would allow these variances to their development standards and regulations. The County fails to provide any rationale for allowing the Developer to design the entire MPR project around this exemption for the purposes of creating a catchment basin in Kettle B. Therefore, the County cannot claim that the Development Agreement and Development Regulations have met the required conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and required Critical Area Ordinance (JCC Chapter 18.22) while the MPR design for Wetland B remains audaciously noncompliant. iv. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) for the Examination of Ecological Impacts As stated previously, the Tribe is concerned with the MPR plans to retain stormwater in Kettle B with dual functions of stormwater treatment by way of retention and infiltration and water supply for fire safety and irrigation. Condition H of Ordinance 01-0128-08 clearly states that, "the possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved." To date we have seen no documentation that this condition has been achieved. We support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to conduct "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." We also support the Planning Commission's recommendation for "a detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff generated onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite." Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 11 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Additionally, it is unclear how the ecological impact of filling a wetland to construct a stormwater pond may be mitigated. The ecology of a natural wetland, especially not one that exists in the context of an extraordinary geological feature such as Kettle B, will not be replicated by typical constructed wetlands. The likelihood of success for achieving any ecological function with a constructed wetland is yet to be determined. Overall, the Tribe is highly concerned that the County has not examined the Developer's water plan in more detail and independently from the Developer before proposing to move forward with the Development Agreement. The BOCC cannot claim to be compliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) until a comprehensive ecological examination has been completed and all concerns have been addressed with regard to the Developer's water plan that alters unique geological features and wetlands. V. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) for the Development of a Water Quality Monitoring Plan The proposed water quality monitoring plan is lacking in scope and sample frequency. We previously informed the County of these concerns in a comment letter, dated May 1, 2017. However, despite our concerns, the sample locations remain as originally proposed by the Developer, the sample locations are limited to three sites within Pleasant Harbor, despite Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) requiring "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program." The sites within Pleasant Harbor should not be considered offsite, due to their close proximity to Statesman's own marina. Monitoring within the marina area will be more likely to detect pollution from vessel activities such as illicit discharges of bilge water or sewage than from additional stormwater runoff. The language in condition R, "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading", offsite is intended to mean waters which may receive pollution from sources associate with the resort including stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or atmospheric deposition from vehicle emissions. We do not expect these potential effects to be limited to or concentrated in Pleasant Harbor. Additional sites must be located in marine waters downgradient from the proposed infiltration basins, due to the direct connection between the sea -level aquifer and the nearshore marine waters. We support the use of monitoring wells to detect contamination of groundwater by pollutants but given that the groundwater will ultimately discharge to marine water, it is prudent to sample marine water where groundwater receiving infiltrated stormwater would be expected to discharge. Discharge and/or contaminant loading is intended to mean that concentrations and discharge are to be measured to calculate a contaminant load. By measuring concentration and discharge at points along the assumed pathways of pollution transport, one can better understand the connection between pollution source and sink, which would be useful for understanding where pollutants are being removed and whether by degradation, attenuation and/or filtration. This language supports our Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 12 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 request for consideration of the fate and transport of contaminants expressed in our comments dated May 1, 2017 and January 19, 2017. The parameters to be measured are limited to the basic parameters listed for general aquatic life criteria. Additional parameters are needed to ensure marine water quality is not degraded by increased concentration of metals and organic pollutants, including copper, lead, zinc, PAHs, nutrients and pesticides and herbicides. Section VII(A)(2) states "sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies, to avoid duplication of effort data from other agencies may be used if possible." Mussel cages were deployed this year by the Tribe, in coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, as part of the Puget Sound Mussel Monitoring program for Stormwater Action Monitoring. Data from these mussel cages should be used, both to establish a baseline and to detect exceedances, as stated in our comments dated May 1, 2017 and January 19, 2017. The water quality monitoring plan VI(2) states prior to the first development permit application being submitted, a report will be provided to Jefferson County Public Health describing the proposed best management practices for protection of water quality. We expect the BMPs proposed include stormwater pretreatment upstream of infiltration basins. Infiltration of stormwater in a kettle will not be sufficient by itself, as the capacity for removal of contaminants by soil is finite. Soil chemistry must be considered to adequately remove contaminants by soil, 7 and condition (q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires it. Section VI(10) of the plan states that methodology and quality assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the BMPs are approved. This provision suggests an opportunity for development of an adaptive management plan, as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08 (r). Adaptive management is intended to increase the ability to fashion timely responses in the face of new information and in a setting of varied stakeholder objectives and preferences. Section VI(S) states that "For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort". It seems this would cover how to respond to a water quality exceedance, but it is unclear how adaptive management will inform the appropriate responses and how they will be agreed upon. Additional work is needed to craft an appropriate adaptive management plan. VIIIA) states sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable water quality standards for a period of five years. Sample frequency should not be reduced until the build out of the resort has been achieved. Exceedance criteria in monitoring wells must be as stringent as drinking water standards, whether or not the sentinel wells sampled are utilized for drinking water Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 13 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 purpose. Sentinel wells are not only an early warning system but must trigger a response required under VI(5). The water quality monitoring plan must be corrected to address these issues before the County considers it complaint with the Ordinance. vi. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(n) for the Development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan We have yet to see any Wastewater Treatment Plan for the MPR project. Currently the Development Agreement, Appendix I, includes a reference to pages 931 - 932 of the FEIS, which includes a preamble stating the intention for the development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan, but none is provided. To date a plan has not been produced, according to email communications between PGST and Statesman via the County. Because the Developer plans to discharge treated wastewater into Kettle B for reuse in irrigation and fire suppression, it is important to ensure an adequate system of treatment. Without any plans for a system we are unable to determine whether the proposed project will be appropriate. Until a Wastewater Treatment Plan is provided, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed MPR will meet the requirements of Chapter 246-272B WAC, Jefferson County Code 08.15.100, Ordinance 01-0128-08 63)(n) and Development Agreement Section 8.10. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant. vii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(t) for Addressing Impacts of the Pleasant Harbor Marina Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(t) states the following: The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. (Italics added) The Development Agreement fails to address the adaptive management program requirement, as identified by Condition T. We are concerned with the potential for additional vessel traffic as a result of this project causing degradation of water quality. While a pump -out station is located within Pleasant Harbor, we seek assurances that operators of the proposed MPR will actively enforce the rules prohibiting discharge of sewage from vessels, as well as discharges of grey water, bilge water or fuel. Covenants for the marina will need updating. Per the 2006 Marina Impacts Analysis, water quality monitoring station #293 "meets standards but with some concerns." An increase in the intensity of use associated with the marina and Pleasant Harbor as a result of the MPR will likely generate additional concerns. The County cannot claim it has met the Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 14 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 requirements of this condition without providing an appropriate adaptive management program to address potentially significant impacts to Pleasant Harbor. Additionally, the Developer's economic analysis of the MPR should include an assessment of impacts to fisheries and commercial shellfish as a result of the increase in vessel traffic from the additional MPR residents. viii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(p) for the Development of a Neighborhood Water Policy We are unclear how Condition P of Ordinance 01-0128-08 has been satisfied. The Ordinance requires that a Neighborhood Water Policy be established which requires Statesman to provide access to their water supply in the event that the neighbors waters supply is affected by seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusions would occur in response to pumping of the aquifer and given that the neighboring wells would draw from the same aquifer, shifting production from one well to another would not improve the aquifer condition in the long term. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(p). ix. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(1) for the Protection of Wildlife The proposed Development Agreement, by virtue of its adoption by reference of the November 2017 Revised Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP), contains incomplete, inadequate and ineffective provisions to mitigate the impacts of the MPR on wildlife, particularly on the Duckabush elk herd. The RWMP only partially meets the requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1). The RWMP still contains outdated information about the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd, including the erroneous statement that it is a migratory herd. If the RWMP is to be used as a blueprint for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife, it must be based on the best available scientific information. Erroneous information detracts from the credibility of the Development Agreement. Second, the RWMP does not contain a definitive, enforceable commitment that wild animals will not be killed when conflicts arise. Despite Ordinance 01-0128-08's requirement that non- lethal means must be used to address wildlife damage, the Development Agreement and RWMP do not specifically prohibit lethal removal of animals. The Development Agreement and/or RWMP must contain an enforceable provision that wild animals will not be killed to prevent wildlife damage, except in cases where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety. The Development Agreement and RWMP fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. The new provision relating to the installation of a deterrent fence contains only a single, ambiguous sentence, stating only that "the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 15 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 0 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 of PGST to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access." Furthermore, the RWMP is internally inconsistent, stating that the fence will be built only "as a last resort." There is a need for the Development Agreement and RWMP to describe the fence in sufficient detail (including where and when it will be built) to allow the Tribes and the Jefferson County staff to evaluate whether the applicant has met the County's expectations for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife. The major shortcoming in the revised plan is that it still does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow the assessment of risk or the likelihood of success. Evaluating the potential efficacy of management actions, or their impacts on wildlife is not possible because the descriptions of these actions are vague and incomplete. Any statement of proposed actions that is intended to be legally binding must contain performance standards that are objective, quantifiable, and measureable. The Development Agreement and RWMP fails to identify such standards. It does not adequately describe the conditions under which remedial management actions will be taken and leaves too much discretion to the Developer to decide when such actions are necessary. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe cannot afford wildlife losses brought about by poor planning and a lack of commitment to wildlife stewardship by the Developer. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. Every hour that the elk spend in high human density areas inaccessible to tribal hunters is an hour that our tribe is denied its treaty right to hunt. In addition to these comments, we support the letter submitted by Tim Cullinan, Point No Point Treaty Council, concerning the proposed Wildlife Management Plan. 3. Conclusion As proposed, the Development Agreement includes inappropriate language with regard to the recognition of culturally significant areas. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations present errors and areas of noncompliance related to density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, inappropriate sequencing of the review, and the failure to meet required provisions and conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Our concerns with regard to cultural resources, shellfish harvest areas, impacts to wetlands, water quality degradation, and effects on wildlife have not been addressed. Therefore, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe opposes the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement and proposed Ordinance amending Title 17 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County code. We would appreciate being informed about any actions related to the MPR project that Jefferson County's Board of County Commissioners and Department of Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 16 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, WA 98346 Community Development plan to take now or in the future. We look forward to continuing a meaningful process for government -to -government consultation. Thank you. Since y, e' Je omy, Sullivan Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 17 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 APPENDIX A Shellfish Seeding Mitigation The increase in residents into the Pleasant Harbor MPR area will have an impact on the public beaches in the area. Both the Duckabush and the Dosewallips are minutes away from the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR project. In order to mitigate the impact from increased non -treaty intertidal harvest, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe proposes the following: 1) 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years to be split between Duckabush and Dosewallips 2) 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips Shellfish Seeding Mitigation Calculations The calculations used to determine the quantities and frequencies of the proposed shellfish seeding mitigation are as follows. 890 residential units with an average occupancy of 2.5 persons per unit will increase the seasonal local population by an estimated 2,225 persons. This number does not include the projected increase in daytime visitors that will be drawn to the area by the golf course and other retail establishments associated with the project, or the projected increase in the local population stemming from new employment created by the project. If 1% of the new Black Point residents harvest clams and oysters on each of the approximately 90 daylight low tides 0 MLLW or lower between the months of March and September, then harvest effort will increase by approximately 2,000 person -harvest - days per year (0.01 x 2225 x 90). Assuming that each person harvests their limit of 40 Manila clams on each low tide, the 2,000 -person harvest days will result in a harvest of 80,000 clams per year and 240,000 clams over three years. Manila clam seed takes three years to reach harvestable size and survival during this period ranges from 5-25%. Based on this survival the 1 million clam seed proposed as a seeding amount every three years would be expected to produce between 50,000 and 250,000 harvestable clams. This range encompassed the harvest increase of 240,000 clams that the project is expected to generate. Assuming that each person harvests their limit of 18 Pacific oysters on each low tide, the 2,000 -person harvest days will result in a harvest of 36,000 oysters per year and 144,000 oysters over 4 years. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 18 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE — Kingston, WA 98346 Each bag of seeded oyster cultch yields 240-900 adult oysters (this is based on an average of 300 shells per bag, 8-12 spat per shell, and 10-25% survival of spat to adulthood) after four years of growth. Based on these assumptions, the 400 bags of seeded cultch proposed as a seeding amount every four years would be expected to produce between 96,000 and 360,000 harvestable oysters. This range encompasses the harvest increase of 144,000 oysters that the project is expected to generate. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 19 Cc, 60cc," April 9, 2018 To: The Commissioners of Jefferson County, State of Washington Page 11 HECEIV ED From: Victor and Charlotte Clark APR o9 2016 751 Mountain Trail Road Brinnon, WA 98320 JEFFON COUNITif RE: Blackpoint, Pleasant Harbor MPR, we are PRO Resort C,MNI ISIIS' 10 N First, I would like to say thank you to the Commissioners! Second: My husband and I bought a vacation home in Brinnon 15 years ago, we became permanent residents about four years ago. Prior to moving to Brinnon we researched the economy and how it may look upon our retiring; what we saw we liked. By then the Resort had been in the works for many years but we did have our concerns regarding the environmental impact of the Resort. After reading many documents, assessments and environmental reports, Statesman had addressed all of our concerns. Since living here we were amazed at how little revenue was coming into the south end of Jefferson County and how this area was becoming more economically depressed which invites additional crime. I have a background in corporate business where research is one of my specialties, so I started researching income and started with property taxes. To my amazement just, in south Jefferson County, it may be the same elsewhere in our county but I just looked into the south; thousands and thousands of acres of land and buildings that are exempt from property taxes, i.e. Federal and State land, the military and private companies, all except. Monies our community is not receiving. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, April 9"', 2018, From: Victor and Charlotte Clark Page 12 On February 14, 2018 the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis published a report that showed that the Outdoor Recreation Economy accounted for 2.0 % of the current -dollar GDP, which equates $373.7 BILLION. In addition, the outdoor recreation economy grew 3.8% in 2016 compared to the growth of 2.8% in the overall economy. As stated in this report: Business need the right data to help them hire, invest and grow. The historical lack of detailed federal data regarding outdoor recreational activities has handicapped both the private and public sectors. The public will no doubt be surprised at the economic importance of this industry as we release prototype statistics measuring the impact of activities like boating, fishing, RVing, hunting, camping, hiking and more. This release is a milestone for business executives, small-business owners, entrepreneurs, and government officials..." This report also outlines the value added by industry; for example, the data shows that the retail trade, accommodations, food services and manufacturing industries were the largest contributors to the Outdoor Recreation Economy in 2016. This Resort will not only bring in revenue but it will give local business a boost and make way for cottage industry to start and implement their business plans. The Resort is planning on a Farmer's Market, perfect opportunity to showcase cottage industry services &/or goods. The resort will have a medical facility on site —this is a definite need in this area. And finally, the addition of a Sheriff's presence. A guaranteed three-year commitment by Stateman to fund a person here. I do not know how many of you have attended the coffee -chats that the Sheriff and his Deputies have put on, not only is the data and reality true but also very scary. And these are some of the many reasons Victor and I are PRO Resort. Thank you, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, April 9t1, 2018, From: Victor and Charlotte Clark ews Release: outdoor Recreation Satellite Account index.htm) 1 of 6 naps://Dea.guv/ucwb,clv,,bvwul—uy,—aw....... Go http://www.commerce.gov) Home (rndex.htm) National (/national/ndex.htm) International (Cnternational/index.htm) Regional (/regional/index.htm) Industry (findustry/index.htm) Interactive Data (1itable/) FAQs (/faq/index.cfm) About BEA (/about/index.htm) Contact Us (/contacts/search.htm) About Industry (/about/overview_industry.htm) Methodologies Vmethodologies/index.htm#industry_meth) Articles (/industry/an2.htm) Release Schedule (/newsreleases/news release sort_industry.htm) Staff Contacts (/contacts/email.htm) Email Subscriptions (/_subscribe/ 4/5/2018, 1:42 PP WS Mt;jCdSC: %JULUUVI 171._"Jl ,aLIVII EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, Wednesdayary 14, 2018 BEA 18-07 Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account: Prototype Related Files: Full Release & Tables (PDF) (/newsreleases/industry orsa/2018/pdf/orsa0218. pd fl Statistics for 2012-2016 Tables (Ex -1) (/newsreleasesfndustry/orsa/2018 Outdoor recreation accounts for 2.0 percent of GDP in 2016 ' /xls/orsa0218.x1sx) ORSA)- Prototype statistics from the Outdoor Recreation Satellite AccountRelated Links: released today by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) show that the outdoor recreation economy accounted for oor ecreation Satellite Account (/outdoor- 2.0percent ($323.7 billion) of current -dollar GDP in 2016 (table 1). In addition, the outdoor recreation economy grew 3.8 percent in 2016, compared to growth of 2.8 percent in the overall economy. Businesses need the right data to help them hire, invest and grow. The historical lack of detailed federal data regarding outdoor recreational activities has handicapped both the private and public sectors. The public will no doubt be surprised at the economic importance of this industry as we release prototype statistics measuring the impact of activities like boating, fishing, Ruing, hunting, camping, hiking, and more. This release is a milestone for business executives, small-business owners, entrepreneurs, and government officials, who will rely on these detailed data to plan, grow, and gain new insights into this dynamic part of the U.S. economy," said U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. 6.r 55 4.5'.e 0% 35% 3M3 ssK LN Gro hNN,dam Rtt ft. VxM Addedv G—th in 115. GDP 10. mu G—hDa R_.—Value Added .Gm mDSGOP newsreleases/industry orsa/2018/_images/orsa0218_chartl.png) The new account is the latest addition in a series of satellite accountscomplementingBEA's statistics, including accounts on travel and tourism and arts and cultural production. These accounts do not detail and allow official statistics, including GDP. They provide greatercloseranalysisofaspecificareaoftheeconomybyextracting information embedded in the official economic statistics. Outdoor Recreation by Activity In the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, gross output—principally ameasureofsalesorreceiptsassociatedwiththeoutdoorrecreation economy—is presented both by industry and by outdoor recreationactivity. Outdoor recreation activities fall into three general categories: conventional core activities (including activities such as bicycling, boating, hiking, and hunting), other core activities (incllurdi acLngactiivitiesvities (including suchas agritourism and outdoor festivals}, and Supp In 2016, conventional construction, trips and travel, and government). recreation accounted for 36.7 percent of total outdoor recreation gross output, other recreation accounted for 22.1 percent, and supportingactivitiesaccountedfortheremaining41.2 percent (table 2). recreation/) Contacts: Tina Highfill (o RSA) 301) 278-9266 Thomas Howells (oRSA) 301) 278-9586 Jeannine Aversa (News Media) 301) 278-9003 E-mail inquiries Outdoor Recreation mailto:outdoorRecreation@ bea.gov) Sign up U_subscribef) for e-mail notifications. Download Vexit_site.asp?link=http://get.adobe.com reader/) the Acrobat Reader. 4/5/20 Gros, Output(orrated C meidoaOu dmr R—Ow Aanitie, 12M61 newsreleases/industry orsa/2018/_images/orsa0218 chart2.png) Motorized Vehicles was the largest activity within conventional outdoor recreation in 2016, accounting for $59.4 billion of gross output. Recreational vehicles accounted for more than half of this value at $30.0 billion. Boating/Fishing activities were $38.2 billion in 2016, an increase of 4.0 percent from the previous year- Hunting/Shooting/Trapping activities were $15.4 billion in 2016, with hunting accounting for over 60 percent of this value. Multi -use apparel and accessories, which include backpacks, bug spray, and other general-purpose gear and accessories that couldnotbeallocatedtospecificactivities, grew 7.2 percent in 2016 and accounted for 35.0 percent of conventional outdoor recreation gross output. outdoor Recreation by Industry Outdoor recreation value added is presented by industry in the ORSA and shows how an industry's participation in the outdoor recreation economy contributes to GDP. For example, the data show that the retail trade, accommodation and food services, and manufacturing industries were the largest contributors to the outdoor recreation economy 2 accounting for half of all outdoor recreation activity (table 1). pmdoor Ik ,&a NWe added fa Se ed 1ndu—'Rnw orsa/2018/_i mages/orsa0218_chart3.png) For the retail trade industry, outdoor recreation value added was81.7 billion and accounted for 21.9 percent of all activity in the outdoor recreation economy. Outdoor recreation value added was $55.7 billion inaccommodationandfoodservices, with about 63 percent of this value coming from accommodations and 37 percent from food services and drinking places. 1 4/5/20 1 Outdoor recreation value added for manufacturing was $51.3 billion, primarily reflecting activity in the subcategories of petroleum and coal products and other transportation equipment. Outdoor recreation value added was $47.4 billion in arts, entertainment, and recreation and accounted for 24.7 percent of that industry's total value added. Public comment and feedback The public is invited to submit comments and feedback on these preliminary statistics by emailing OutdoorRecreation@bea.gov mailto:OutdoorRecreation@bea.gov). Final statistics are scheduled for release in the fall of 2018, and feedback will be used to help finalize the definitions, data sources, and methodology that underpin the new account and the format in which final results are displayed. To ensure consideration, comments should be submitted no later than April 27, 2018. Preparing the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account The Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (ORSA) measures the size of the outdoor recreation economy and the link between outdoor recreation and the broader United States economy. like other satellite accounts, the ORSA was built on BEA's comprehensive supply -use framework. The supply -use tables provide a detailed look at the relationships among industries and how each industry contributes to Gross Domestic Product GDP). In practice, the ORSA is a rearrangement of the published supply -use tables that isolates outdoor recreation spending andproduction. For example, the supply -use tables show the production of all apparel, whereas the ORSA shows the production of apparel used specifically for outdoor recreation activities, such as wet suits and hiking boots. A variety of private and public data sources were used to identify outdoor recreation spending and production in order to develop the prototype ORSA estimates. The term "outdoor recreation' can be defined in many different ways. BEA staff worked closely with outdoor recreation experts from academia, government, and industry to develop thedefinitionofoutdoorrecreationusedintheORSA. To meet the needs of diverse data users, the definition and presentation of statistics used in the prototype account are designed to capture both the conventional and broad views of outdoor recreation reflected in existing literature. The conventional definition reflects more traditional outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, hiking, camping, and fishing. More formally, the conventional definition includes all recreational activities undertaken for pleasure that generally involve some level of intentional physical exertion and occur in nature -based environments outdoors. The broad definition includes all conventional outdoor recreation activities and a range of additional More formally, the broad pleasuredefinition Ludes all rcreational activitiesundertaken for that occur outdoors. The ORSA follows other BEA satellite accounts by dividingoutdoorrecreationactivityintotwogeneralcategories: core andsupporting. Core activities include the production and purchase 4/5/2C- 11 ws Release: Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account of goods and services used directly for outdoor recreation, while supporting activities are defined as goods and services that support access to outdoor recreation activities. Core activities for the ORSA include the production and purchase of gear, equipment, fuel, concessions, maintenance, repair, and fees. Supporting activities include trip expenses, construction, and government expenditures related to outdoor recreation activities. An important feature of the ORSA is the presentation of gross output estimates by type of outdoor recreation activity, in addition to the standard presentation of estimates by industry. Due to overlap among many outdoor activities (for example, hiking while camping or fishing while boating), activities were either split into mutually exclusive categories when source data allowed or combined into a single category containing multiple related activities. For example, camping and hiking were combined into a single category to avoid double counting the many items that can be used for both activities. The final ORSA report is scheduled for publication in the fall of 2018 in response to the requirements of the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 2016, which directed the Secretary of Commerce to .enter into a joint memorandum with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, an assessment and analysis of the outdoor recreation economy of the United States and the effects attributable to such economy on the overall economy of the United States" Additional information on the outdoor recreation statistics and the data sources and methodology that underlie their preparation will be available in the March 2018 issue of the Survey of Current Business. Additional Information Resources Additional resources available at www.bea.gov (n: Find the latest information on the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account at BEA's outdoor recreation page (/outdoor -recreations. Stay informed about BEA developments by reading the BEA blog blog.bea.govn, signing up for BEA's email subscription service http://www.bea.gov/_subscribe/index_vocus.htm), or following BEA on Twitter @BEA_News (//twitter.com/bea_news). Access BEA data by registering for BEA's Data application programming interface (/API/signupfindex.cfm) (API). For more on BEA's statistics, see our monthly online journal, the Survey of Current Business (/scb/index.htm). BEA's news release schedule (/newsreleases news_release schedule.htm) Industry Concepts and Methods (/papers pdf/IOmanual_092906.pft Concepts and Methods of the U.S. Input -Output Accounts 5 of 6 4/5/2018, 1:42 PN ews Release: Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account 11ups.nUca.gw111%;;W Definitions Gross domestic product (GDP) or value added is the value of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production. GDP is also equal to the sum of personal consumption expenditures, gross private domestic investment, net exports of goods and services, and government consumption expenditures and gross investment. Gross output (GO) is the value of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy. It is principally measured using industry sales or receipts, including sales to final users (GDP) and sales to other industries intermediate inputs). Current -dollar estimates are valued in the prices of the period when the transactions occurred—that is, at "market value:' Also referred to as nominal estimates" or as "current -price estimates." List of News Release Tables Table 1. Outdoor Recreation Value Added by Industry BE -13 Table 2. Outdoor Recreation Gross Output by Activity Respondents Table 3, Outdoor Recreation Gross Output by Industry surveys respondVesponc ent_bel3.htm) Table 4. Outdoor Recreation Compensation by Industry Vresearch Table 5. Outdoor Recreation Employment by Industry Private Fund Reporters Contact All of Us News Information Factsheets contacts/search.htm) For... privatefunds) U.S. Economy ata Regional PI & Frequently Asked Glance Media GDP (/regional bearfacts/) newsreleases Questions /glance.htm) Vnewsroom ndex.htm} Int'I Trade & faq/index.cfm) Current Releases Vnewsreleases Congressional Investment international rels.htm) Users About BEA (/about (/congressional factsheeW News Release /index.htm) Industry GDP index.htm) Archive industry neweFile Userssreleases factsheetn Policies (/about /release_archive.htm) Vefile/) 6of6 Publications Resources Survey of Current BE -13 policies.htm) Respondents Privacy Policy Vabout surveys respondVesponc ent_bel3.htm) Privacy_Statement. htm) Vresearch FOIA (http://www.osec.doc.gov Private Fund Reporters omo/FOIA/FOIAWebsite.htm) surveys Accessibility Vabout privatefunds) accessibility.htm) Job Seekers Vjobs Commitment to Scientific index.htm) Integrity V_pdf scientific_integrity_statement_of_the_principal_statistical_agencies.pdf) Information Quality Guidelines Vabout/infoqual.htm) Data Dissemination Practices VabouVBEAd issem i natio n.htm) Open Data Vdata.htm) ESR System Vstatus/index.cfm) USA.gov V/www.usa.govn U.S. Department of Commerce V/www.commerce.gov/) 6of6 Publications Resources Survey of Current Interactive Data Business dable/index.dm) Vscb/'index.htm) Research at BEA Papers by Topic Vresearch research index.htm) by_topic.htm) Developers developers/) Multimedia video findex.htm) FAQs Vfaq/'index.crm) More Director's Page about director.htm) Conferences agency ex hi bit_sche du le. htm) Guidelines for Citing BEA Information about BEAciting.htm} 4/5/2018, 1:42 PN c.e' DCS 04/01/18 Rob Mitchell 4246 Duckabush RD. Brinnon, Wa. 98320 Planning Commission Board Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 APR 0 9 2,018 EF FL i z RE: Public Comment Period -Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Attention: Commissioners Kathleen Kler, Kate Dean and David Sullivan A brief personal history, in 1992 after an exhaustive three year search for property I bought 20 acres which was part of an original Homestead within the National Forest. This is four and a half miles from Black Point. The reason I chose this property was to be away from urban congestion and the negative impacts of over population. By 1998 1 had moved myself and my construction business there to undertake the largest design/ build and restoration of a historic log structure of my career. This project took 2 years and was followed by many projects that produced revenue for Jefferson County. Around 20001 was approached by 3 of the Planning Commissioners to join them "to push this thing MPR) through". I demurred because even then it was a bad business model and economic plan. Most of those commissioners on the board stood to financially benefit from this development. Two others on that same board also did but were in opposition to the Resort. They were quickly pushed to the background and the Brinnon Sub Area Plan was founded. They had envisioned 30 homes around a golf course. A few years after it passed even the Chair of that commission admitted privately that they had no Idea how large it would become. From it's inception the Pleasant Harbor MPR process was mishandled by DCD beginning with the Developer's Attorney directing DCD on how to proceed. Part of this process has involved Public Comments of which I have made many, backed by over a thousand hours of studying the proposal, the EIS's and additional research regarding the many negative impacts of a development this large. Many comments were made by professionals. Our comments were rewarded with a verbal pat on the back by the County and blithely cast aside in their rebuttal by the developer's engineers. Many comments were mishandled by DCD and lost. Particularly galling is the response to many comments made regarding the by now extremely outdated) Traffic Study and the offsite negative impacts of the additional 4100 vehicle trips (cars and large trucks) added to Rt. 101 and surrounding secondary roads. The response was, "This amount of traffic is to be expected for a development of this size." There is no mitigation for traffic aside from realignment of the entrance to Black Point and possibly busing resort customers from the airport. There is no mitigation of the offsite pollution, accidents, fatalities and loss of service to business's and citizens along all of Hood Canal. Jefferson County, Mason County, and Kitsap County. There is no mitigation for the offsite negative impacts of adding up to 2000 people from the resort on our trails, beaches, rivers and the harvesting of shellfish. In the Planning Commission public meeting held on 12/04/14 1 will paraphrase the Lead Planner, David Wayne Johnson's opening remarks, If, the DSEIS produces an FEIS that is found to be inadequate then, the land use designation can be denied by the Board of County Commissioners and the MPR map becomes all R1-5" The County is prepared to give Statesman a tremendous natural resource that is not limited to Black Point but all of Hood Canal. The developer's history has not demonstrated that; 1. This Business Model will succeed. 2. Statesman has the financing to start and finish this. 3. Statesman has ever started and completed a development this large. The jobs created are 80% low income, poverty level and seasonal. That means that we, the taxpayers and County will be paying to take care of these people. We the taxpayers will be subsidizing the developer's profit. This is not sustainable economic development. DCD's job was to shepherd the process, not be biased for or against the resort. I can understand why they would be prejudiced for the developer because, the developer is paying them for their work. The Development Regulations, written largely by the developer, has an unlimited Build Out Period, so DCD will have jobs in perpetuity. They don't have to concern themselves with the MPR's completion, pollution of Hood Canal, overcrowding of our back roads, trails and the over harvesting of our shell fish. The Board of County Commissioners doesn't have to care about the traffic, offsite pollution, loss of service, loss of life on our roads, overcrowding, overharvesting, and more importantly the loss of peace and serenity for the taxpayers of South County because they will be collecting 2.5 % of all the excise taxes and the increased property taxes generated by the MPR. They will use this money any way they want. A Common Good is something that benefits all people and is owned by all people. The Common Good that Brinnon owns is, it's location on Hood Canal, the Olympic Peninsula and still to this day pristine natural resources. The giving away of our natural resources benefits the Developer, the DCD, and the County coffers. The rest of us get nothing. Sincerely, Rob Mitchell cQ,. -6,0ccl C6 qjqI'F Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 berd Ccycablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 CEIVED APR o 9 2018 April 7, 2018TY iJ E 'r- F ER C 0 U IO Jefferson County COT ! ISSIONERUB Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: 69% voted against the Proposition I property tax increase Dear Commissioners: Jefferson County taxpayers showed everyone last November that they are already overburdened by high taxes when they voted 69% against the Proposition I property tax increase. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the Board can demonstrate that they are listening to the people and understand the needs of the hard working taxpayers of Jefferson County by expanding our tax base through this project. cc: I I I I David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: I I I I David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 berd@ycablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 April 6, 2018 1 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: The Pleasant Harbor MPR represents the gold standard in ecologically sensitive development Dear Commissioners: The Pleasant Harbor MPR and its planning represent the gold standard in ecological sensitivity. We cherish our environment in Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor MPR represents how seriously we take preserving our environment. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, you can show the cornrrrunity and the entire state that we can balance the needs of the environment with sound, responsible economic growth. Sincerely, f Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 berdr&cable- speed.com April 5, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter from the perspective of a twenty-eight year Port Ludlow resident, with more than fifty years experience as the owner of a real estate development, construction and brokerage company. To date, my company has completed forty-five projects, including the five -acre commercial/multi-family condominium development in Port Ludlow (Oak Bay Road at Osprey Ridge Drive). The County is fortunate that the Developer has had the patience to continue with the Pleasant Harbor project for more than a decade. The proponent has a long track record of developing and operating successful, high quality resorts in other states. Based on their record, I expect this project will be equally successful. The County designated the Black Point area as a master planned resort (MPR) more than sixteen years ago. It is now time for the County to accomplish that goal. After carefully reviewing the current development proposal, I encourage you to approve the plan as submitted. This, by far, is the most environmentally sensitive and comprehensive development plan submitted to Jefferson County. This project will set the standards for future high quality developments that JetTerson County residents expect and deserve. Keep in mind, the significant and far reaching impact this one hundred forty million dollar ($140,000,000) development will have on Jefferson County's economy:. 1,750* construction jobs, 206* new resort jobs, increased sales and property taxes, December 2015 EIS Report 1 creation of more than four hundred new tax parcels and a marked increase in tourist dollars. Jefferson County has repeatedly cited the need to diversify its economy so it is not dependant on industries it has relied upon in the past (i.e. fishing, timber, paper mills, etc.) Tourism is an excellent alternative for increasing the County's economy. Incredibly, the Developer has had to wait for more than ten years, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to process this application. Approval of this development will go a long way towards changing the perception that Jefferson County is anti -development, anti -business and generally anti -growth. Also, a significant increase in the property tax base will certainly be greatly appreciated by the County's voters and taxpayers. You have the responsibility to represent the best interest of all Jefferson County residents, not just small vocal minorities, or special interest groups. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Bert Loomis F1 L 7 L The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied The time to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon is now. Approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a simple question of economic justice for Brinnon and everyone who calls Jefferson County home.. U Families are being forced out of the Brinnon area at an alarming rate. Between 2014 and 2015 the population of Brinnon fell from 767 to 705, an 8.08% decline in a single year. Families are being forced out of Brinnon because there aren't enough fobs. From 2014 to 2015, employment in Brinnon declined at an astonishing rate of 16.76%. More than 18% of the people in Brinnon live below the poverty line - a poverty rate nearly 25% higher than the national average. For those who haven't been forced out yet, average wages in Brinnon are lower than Jefferson County, lower than Washington State and lower than the national average. Even worse, wage growth lags far behind the rate of inflation. The economic hardship forced upon the people of Brinnon and southeastern Jefferson County is a human injustice and a complete failure of compassion by the county government. UThe Pleasant Harbor MPR can reverse years of economic decline and crushing poverty in the area. Guided by an environmental plan that represents the gold standard of ecological stewardship, the Pleasant Harbor MPR will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs in the construction trades and other occupations, today and for years into the future. The Pleasant Harbor MPR not only brings economic justice to the people who live there now, it will create jobs and prosperity so the next generation can raise their families in southeastern Jefferson County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is a significant expansion of the county's tax base. This $140 million project will generate millions in Jefferson County sales tax and millions more in real estate taxes. The tax revenue generated by the Pleasant Harbor MPR will help Jefferson County provide more and better schools, fire and police service, health care and other critical services to all Uthe people of the county. By comparison, the Port Ludlow MPR was quickly reviewed and approved, resulting in nearly 20 years of economic growth in the area and with a proven track record of sound environmental stewardship. UThe Pleasant Harbor MPR has languished for more than a decade. That's 10 years of lost economic prosperity for the people of Brinnon, southeastern Jefferson County, and all residents of the county. Economic justice for Brinnon has been delayed far too long. Justice delayed is justice rianiari and tha times fnr artinn is now Tha rni into shni Orl nnnrnva tha Pleasant Harhnr NAPR U Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bert1kcablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 April 2, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 e Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: There is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: Last year, we were told that there is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County. You can help solve that crisis by voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The combined sales tax and real estate taxes generated by this $140 million project would provide tens of millions of dollars for the county treasury, allowing 8 us to do more to help those in need of affordable housing. Please approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight. Sincerely, Bert Loomis cc: O David Sullivan Kathleen Kler 0 Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass a I I I Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertIgeablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 29, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners O P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs Dear Commissioners: Jefferson County's unemployed and under -employed people need your help. You can provide them the help they need by voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs that so many of our neighbors need. These are the jobs that so many people desperately need to continue raising their families in Jefferson County. aSincerely, 11 I Bert Loomis a cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean O Philip Morley Michael Hass a 11 I Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bert1 kcablespeed. com 360) 437-0901 March 26, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners O P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Help improve the fire and EMS services Dear Commissioners: I'm asking that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR now because the money it will generate in new taxes will help improve the fire and EMS services we rely on to respond to emergencies. Nothing is more terrifying than a home fire or a terrible accident, and with the additional resources that could be provided for our first responders, it would provide greater peace of mind to all the people who call Jefferson County home. Please vote in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Wj Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl@cablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 23, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Depend on a reliable police presence Dear Commissioners: Residents across the county depend on a reliable police presence. However, O funding problems make it difficult for law enforcement to receive the proper tools they need to keep the citizens of Jefferson County secure. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can help provide desperately needed money for law enforcement Oand in the process, improve the safety and security of everyone who lives here. The sooner you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the better. OSincerely, Bert Loomis cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass David Stanko Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertlAcablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 19, 2018 D Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ORe: Retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County ODear Commissioners: Your vote to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR means attracting and retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County. Our school system is in dire need of increased funding and through the sales taxes and property taxes created by the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Jefferson County can ensure that education remains a top 8 priority for the county and its lawmakers. I implore you to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. OSincerely, 8 Bert Loomis O cc: David Sullivan Kathleen Kler 8 Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass a 11 Bert Loomis 235 Edgewood Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 ber lAcablespeed.com 360) 437-0901 March 15, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Better social services for the people of Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: A vote for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a vote for more and better social services for the people of Jefferson County. The tax revenue generated by this project will provide the funding necessary for grants to OlyCap and other social services organizations that provide needed resources to the county's homeless, elderly and others who need a helping hand. I ask that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Sincerely, Bert Loomis me David Sullivan Kathleen Kler Kate Dean Philip Morley Michael Hass C-C-,,-FOO-Ck6 DCD Brinnon Group A 4/9/18 Jefferson County Commissioners: We are submitting the following documents for your consideration: Rick Aramburu's 4/9/18 letter Rick Aramburu's 11/29/16 letter Letter from Garth Mann to Jeromy Sullivan 9/16 Page 13 and page 15 of Garth Mann's "Vision Statement" Dave Wechner's 4/9/18 letter Dave Wechner's Resume APR 0 9 2018 i E C()UN_ry I S S M N E R S ARAmBuRu & EUSTIS, LLP Attornevs at Law J. Richard Aramburu 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 rick@aramburu-eustis.com Seattle, WA 98104 Jeffrey M. Eustis Tel 206.625.9515 eustis@aramburu-eustis.com Fax 206.682.1376 www.aramburu-eustis.com April 9, 2018 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina Master Planned Resort Development Agreement and Zoning Dear Commissioners: This office represents the Brinnon Group, a Washington non-profit corporation formed due to concerns with the resort development proposed by the Statesman Group near Black Point in the Brinnon area. My client has asked me to provide comments on the proposed development agreement and re -zoning for the Pleasant Harbor proposal, which are scheduled for a public hearing on April 9, 2018.' On November 29. 2016, we corresponded with the County concerning an earlier Statesman rendition of its proposal, "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreational Community: a Vision for Investing in the Success of Puget Sound" (hereinafter, "The Vision"). A copy of that letter, with a copy of "The Vision," is Attachment A hereto. After a careful review of the proposed development agreement and zoning, we conclude that key elements of the proposal are inconsistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the terms of Jefferson County Ordinance 1-0128-08, and with provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A, RCW. In particular, the proposal is so vague it cannot even qualify for consideration under a development agreement. The development agreement and proposed zoning should be modified to demonstrate compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Our specific comments fo0w. The Brinnon Group incorporates by reference letters and comments by other concerned residents in the area. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 2 NO CODE COMPLIANT SITE PLAN. The key element of the Development Agreement is the master plan. The master plan allows the public and the decision makers to review a graphic representation of what would be constructed. As described below, a master plan includes the kinds and types of construction being proposed and importantly, the features of the proposal that qualify it for consideration as a master planned resort under Washington law. In the present case, the proposed Development Agreement, at Paragraph 3.2, says the master plan includes "a Phasing Plan and a Master Plan Map of the Property." The "Master Plan Map" is Exhibit 2 to the Development Agreement and the "Phasing Plan" is Exhibit 4. We assume the Phasing Plans in Exhibit 4 to be the current proposal because they are the latest materials (dated July 20, 2017). Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.15.126(1) provides that "A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include[]..." and the code then provides that several features must be included, as follows: d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential development types and location. e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of natural amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the project site. i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all phases are completed. The submissions by this applicant do not meet even the minimum requirements of the code, much less a demonstration that the plan is a "superior site design." ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 3 Even a cursory review of the two drawings in the proposed Development Agreement shows they propose completely different uses and different configurations of those proposed uses. For example, the Phasing Plan shows a "Rec Center" in the northern portion of the site, in the same location as originally shown in The Vision (at page 13). A line drawing of uses in the "Rec Center" (Attachment B hereto) is found on page 15 of The Vision. It includes tennis courts, a full size basketball court, sports courts, dressing rooms, an exercise area, a large swimming pool, a golf pro shop and a substantial restaurant. A large parking lot holding about 200 vehicles is located to the east of the "Rec Center." The Phasing Plan says that 208 living units will be built over the Rec Center, however, there is no similar structure shown on the Master Plan Map. The Master Plan Map shows in that same location "Golf Terraces and Conference Center/Spa 520 units 36,000 S.F. Commercial." The number of units in each of the various buildings is not provided on the Master Plan Map, just a total over the four "Terrace Buildings." There is reference to an Amphitheater" on the Master Plan Map, but with no reference to seating capacity or use. Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires the construction of a "community center" at page 16. However, that feature is missing from both the Master Plan and the Phasing Plan. As described above, the Phasing Plans show a "Rec Center" is to be provided with the several uses shown in the line drawing, as also shown in The Vision, but not on the Master Plan Map. The Development Agreement, at Paragraph 10.3 on page 15, describes "Public Amenities and Access" but deletes reference to a community center, including only that the facility will provide a nine hole golf course, a sports courts, a pool and water slides. The drawing in the Phasing Plan shows additional community uses such as a restaurant, but no detail is provided as to these uses though a notation is made that that section shall be available to the general public for a fee. The Master Plan Map dead -ends the main road at the northwest corner of the property and has a single entrance on the northeast side of the resort. That entrance has what is referenced as a "Control Gate." The function of the feature is not explained in the Master Plan Map, but may be intended to make the facility a "gated community," limiting public access. However, Paragraph 10.3 of the Development Agreement requires that public access be maintained. Curiously, this single entrance to the entire proposal is immediately adjacent to a "Ventilated Utility Building, Sanitary Sewer Pump Station." The Phasing Plan has two entrances to the resort area. One entrance is at the northeast corner of the site, similar to the Master Plan, but does not specify the "Control Gate," apparently indicating the site is accessible by the public. The second entrance is at the northwest corner, but it passes by by the "Wastewater Treatment Plan" and Tanks for LOSS in Phase 1," which are storage tanks for sewage effluent. It is not ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 4 credible that a successful MPR would have resort entrances adjacent to maintenance buildings, a sewage treatment plant and tanks of sewage effluent. Both site plans lack any architectural detail. Buildings are shown only as line drawings, but with no idea of size, height or architectural themes or design. No building dimensions are provided nor the height of any buildings. No landscaping plans are shown to determine how the buildings might fit into the existing environment. There are no showings of where open space might be located and separated from other areas. Open parking lots are shown for some uses, but are not shown for others. It is possible that parking for buildings without open parking will be in or under these buildings. Parking for about 200 vehicles adjacent to the "Rec Center" is shown but no parking demand studies have been prepared which indicate whether the parking spaces provided are sufficient. The Phasing Plan and Paragraph 10.1.3 of the Development Agreement say that a "Utility District of PHR" will be formed during Phase 1 of the project. It is unclear whether such entity will be public or a private endeavor and what utilities will be provided. Significantly, neither the Master Plan Map nor the Phasing Plan shows which units will be short term or unrestricted. Putting off the construction of short term uses to the end of the phasing plan risks default on those required features, as discussed below for other Statesman Group developments, Tamarack in West Central Idaho and Paradise Ranch in southwest Oregon. It is frankly shocking that an experienced resort developer with ten years to prepare a master planned resort has produced two site plans, neither of which provides the information necessary to qualify as a site plan under Jefferson County Code. 2. PHASING PROPOSALS ARE INADEQUATE TO MEET REGULATIONS. The Phasing Plan (Exhibit 4) to the Development Agreement generally provides for three phases of the project. Phase 1 is the "site clearing and grading," which includes "begin road construction with services." Given the nature of land clearing, it is entirely unclear how much work will be done under this phase or what "services" refers to. Phase 1 also includes the construction of 202 units, 170 in "Sea View Villas" and 32 in "Golf Vistas," though the locations of these facilities are not set forth in the plan. Significantly, whether these units will be short term rentals or permanent residences is not described. It is assumed that these facilities will all be permanent residences. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 5 Important to these facilities is the manner in which sanitary wastes will be treated. Phase 1 includes, in both the Development Agreement and the Phasing Plan, the following reference: construction of LOSS drainfield (wastewater treatment plan back up system) Development Agreement at Paragraph 10.1.3 and Phasing Plan. However, nowhere is there a commitment to construct the wastewater treatment plant itself in that section. The LOSS drainfield is only a backup for the treatment plant. Without further clarification there is no commitment to construct the sewage treatment plant, especially where it is not mentioned in Phases 2 and 3. See Paragraphs 10.1.4 and 10.1.5. The construction of the sewage treatment plan is a critical element to the project and the cause of considerable concern for other master planned resort proposals, including the failed Paradise Ranch Golf Resort described in David Wechner's attached letter. See Attachment C. Also of significance is that Phase 1 lacks a commitment to construct any of the resort amenities anticipated by the plan. For instance, only the grading for the golf course will be done in Phase 1, no holes will be constructed. The reference in Phase 1 to "Golf Vistas" is plainly a euphemism because the golf course will not be completed in Phase 1. The "Rec Building" or community center will not be constructed until Phase 2. There is no commitment found in the Development Agreement for construction of these very expensive facilities after the sale of the permanent residential units to be constructed in Phase 1. It is these amenities that might make the proposal a master planned resort, not the construction of 202 view condominiums. If the sale of these condominiums falls short, then, as described below, there is significant concern that these critical amenities will not be constructed. The proposal's phasing plan creates significant risk that the amenities will not be constructed, especially given the cost of such facilities and the lack of any financial commitment to complete them. 3. ZONING CONDITIONS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. As noted above, the master plan drawings are not only vague, but contradictory. Similar problems are found with the proposed zoning provisions. Unlike typical zoning codes, the proposed zoning code placed the entirety of the master planned resort in a single zone, MPR -GR, Chapter 17.65. In that zone, a complete mix of residential, commercial, resort and public facilities and services are allowed, without any locational requirements. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 6 Zoning ordinances also typically deal with dimensional issues, heights, setbacks, lot coverage and similar features. However, proposed JCC 17.65,040 states: "There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR -GR zone," an area approaching 300 acres. All that is required is a minimal 20 foot setback from the parcel boundary. Internal buildings may be as close as five or ten feet apart. There are no provisions for allowed or required parking in each phase. Height limitations are also usually set in a zoning ordinance. Here, proposed JCC 17.65.030 sets heights at 35 feet. However, the height may be increased "with the approval of the local Fire District", without any limitation. But fire department issues differ greatly from visual concerns for "superior site design" for the resort as a whole. It is inappropriate to place decisions as to the heights of buildings within the Master Plan area in the hands of the "local Fire District," particularly where there are no provisions for public notice or public hearings connected with that decision. The Vision," the only plan which included any schematic drawings, already shows four floors of development on the schematic drawing at page 4, clearly violating the height limits of the proposed code. In addition, "The Vision" indicates that 208 units will be constructed over the Recreation Centre to accommodate Sport and Health Tourism." Page 11. Since the "Recreation Centre" is planned to have two stories already (see The Vision at pages 15-16), it is evident that the proposal will exceed the 35 foot height limit. In fact, the zoning code use, height and setback requirements do not limit development on the site. Under County codes and regulations, the location, height, bulk and scale of any construction on the property is to be established by the master plan. However, as noted above, no provisions for height, bulk and scale for proposed buildings are found in either the Master Plan or the Phasing Plan. Indeed, neither the Master Plan Map nor the Phasing Plan had dimensions for any of the proposed buildings. 4. VESTING PROVISIONS INAPPROPRIATE AND ILLEGAL. Paragraph 9.3 proposes to vest "all development" proposed on the property to current versions of Jefferson County development regulations. Such vesting is inadvisable and illegal.. Under Washington state law, vesting occurs when either a complete building permit or complete subdivision application is made. As of the present time there are no building plans, or even facade drawings, for any construction or subdivision on the property except as shown in The Vision, which contains only renderings. There is no reason to vest construction or subdivisions plans where only line drawings exist without ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 7 anything even approaching construction drawings. There is no indication that any subdivision of property under RCW 58.17.033 is anticipated for this proposal, thus there is nothing to vest. Our courts have recognized the danger of too easily granting vested rights: Development interests and due process rights protected by the vested rights doctrine come at a cost to the public interest. The practical effect of recognizing a vested right is to sanction the creation of a new nonconforming use. A proposed development which does not conform to newly adopted laws is, by definition, inimical to the public interest embodied in those laws. If a vested right is too easily granted, the public interest is subverted. This court recognized the tension between public and private interests when it adopted Washington's vested rights doctrine. The court balanced the private property and due process rights against the public interest by selecting a vesting point which prevents "permit speculation", and which demonstrates substantial commitment by the developer, such that the good faith of the applicant is generally assured. The application for a building permit demonstrates the requisite level of commitment. In Hull v. Hunt, supra, this court explained, "the cost of preparing plans and meeting the requirements of most building departments is such that there will generally be a good faith expectation of acquiring title or possession for the purposes of building ...". Hull, 53 Wash.2d at 130, 331 P.2d 856. Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 873-74, 872 P.2d 1090, 1994) . The discussion above shows that the developer has little if any commitment to the project, offering inconsistent, conflicting and incomplete plans for the proposal. There is no basis to allow unlimited vesting to what is essentially a vague series of line drawings. 5. NO PROVISIONS FOR FINANCIAL OR OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPER. As described above, this applicant has offered inconsistent site plans that do not qualify even as "back of the napkin sketches." The lack of standard drawings showing project elements raises concerns for what is intended for the project as a whole. As discussed below, the applicant must demonstrate that it has the financial and managerial capability to carry through with the project. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 8 iCC 18.15.125(1) requires the following showing in a master plan: i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all phases are completed. Emphasis supplied). The Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) was established 80 years ago to provide assistance to local governments in Washington. MSRC is, as described on their website, "a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic." MRSC serves all 281 cities and 39 counties of the state and provides information; "when the legal landscape changes, we are here to clarify the issues and help local government leaders make the right decisions for their communities." See http://mrsc.org/Home/About-MRSC.aspx. Several years ago, the MSRC prepared a guidebook on MPRs called: "Master Planned Resorts "Washington Style." http://mrsc.org/getmedia/d954c9de-24ca-4485- 9416-a04c3e64b48e/Master-Planned-Resorts.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf. The preface of the publication states its purpose: The guidebook will provide information about how local jurisdictions can better anticipate and evaluate the potential benefits and impacts of these developments. This publication suggests criteria to help local jurisdictions decide whether it makes sense for a county to allow for such exceptions within its rural areas. It provides criteria for assessing whether a specific proposed resort (or small-scale recreational use) is a net benefit to the community, and whether the location is suitable. One section of the publication addresses the question: "is the Project Economically Viable?" at pages 10-12. In that section, MSRC states: After reviewing North American resort and recreational projects over a 30 - year span, some resort industry leaders estimated that as few as 10 percent were profitable for the original developer (Middleton, 1994). As a result, local jurisdictions should carefully evaluate a proposed MPR's prospects for success. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 9 Page 10. Additional guidance is provided on page 11: Local officials may or may not be interested in adopting specific investment targets. However, they should look for convincing assurance that the project is economically viable. A developer should present market plans and analysis that demonstrate that a proposed resort can succeed and that benefits to the community will materialize. In addition, a developer should provide evidence of sufficient company experience and financial backing to manage a large-scale, long-term venture. The proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR to be approved by the development agreement is a complex undertaking with a large proposed recreation/community center, a golf course, a waste water treatment plant, a utility district and commitments to not discharge stormwater into Hood Canal. However, as described above, the plans presented for the resort are minimal and completely lack project detail. Benefit to the community is dependent on the features that provide community benefit, thus the Board must be assured that the applicant, and its final plans, guarantee their provision. First, does the Statesman Company have sufficient company experience to manage a facility of this nature? A careful review of Statesman projects indicates no experience in running a resort with a golf course and a large recreation center. Under the proposed master plan, 65% of the 890 units on the site, or 578 units must be short term rentals, but Statesman has no experience that we have been able to find in operating or managing hotels or similar short term rental operations. As described above, the master plan does not disclose which of the proposed units will be short term rentals, as opposed to permanent residences. Second, does the project proponent have sufficient financial backing and market analysis to demonstrate it can successfully build a facility of this nature? No independent market analysis supports the financial viability of the proposal. Our November 29, 2016, correspondence addressed this subject in relation to the "Vision" for the project, as referenced above. That proposal indicated that the success of the project required some $37,750,000 of public funds to form a "public private project." As pointed out in our correspondence, the scheme to use public funds was likely illegal under Washington law. We have also investigated another proposal from Statesman called the "Pine Ridge Mountain and Lakeview Community" located in central Alberta, Canada. This proposal is for a 700 unit resort community with substantially all units for sale. See Statemans' promotional video at http://www.discoverpineridge.com/. From video time 2:36 to 3:18 this advertising promo includes details on a proposed recreation center. A separate video describes the same facility, referencing it as the "Columbia Valley Recreation and Community Centre." See http://www.discoverpineridge.com/columbia- ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 10 valley- recreation -co mmunity-center/. This second video describes the features of the proposed Rec Center beginning at video time 1:03, making claims about community benefits, including "Toby Canyon Slide," hockey, fitness center and "medical tourism,` bistros, a theater, weddings and conferences. Without the hockey rink, the proposal is remarkably similar to that proposed at Pleasant Harbor in the Phasing Plan and "The Vision". However, an article in the local newspaper, the Columbia Valley Pioneer, from September 14, 2017, discloses that "Statesman is looking for a low-interest government loan to build the center through a private/public partnership." See https•//www columbiavalleypioneer com/news/invermere-mega-development-projct- gauges-rec-centre-support/. In addition, "the company would like to see an interested community entity take over the rec center operations once it is built." The article includes quotes from several governmental officials skeptical of the proposal. The article also reports that though the proposal was for 300 single family and 400 multi- family units (similar to the Pleasant Harbor plan at 890 units), only about 55 units have been sold. The promotional video clearly discusses the need for a massive injection of local and state funds to build the $40,000,000 facility, a number very similar to the 37,750,000 funding request in "The Vision" for Pleasant Harbor. Over the recent years master planned resorts have failed due to lack of financial and managerial capabilities. Our November 29, 2016, correspondence describes the situation at Tamarack, near Donnelly in west central Idaho, where financial problems and bankruptcy resulted in significant community disruption. As noted in the recent article from the New York Times, home owners have had to rescue the facility. https://www.n) times.com/2017/02/07/business/tamarack-idaho-ski-resort.html. The golf course which was a centerpiece of the resort has failed and has returned to nature. As noted, the developer has largely skipped town and the burden of picking up the pieces has fallen to individuals that bought property in the development and Valley County government. The current proposal is very similar in structure and financing to Stateman's Pine Ridge resort, with the developer promoting a facility but lacking any resort management experience or financial ability to complete the proposal. Closer to home, the Pleasant Harbor proposal has many similarities to the Paradise Ranch proposal in southern Oregon. As described in the attached letter from David Wechner, the Josephine County Planning Director at the time, the Pleasant Harbor project has many similarities to the Paradise Ranch proposal. As noted, there was no showing of a current or projected market analysis of the economic viability of that project. "The Vision" also includes no such analysis (the only information offered is projected population increases for the state as a whole). See ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 11 page 9. The "Success Stories" described on page 10 of "The Vision" do not refer to developments by the applicant, but rather the following: Amongst many other initiatives, the communities of Gig Harbor & San Juan Islands have embraced the demand of the local residents to offer year round recreational and community opportunities. Pictures of Gig Harbor and a Washington State Ferry (somewhere in the San Juans) are offered on the same page with the additional reference: Additionally, these centers continue to attract visitors through recreation in terms of Sports Tourism and Medical Health Rejuvenation which then contribute to amenity migration as well as family vacations. No sources are listed for these statements and we have found no support for claims that Sports Tourism and Medical Health Rejuvenation" have contributed to the success of either Gig Harbor or the San Juans. The applicant has not offered evidence of any financial or managerial experience that suggests it has the ability to successfully complete a master planned resort on this property. Quite to the contrary, even after ten years to do so, Stateman has not even submitted a site plan that provides a meaningful description of its proposal, much less meeting the minimum standards of applicable ordinances. Jefferson County should not enter into a development agreement with Statesman without demonstrated financial capacity and management ability to complete the facility. 4. UNLIMITED ASSIGNMENT NOT APPROPRIATE. Section 12 of the Development Agreement provides for unlimited rights of the Developer to assign the terms of the agreement without consent or review by the County. Section 12.4 provides that the Developer will be released of all liabilities and obligations if an assignment is made. These provisions are unwise and financially irresponsible. As described above, MPRs require substantial financial resources and commitments, as well as managerial experience. The transfer of development rights to unqualified persons or companies without financial or managerial means is unwise. Most developers are corporations or limited liability companies that lack financial resources in the event problems arise. Given potential impacts to both the public and county resources of an unqualified transferee, it is incumbent on the County to maintain control over the assignment process. The County should carefully review any assignment to assure protection of the public and persons that may purchase units in the development. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 12 Similarily, the current developer should not "be released of all liabilities and obligations" as stated in Paragraph 12.4. If problems, errors or discrepancies in performance by the existing developer should occur, that entity should not be able to avoid any liability by simply finding another entity to transfer to. Keep in mind no -asset companies are often formed by construction companies which would not be financially responsible. Given the difficulty of seeing these projects to completion, Jefferson County should not allow assignment without careful review and consideration of worthiness of the assignee. 5. FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DEFINE SHORT TERM RENTALS. Proposed code section 17.60.070 is meant to regulate the minimum requirements for short term visitor accommodations by limiting short term rentals to less than 30 days. This provision is inadequate to meet standards established in the comprehensive plan. To begin with, there is no indication which proposed buildings will be short term or long term uses. Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires that only 35% of the 890 units proposed (or 311 units) may be sold as permanent residences. As described above, the applicant has proposed most of the permanent residences (202 units) to be built in the first phase, leaving all the short term units (578 units) to be built in later phases. What if the applicant declares bankruptcy after the first phase and cannot complete any of the public amenities and short term rental facilities? The code should clearly require that the developer set aside units that will be exclusively used for short term rentals and cannot be occupied by an owner. The vacation housing market has become complex over the past years with numerous services that offer short term rentals by owner such as Airbnb, VRBO, Hometogo, and Booking.com. In other arrangements, local companies may allow an owned unit to be added to a rental pool. Indeed, many single family homes in Seattle are included in Airbnb. However, the occasional listing of a private residence for potential short term rental does not qualify to meet the 65% short term visitor accommodations required under Ordinance 01-0128-08. Nor do the Master Plan Map or Phasing Plan indicate where the short term accommodations will be, as outlined in Paragraph 1 of this letter. It also appears that 208 units of short term housing will be located above the "Rec Center" which appears to require governmental funding as described in The Vision. The phasing plan outlined at Paragraph 10, pages 13-14 of the Development Agreement references "units" to be built at various times, but does not say which of the units will be short term rentals, which are to be 65% of the housing units on site per ARAMBURU & EUSTis, LLP April 9, 2018 Page 13 Condition (aa) of the ordinance and JCC 18.15.123. It is critical to have the short term rentals built early, especially where this is the key defining factor for MPRs and that which separates them from ordinary golf course subdivisions. Short term rentals should be described and located on the site plan and the definition of "short term" should modified to assure that actual short term rentals are developed. 6. FAILURE TO DEFINE WORKER/STAFF HOUSING. An important feature of the proposal is to define staff and worker housing. While 52 units of "Staff Housing" are shown, they are apparently combined with a maintenance building." No information is provided as to the size of these units to determine whether they can be used by only by members of the staff or would also house their families, nor is there an indication as to the cost of such housing to resort workers, an important factor in their success. 7. CONCLUSION. As described herein, neither the Development Agreement nor the _proposed zoning are sufficient to assure that the proposed development will actually become a fully developed master planned resort consistent with local regulations and state law. The vague nature of the plans, combined with a lack of managerial experience and financial capability by the developer, do not provide assurance to Jefferson County residents and taxpayers that a successful venture can be developed at this location. Master planned resorts have a track record of financial and managerial problems and this applicant has already indicated in "The Vision" that large amounts of governmental funding will be required to bring this development to completion. Failure of a large proposal of this nature likely will have impacts on the property, property values, on local residents and the taxpayers of Jefferson County as a whole. The Commissioners should decline to approve the Development Agreement and proposed zoning. Sincerely, A aUR & Eus s, L P J. Richard Aramburu JRA:cc cc: Client Attorneys at Law J. Richard Aramburu rick@aramburu-eustis.com Jeffrey M. Eustis eustis@aramburu-eustis.com 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel 206.625.9515 Fax 206.682.1376 www.aramburu-eustis.com November 29, 2016 Patty Charnas, Director c/o Email: Jefferson County Department of Community Development dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us 621 Sheridan Street planning&o.jefferson.wa.us Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phillip Morely County Administrator Jefferson County 621 Sheridan Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 David Sullivan, Commissioner, District 2 Phil Johnson, Commissioner, District 1 Kathleen Kler, Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County 1820 Jefferson St PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Via Email: jeffbocc@co. jefferson.wa. us Via Email: jeffboccCa)co. jefferson.wa. us Re: Statesman Group: "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreation Community" Dear Ms. Charnas, Mr. Morely and Commissioners: This office represents the Brinnon Group, a Washington non-profit corporation concerned with the resort development proposed by the "Statesman Group" near Pleasant Harbor/Black Point in the Brinnon area. The proposal is currently being reviewed by both Jefferson County and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe ("PGST" or Tribe") and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for the proposal. I write today to provide comment on behalf of my client concerning a document dated August 19, 2016, entitled "THE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY: A Vision for Investing in the Success of Puget Sound" (hereinafter Pleasant Harbor Vision" or "Vision") prepared by the Statesman Group. The complete plan is attached for your ready review. This document was provided to the Tribe on ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP November 29, 2016 Page 2 September 19, 2016, together with an accompanying letter of the same date (also attached) and to Jefferson County on October 3, 2016. As described herein, the "Vision" would effect major changes in this proposal. First, the applicant now proposes that the project will be a "private -public venture," financed with some $37,750,000 of public, taxpayer funds, a proposition that has serious legal problems. Second, major changes in the development are proposed, including a large community center, modification of the number of residential units and conveyance of property to public entities. As described below, these changes will require complete reevaluation of the proposal and raise questions about the long term feasibility of the venture. 1. CHANGES IN PROJECT FINANCING. In its several iterations, Jefferson County, the Tribe, my client and the public have understood the proposal to be a private project funded with private equity or borrowings. Now the applicant has modified the proposal to be a "private -public venture." Pleasant Harbor Vision, page 9.' Amazingly, Statesman now proposes that their project financing will be provided by Jefferson County and the State of Washington. The details are provided on page 3 of the Vision under the heading: "THE PROPOSAL." Discussion of the several bullet points of the proposal follows. First Bullet. Statesman indicates that the State of Washington will purchase some thirty acres of "reclaimed lands" for $9,250,000. This money would be deposited into a Washington State Utility Trust." However, our research fails to find such a "utility trust," either public or private, in the State of Washington. No explanation is provided as to why the State would be interested in this property. The actual purpose appears to be a cash contribution to the overall project. Second Bullet. Statesman next proposes that "Jefferson County would also deposit in the Washington State Utility Trust, a Recreational Community Grant for 2,000,000." We are not aware that the Jefferson County Commissioners have even been asked to consider such a grant. Our review of the Jefferson County 2017 Budget reveals no discussion of the availability of such funds. Given current and past Jefferson County budgets, it is inconceivable that funds would be given to Statesman, especially considering issues that appear to be facing the company as described below (see comments regarding the Seventh Bullet). Third Bullet. The $11,200,000 of state and federal taxpayer funds sought would apparently be used for a "Recreational Community Center" which is to be a 158,000 square foot facility (3.6 acres) with several uses, as set out on pages 15-16 of the Vision. Apparently one of the concepts behind the proposal is "Engaging the Community plus the Political Will," though the meaning of this phrase is uncertain. See Statesman has neglected to paginate the document. The numbers on the attachment were provided by us. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP November 29, 2016 Page 3 page 11. No detail is provided as to projections of use of such a facility or why scarce taxpayer funds ought to be directed to this project instead of other public needs. Fourth Bullet. This section indicates: "Jefferson County would propose to the local Tribes to be engaged an Indigenous Interpretative Center within the grounds." What this is and where it would be are not defined. We are not aware that the tribe is interested in such a proposal. Fifth Bullet. Statesman claims that Jefferson County and the State of Washington will each "be a net benefactor as a result of the expansion of hospitality business taxes." No indication of how these taxes would be "expanded" is provided. Indeed, nowhere in the "Pleasant Harbor Vision" are any financial figures provided, such as estimates of construction costs, projections of potential use or other financial information that might support Stateman's large funding requests. Also included under the fifth bullet point is "coaching wellness through the rehabilitation of Rejuvenation Plus." The meaning here is again uncertain. There is a website called "www.rejuvenationplus.ca" but it has expired. Sixth Bullet. Here Statesman proposes that the State of Washington would: sponsor through the Federal Government a Tax Exempt Municipal Improvement Bond for $26.5 million dollars as a loan to PHM." Such a transaction would clearly violate the Washington state constitution: Article 8, Section 7 of the Washington state constitution provides: "No ... municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm ..." Our Supreme Court has held that: "The financing of private enterprises with public funds is foreign to the fundamental concepts of our constitutional system." United States v. Town of North Bonneville, 94 Wn.2d 827, 836, 621 P.2d 127 (1980). As stated in Lassila v. City of Wenatchee, 89 Wn.2d 804, 810, 576 P.2d 54 (1978): "The constitution clearly specifies that the sole purpose for which a municipality may loan its credit is `the necessary support of the poor and infirm."' The development of 208 "short stay residential suites" described in the "Vision" is hardly intended for the "poor and infirm." Clearly the real purpose for the construction of a community center is to provide a foundation for building the proposed 208 hotel units, not for public benefit. We would be surprised should anyone in Jefferson County give this outlandish scheme any consideration. Tax exempt municipal bonds may be general obligation secured by the full faith and credit of the municipal issuer) as with revenue bonds secured by revenues derived from charges or rents), but in all cases such bonds represent taxpayer liability in the event of a default. The Vision proposes security for the loan from development of the project, but without providing background financial information. There is nothing in this meager and sketchy proposal that supports such a huge bond issuance, even if Statesman were a credit worthy borrower, which is in doubt. In any event, the proposal was clearly impermissible under Washington law as described above. Seventh Bullet. Under the seventh bullet of the proposal it is stated that the developer "would be the General Contractor through its associate company Statesman ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP November 29, 2016 Page 4 Construction Washington LTD." A quick review on the State of Washington Labor and Industries website shows that "Statesman Construction Washington Ltd." is not currently licensed. The "Vision" is essentially for a destination resort. However, new "destination resorts" have not been financially successful in recent years. A prime example is the Tamarack Resort near McCall, Idaho. Like the Pleasant Harbor proposal, it included lodging, restaurants, residential development, a hotel, commercial development and a golf course.2 However, Tamarack quickly went into bankruptcy, leaving lenders, investors and private home purchasers holding the bag. See http://idahobusinessreview.com/2013/05/23/lessons-from-the-tamarack-resort- foreclosure/ for a detailed description of the collapse of this resort. A more recent article indicates that the local taxing district, Valley County, threatened to foreclose and the remaining homeowners had to bail out the resort with their own money. See http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/homeowners-association-buys-troubled-tamarack- resort#stream/0. Significantly, Tamarack was originally bankrolled by Credit Suisse, a major financial institution. As a result of these financial problems, the Tamarack Golf Course is closed. If Statesman is now seeking public financing, it is questionable whether it can complete this development using its own financial resources. The Pleasant Harbor Vision final pages include pictures of some of the facilities proposed at another Statesman project, at Pine Ridge Mountain Resort near Lake Invermere in central British Columbia. But it appears that this facility, with more than 700 units proposed, has not sold and that only perhaps 60 homes of the proposed 700 have been built. See hftp://www.invermerevalleyecho.com/ourtown/256378661.html. The proposal for a "private -public venture" is fanciful at best. The concept that state and local governments would underwrite this proposal to the tune of $37,750,000, with no financial feasibility analysis, is not believable or acceptable under the Washington constitution. More importantly, since the private -public financing is now a part of the proposal, it is not appropriate to proceed with additional analysis of the overall project unless this applicant can demonstrate that the public funding requested is available. If this funding is not available, then no further processing of this application should take place until the applicant can demonstrate its own financial ability to develop the project. 2. CHANGES IN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. As described above, the developer has changed his proposal from a privately funded project to what Statesman calls a "private -public venture" at pages 9 and 10 of the Vision. Such a proposal is not permissible under Washington law, as outlined above. In addition, the Vision makes major changes in the proposal itself which call for reevaluation of the entire permitting of the project, as described below. 2 Unlike Pleasant Harbor, Tamarack was never proposed to be funded by the taxpayers. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP November 29, 2016 Page 5 First, the golf course is downgraded from 18 holes to "a unique 9 -hole golf course that plays like an 18 -hole course." The site plan does show a 9 -hole course, but with no indication as to why it will be "unique" or how it will "play like" an 18 -hole course. While there is mention of "Success Stories" at page 10 of the Vision, there is no Statesman project listed there, and no indication that Statesman has designed and/or built any golf courses. Second, the Vision at page 17 shows playground equipment that would be installed as a part of the proposal. As noted, these are stock renderings, not photographs of actual installation of such equipment. Swing sets and slides are hardly significant recreational investments. Third, the Vision discusses at pages 2 and 12 outdoor areas that would "shadow LEED GOLD standards." This term is applied to outdoor facilities, but LEED standards are applied to building construction, not to golf courses and outdoor exercise areas page 12). Various searches have not turned up any reference to "shadow LEED" standards, specifications or projects. Fourth, the proposal appears to include geothermal heating and cooling, which will require installation of underground pipes to accomplish the required heat exchange. The location, scope and size of this proposed geothermal facility is not defined. Fifth, there are line drawings for the proposed "Pleasant Harbor Recreation Center," a two-story, 158,000 square foot rectangular building. The plans, found at pages 15-16 of the "Vision", include such anomalies as nine separate dressing or changing rooms, both a "bistro" and a "restaurant and lounge" (on separate floors), and a laser skeet shooting range. These plans are not consistent with any conceivable needs of the local Brinnon community. It appears that the "community center" is not intended for the local community, but to provide an attraction for the private guests of the Statesman proposal. In summary, the proposal represents a significant change from prior renditions of the project plans. Moreover, the material here is only at a concept level and more detail must be provided before review can begin. For example, there are no proposed site plans, no building dimensions, no concept of building facades or other information necessary for evaluation of the proposal, including evaluation of traffic and parking impacts. The addition of a large community center to the existing proposal, including a restaurant and other uses, clearly requires the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement once sufficient detail is provided. 3. CONCLUSION. The "Pleasant Harbor Vision" as presented has multiple defects, both in financing and physical development. There are no projections of costs or income that might provide any information about the financial feasibility of the project. The "private -public venture" as outlined is not permissible under established Washington law. This apparent admission that this project cannot be financed with traditional private market ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP November 29, 2016 Page 6 financing raises questions as to whether further processing of this application is appropriate. In addition, the "Pleasant Harbor Vision" proposes multiple and substantial changes from prior iterations of the Statesman proposal. As noted above, some of them are mystifying ("shadow LEED standards," page 2) and some are simply so vague Engaging the Community plus the Political Will," page 11) that they cannot form a basis for further review without substantial additional information. Once sufficient information about the proposal is presented to allow consideration of its environmental impacts, a supplemental environmental impact statement will be required. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this revised "Vision." Sincerely, MaU & E Tis, LP J. Richard Aramburu JRA:cc E -cc: The Brinnon Group Cynthia Koan, Chair, Jefferson County Planning Commission, and Planning Commissioners Gary Felder, Kevin Coker, Mark Jochems, Matt Sircely, Lorna Smith, Michael Nilssen, Richard Hull, Tom Giske, c/o county email at PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us State Representative Mike Chapman State Representative Steve Tharinger State Senator Kevin Van De Wege 1 PLEASANT HARBOR PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY The Strategic Plan, as adopted by the Leadership for Jefferson County in 2001, identifies clearly with the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Recreation Community as recorded below: We envision Jefferson County as a balanced, sustainable community with economic opportunities for income potential that allows personal independence. Where post -secondary educational opportunities exist and are tied to the local economy. Where the community accepts that a certain level ofgrowth and development are healthy and necessary to maintain our quality of life. Where the enjoyment of a rural lifestyle is allowed without necessity of rural services. Where growth is encouraged where appropriate infrastructure exists or is planned to exist, this enabling urban and rural lifestyles to co -exist. Where the community is engaged with their elected leadership to accept responsibility for contributing to the solution of community problems. " Mr. Jeromy Sullivan, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Dear Sir: September 19, 2016 RE: THE BRINNON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENABLING A MASTER PLANNED RESORT COMMMUNITY. I received an email last week from Commissioner David Sullivan, who suggested that I reach out to you once more in order to learn of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's position pursuant to our 10+ year application for approvals for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Recreation Community. Commissioner Sullivan noted that you wanted a report in writing that detailed the changes as mandated by Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. I have enclosed this report, as an attachment, that indicates the following: The golf course will be reduced to a 9 -hole course from the original design, even though a golf course is an approved use under the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan. The assurances that originating surface water will not flow off-site to impact the Hood Canal to the south. This has been accomplished through our existing grades and revised contours that will create a longitudinal 13.5 -million -gallon retention pond to capture both surface water and Class A treated water from our Waste Water Treatment Plant. Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/ 800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.statesmangroup.com 2018-4-9 Brinnon Group Second Attachment to Attachment A Applicant's letter to Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe io Ilk PLEASANT HARBOR The removal from the plan for use of the 2 major Kettles B and C as a reservoir for retention of water. Instead the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe would be responsible for beautifying this area and making it safe to the public, as a Tribal Historically Registered Spiritual area. (Washington State). The property will not be subject to traditional synthetic fertilizers such as Nitrates and Phosphates or Pesticides. Instead, the specifications call for the use of organic products that stimulate root growth, such as Humic Compounds and a construction base material of Peat. We enquired if the Department of Fish and Wildlife for Washington was familiar with the proximity readers for the Elk Herd. They confirmed that these are in use, and have proven effective in controlling traffic should the herd move across Highway 101 in their traditional grazing areas 3 to 4 miles to the north of our property. Obviously, there cannot be hunting on the Pleasant Harbor property due to safety concerns with visitors and occupants on site. You will notice in the attached report that the Tribes are invited to provide an educational area for indigenous art and artifacts, as approved within the public buildings at Pleasant Harbor. All parties are anxious to move forward, as we discussed mid -April 2016 at the Court House. You emphasized on the record, that the Tribe had no interest in stopping or delaying the development of the project. Mr. Don Coleman has attempted since April to accommodate a tour of the property, but without response from the Tribe. These are the facts Jeromy. We look forward to an early response from you or other Elders of Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe during the month of September 2016. Thank you for your integrity and being considerate. Sincerely, ew_Cum M. Garth Mann: Director Pleasant Harbor Marina & Recreational Community. Pleasant Harbor Marina 308913 US Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 360-796-4611/800-547-3479 FAX 866-848-4612 A STATESMAN GROUP OF COMPANIES DEVELOPMENT www.sfatesmangroup.com MOW CANAL PLEASANT HARBOR F 13] 15] I 2018-4-9 Brinnon Group Attachment B: Page 15, The Vision" 15] I Wechner Consulting 502 NE 6th St. Coupeville WA 98239 360) 682-2573 J. Richard Aramburu ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue Pacific Building Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-1860 Mr. Aramburu: ril 9. 2018 This letter is written in response to your request to review the master plan and proposed final development agreement for the development commonly known as Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon, in Jefferson County. I am a professional land use planner with more than 25 years of experience in the fields of environmental and land use planning. A statement of my qualifications is attached to this letter. As Planning Director of Josephine County, Oregon from March 2011 through June 2013, 1 dealt with a proposed destination resort known as Paradise Ranch, to be located on Monument Drive north of the unincorporated community of Merlin. The Pleasant Harbor proposal is substantially similar to the Paradise Ranch proposal, and raises similar issues I encountered in regards to that project. Provisions of Josephine County's ordinance (Article 96, Josephine County Rural Development Code) are taken directly from State of Oregon statute (ORS 197.435-467) detailing thresholds of phasing and financial commitment and other standards to define destination resorts, which the County incorporated into their decision. There are other provisions scattered throughout the Oregon Administrative Rules regarding establishment of enterprise zones, distinguishing taxing districts for destination resorts, and other regulations regarding sewer and water provisions for this type of development. If a development agreement contains these elements, at least on paper it can work, but the structure of the agreement doesn't assure its success. Despite the County's ordinance provisions, conditions of plat and site plan approvals, and a phasing plan designed to guide resort development in the timing of public infrastructure and on-site amenities to make the project a success, Paradise Ranch remains a failed effort with no foreseeable date of completion. Notable in the publication titled Master Planned Resorts, "Washington Style" by the Municipal Research Service Center is the following statement: Master planned resorts are typically large undertakings that will take years (and sometimes decades) to complete all phases. To be successful, resort developers must make a substantial investment in recreational facilities and other amenities. Much of this investment must occur before substantial revenues come in. Like the agriculture business, resort businesses that provide outdoor recreation facilities, such as golf or ski areas, may suffer from the whims of the weather. After reviewing North American resort and recreational projects over a 30 -year span, some resort industry leaders estimated that as few as 10 percent were profitable for the original developer (Middleton, 1994)" (1) The failure of Paradise Ranch in Josephine County created foreclosures on individual lots, several lawsuits among vested interests, and pressure on the County to provide 'fixes' for the parties holding property. The developer agreed to a phasing plan to get the approval, then wanted to change the timing and requirements of several components, as the golf course wasn't finished, and they didn't have funding to build the hotel and other amenities. Basically, it was destined to become just another golf - course subdivision (in a rural area), not what the Oregon Legislature had in mind, nor Josephine County. Despite approval of the final plat in 2008, the Paradise Ranch project is still in limbo, due in part to its fractured ownership and lack of financial foresight and management. Part of the golf course was constructed, but only three (3) holes of the projected champion course -length eighteen (18) holes have ever been played. After infrastructure for public water was extended and streets roughed -in, individual lots were sold but could not be built. The sewer system needed to meet Department of Environmental Quality standards, and required the participation of parties other than the developers; it has never been constructed, though on-site piping was installed for some of the lots. The overnight lodging required as part of conditions of approval could not be financed, due to poor projections of actual usage, the large capital outlay required for construction and infrastructure (e.g. parking, sewer system). Despite all the developer's assurances and conditions designed to create the resort, and improvements in the local economy since its initial approval in 2007, the developer filed for bankruptcy and the project is now essentially dead. Unfortunately, an unfinished project is often worse than no project at all. The farm and forest lands have been altered to create a golf course, but the result is a "course" that cannot be played, and the ground must extensively re -worked to do anything else (e.g. rough grading to re-create farm fields, removing sand bunkers and greens, course irrigation and sewer pipes). There have been alternative proposals for the project, such as an outdoor marijuana grow, 10 -acre subdivision lots (for the portion of land originally zoned for that density), and a wildlife park. The years of investment made in the property is essentially lost, and future plans will be hampered by the cost of undoing what incomplete work has been done. Josephine County now deals with three new owners with vested interests. Washington Federal Bank owns the lots with existing structures (including the "clubhouse" and existing residence that preceded the development proposal). Paradise Ranch Land Development, LLC owns most of the vacant residential lots, which cannot be built as the roads, water and sewer systems have yet to be approved, financed, or fully built. Pebble Beach, LLC owns the large golf course lot. Portions of the Paradise Ranch project are being advertised for sale in the local real estate market, but with caveats designed to forewarn potential buyers of development restraints. (2) The County takes the position they have a valid permit that treats all the parcels as one development site, and until rescinded by Paradise Ranch (et al.), they cannot allow parts to be developed in contrast to that approved development plan/permit. The complexity of the master planned resort development scheme, the financial complexity of such a proposal, and ownership interests of multiple parties create an atmosphere of instability that does not bode well for a successful project going forward. Any N municipal government should avoid granting final plat as Josephine County did in this case, as the granting of land division and/or site plan approval should be a final step before ownerships are divided, not a financing tool designed to save a project begun without adequate funding and management commitment in place. A minimum investment criterion is established for destination resorts, based on Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. At least $7 million is required for on-site developed recreation facilities and visitor -oriented accommodations for "large destination resorts" (similar in concept to Washington's Master Planned Resort on a site of 160 acres or more). At least one-third of this amount must be spent on recreational facilities. This amount does not include expenditures for sewer, water and road improvements. The same Oregon Goal calls for a $2 million investment (one-third of it for recreation facilities) for "small destination resorts". (s) The fatal flaw in the County's action, was its response to the developer's request to move to final plat despite infrastructure not yet constructed, nor actual financial security in hand for the improvements. The financial 'assurances' Commissioners relied upon to approve the plat were not substantiated; the developer apparently hoped to sell enough lots to obtain the financing needed to construct the subdivision, and use the ownership of individuals as leverage to convince the County to underwrite the sewer system that had yet to be financially supported. Douglas County, Oregon includes in their regulation: "Recreational facilities and other day facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through performance bonding mechanisms." emphasis added). (4) While Josephine County saw more detail in the specific methods to provide services, arrange lots and design of buildings than the Pleasant Harbor plan, they saw little more than a 'letter of commitment' from a lender to the developer, rather than a performance bond. The developer and County moved forward with development approvals, including final plat, which allowed the developer to pull individual investors into the project, one lot at a time. These people lost significant value on their land investment, either lost in foreclosure, or as owners simply walked away because their dream homes could not be built. Likewise, Jefferson County commissioners should not proceed with a development agreement without demonstration in the form of finances in hand, and demonstrated experience of the developer's capabilities as manager to complete the project, and run it after construction. Lessons can be learned from projects such as Paradise Ranch; the Tamarack Ski Resort in Idaho; Creekside Golf Club in Salem, Oregon; and, the recent demise of several destination resorts in the Poconos of Pennsylvania. (5) When these projects fail, they burden local government with back taxes due, foreclosures, the attractive nuisance of abandoned properties, and, lost opportunity for other (less ambitious) projects on the same ground. A recurring theme of these failed 'big dream' projects: they almost always end up asking locals and/or local government to partner with them (and their struggles), or bail them out entirely. Paradise Ranch developer urged the County to underwrite and force the development of a sewer system that would serve his project, sought (and gained) final plat approval to sell lots without infrastructure to provide them much-needed cash. He also requested amendments to conditions of approval to allow development to take place out -of -sequence. The homeowners association of Tamarack Ski Resort now own the place, a partially -built ski area and half -constructed buildings that make up much of the resort. 6) The Creekside Golf Club asked the City of Salem to drop its water rates, members of the homeowner's association to pay triple their current fees, instigated a one-time fee and raised membership rates for golf club members — all to stay in business. The course is still open, but homeowners of the associated subdivision recently learned (after keeping the development afloat for years), the owner may close the course and develop homesites on the 18 holes. (7) A similar experience occurred on the Battle Creek golf course in Salem, it closed in 2007 and became a subdivision. Examples abound of projects that could not be sustained; the end result typically a legal and financial quagmire that impacts investors, builders, local jurisdictions, community citizens and the land itself. In summary, if Jefferson County officials have not adopted specific investment targets, identified in the developer agreement, they should at least have convincing assurance that the project is economically viable before committing to County approval. The developer should produce market plans and analysis that demonstrate that a proposed resort can succeed and benefits to the community will materialize. Current and projected market analysis is needed to demonstrate the economic viability of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, specific to this location. Comparison studies are helpful, but each location has a unique set of circumstances which compel both pros and cons of a subject site, and ultimately, the successor failure of a destination resort. In addition, a developer should provide evidence of sufficient company experience and financial backing to manage a large-scale, long-term venture. A pro forma financial statement is typically drafted by developers to obtain financing or demonstrate their financial backing, by detailing projected revenues, costs, timeline for recovery of investment and monies set aside for contingencies. The Vision document filed by the developer, dated Aug. 19, 2016 anticipates a large portion of the development to be funded with public money, and ownership transfers to either state or local government. Even the local tribes would be "encouraged" to invest in the project (the Indigenous Interpretive Center). While taxpayers do own County buildings and land, making them landowners within the grounds of a privately -run resort may result in an obligation of responsibility without control of a public asset. There is relatively high risk inherent in a complex project such as a destination resort, requiring a large initial capital outlay and patience for a long-term return on investment. The County code contains a provision regarding Major Revisions to the Port Ludlow MPR, repeated in proposed Section 17.08.080(1)(i): A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not limited to transportation, water, sewer and storm water facilities; and a demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for. This is an excellent provision of code, requiring foresight to scope the project before revisions to the master plan; and, directing the developer to demonstrate infrastructure is in place, or will be provided by the developer. Ironically, this level of detail is not evident in the initial plans for the Pleasant Harbor development, and it should be before the County commits to approval of the development agreement. The development agreement and master plan presented by the Pleasant Harbor proposal does not address several important issues: discrepancies between the FEIS site plan and phasing plan; market feasibility for a destination resort at this site; architectural standards for the development; substantiated capabilities of the developer to construct infrastructure and recreation amenities before lots are sold; management experience of developer or assigned operations manager; preliminary cost estimates for infrastructure; water rights for groundwater withdrawal; demonstrated feasibility of the site for a 4 wastewater treatment facility and on-site discharge outside of critical aquifer recharge areas. Requiring the developer simply comply with state standards is not adequate assurance the project is feasible. These issues should be resolved before the County can approve this development with confidence. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Y,.// a -L' David L. Wechner, M.S. AICD Attachment References 1. Middleton, Scott Where is Resort Development Heading? Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, Aug. 1994 (cited in) Master Planned Resorts, "Washington Style" 2003 Municipal Research Service Center, Seattle, WA 2. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-015-0000(8) 3. Lands of America real estate listing: https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/7000-Monument- D rive -Grants -Pass -Oregon -97526/5241749 4. Douglas County Oregon Land Use and Development Ordinance, Article 50, Sec. 3.50.050(6) Minimum Investment 5. Lawles, Seph (Feb. 2017) The Honeymoon Capital of the World Is Now Beautifully Abandoned Retrieved from: Huffington Post https://www.huffingtonpost.com 6. Dougherty, Conor (Feb. 2017) They Came to Ski Idaho Slopes. Now They're Saving the Ski Resort Retrieved from: New York Times https://www.nytimes.com 7. Loew, Tracy (April 2016) Still struggling, Creekside Golf Club seeks City's help Retrieved from: The Statesman Journal https:/Iwww.statesmaniournal.com Wechner Consulting 502 NE 6th A Coupeville WA 98239 360) 682-2573 or dwechner@gmail.com Dave Wechner, dba Wechner Consulting specializes in land use and environmental planning, grant and permit applications, code development and project management. A veteran of local government in both urban and rural jurisdictions in Washington and Oregon, his experience includes the design and review of development projects, agency administration, composing public policy, and providing expert testimony. David L. Wechner, M.S. AICP PRINCIPAL dba Wechner Consulting (1997-00; 2004-05; 2015 -present) PRINCIPAL AKS Engineering and Forestry, LLC Vancouver (2005-08) In consulting private development clients as Wechner Consulting and Principal with AKS Engineering and Forestry LLC (Vancouver), developing residential subdivision projects and site development plans for commercial enterprises with interdisciplinary teams of surveyors, engineers, architects and environmental scientists, compiling permit applications for clients. Perform public presentations of development projects as representative before government decision -makers. Write grant applications to federal and state funding programs for brownfield clean-up and flood control projects, to private foundations for park and recreation projects. Most recently, completed a detailed review of the Environmental Impact Statement for the planned Tesoro -Savage oil terminal in Vancouver WA. Currently undertaking a review of land use designations and code concerning GMA compliance in Skamania County, providing testimony for consideration by the Planning Commission. DIRECTOR Planning and Community Development Island County (2013 -15) Supervised a staff of 25 in development review, long range planning and code enforcement on Whidbey and Camano Islands. Responsible for coordination of reviews in the Ebey's Landing National Historic Reserve (with Coupeville and Reserve staff), and served as SEPA lead official. Developed County -wide Planning Policies for the 2017 Comp Plan update with other local jurisdictions, authored several zoning code interpretations as public policy, and completed an assessment of needed amendments to the Municipal Code. PLANNING DIRECTOR Josephine County (2011-13) Oversaw all aspects of development review and long range planning, trained staff in report - writing and public hearing presentations. Long range projects included writing the County's wireless communications and home occupation ordinances, leading the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners through several land use issues regarding resource protection and development standards. Led agency participation in the Southern Oregon Regional Pilot Program. PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR City of Sherwood (2000-04) Managed the departments of Planning and Building, overseeing all operations, hiring and training staff and administering consultant contracts in one of the fastest growing communities in Oregon. Leda school -campus siting project, studies for the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, collaborated with USFW on the siting of the Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge headquarters. Authored several code amendments, addressing: signs, historic district design standards, commercial/industrial zoning, review procedures, accessory dwelling units. PRINCIPAL PLANNER City of Vancouver (1997-99) SENIOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER III Clark County (1990-97) Nine years in Clark County and Vancouver government agencies as Environmental Planner; Senior Land Use Planner; and Principal Planner, Growth Management. Expertise includes: Land use planning; reviewing/preparing Environmental Checklists and Impact Statements under SEPA; permit review and master program development under the Shoreline Management Act; flood plain management and hazard assessment; reviewing Open Space/ Timberland management plans. With the City of Vancouver, developed public policy and zoning ordinances on a variety of issues, including: wireless communication facility siting, adult businesses, density transfer, urban -area agriculture protection. Wrote the Action Plan for Central Park neighborhood, used as the basis for infrastructure projects design and funding. Education M.S. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON B.S. PSYCHOLOGY, WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Affiliations / Recognition MEMBER, WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DIRECTORS 2013-2015 MEMBER, OREGON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTORS 2011-2013 ADVISORY BOARD, COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN AND DRAFTING PROGRAM CLARK COLLEGE 2006-08 MEMBER, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS (SINCE 2001) WASHINGTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS 1998 ANNUAL AWARD April 9, 2018 Im. Point No Point Treaty Council ,, Port Gamble S'Klallam • Jamestown S'Klallam s APR 0 9 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners 'IF R COUNTYP.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Also sent by email to jeffbocc@co.lefferson.wa.us Subject: Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort and Pleasant Harbor MPR Revised Wildlife Management Plan Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) is writing in response to Jefferson County's request for public comments specific to the Draft Development Agreement by and between Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The PNPTC is a natural resource management organization formed in 1974 to assist the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes in fulfilling the requirements placed upon them by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Washington (the "Boldt Decision"). The Treaty Council confirms the reserved rights established in the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, and implements goals set by member tribes for resource conservation, management, and the protection of treaty rights. Since 2001 the PNPTC and our member Tribes have monitored and evaluated the development of a MPR on Black Point. The S'Klallam Tribes maintain a special interest in this area, as they depend on local natural resources for their cultlaral, economic, and spiritual well-being. Our concerns are described in the comments submitted to you by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe regarding the adoption of the Development Agreement. This letter elaborates on the S'Klallam Tribes' concerns about the potential detrimental impacts of the MPR development on wildlife and on treaty hunting rights. As you are aware, the developer of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Statesman Group, submitted a Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. of Tacoma to comply with the requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1). A revision of that WMP was submitted in November 2017. County staff have concluded that the Revised Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP) "is consistent with this section of the ordinance," and has recommended approval of the Development Agreement with the RWMP adopted by reference. Following our review of the RWMP, it is our conclusion that the plan only partially meets the requirements of Ordinance 01-01.28-08. We therefore request that the Jefferson County Commissioners reject the staff recommendation, and do not approve the Development Agreement until the RWMP is revised to provide greater assurances that the impacts of the MPR development on wildlife and treaty rights will be responsibly mitigated. Since 2007 the Point No Point Treaty Council has provided Jefferson County with advice and comments regarding the mitigation of impacts of the MPR development on wildlife and treaty 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 0 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 0 Office (360) 297-3422 0 FAX (360) 297-3413 rights. Central to our concerns has been the fate of the Roosevelt elk herd that inhabits the Duckabush river valley and several smaller drainages along Hood Canal. Most recently, we submitted letters reviewing and critiquing the WMP and RWMP in 2017. In those letters we expressed several major concerns regarding the ability of the plans to function as credible, effective blueprints for ensuring the sustainability of the Duckabush elk herd. Among those concerns were: 1. The RWMP is scientifically flawed and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd. 2. The plan fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. 3. The RWMP does not adequately address the risk of vehicle collisions with elk. 4. The RWMP does not provide assurances that lethal control will not be used when conflicts with wildlife occur. The rationale for these concerns is described in Appendix A attached to this letter. The major flaw in the RWMP, however, is that it does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow Jefferson County to evaluate or enforce compliance with the plan. It is unclear to us how Jefferson County will be able to monitor or enforce compliance with the RWMP, given its vague and incomplete descriptions of wildlife management actions, its lack of specificity, and its lack of measurable performance standards. On several occasions the developer has made verbal commitments to Jefferson County to implement certain wildlife management actions, yet these commitments don't appear in print in the RWMP, or they don't appear in a form that ensures accountability or enforceability. The provision relating to the installation of an elk exclusion fence illustrates this point. The RWMP sums up this vital wildlife management action in a single sentence, stating only that "the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns of PGST [Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe] to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access to the 9 holes of golf course grasses" (page 8, first full paragraph). There is a need for the RWMP to describe the fence in sufficient detail to allow the Jefferson County staff to evaluate whether the developer has met the County's expectations for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife. Note that the RWMP doesn't even state during which phase of development the fence will be constructed. To add to the confusion, farther down on page 8 (second bullet point) the RWMP states that installation of a fence will be done "as a last resort." On an October 19° 2017 site visit to Black Point the developer stated that the golf course would be landscaped using junipers and other unpalatable plants between tee boxes and fairways, to avoid attracting elk. The RWMP, however, states only that the applicant "will investigate" whether such technology exists. No further detail about the landscaping of the golf course is provided, despite concurrence that use of unpalatable plants is a key component of preventing elk from occupying the site. There is need for the RWMP to elaborate on this proposed management action. Considering the vague, non -committal language in the RWMP, we must ask how Jefferson County will be able to measure compliance with the RWMP. In our experience, any statement of proposed actions that is intended to be legally binding must contain performance standards that are objective, quantifiable, and measureable. The RWMP fails to identify such standards. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 2 of 14 Without quantifiable standards against which to measure performance, Jefferson County will not be able to evaluate or compel compliance with the RWMP. The RWMP uses terms such as "reduce," "minimize," and "prevent diminishment of." In most cases, however, no baseline level is identified. We question how Jefferson County will be able to determine whether reduction of an impact or diminishment of a resource has occurred without knowing a baseline level. Even if the baseline level were known, in most cases the RWMP doesn't specify the magnitude of the reduction or diminishment expected of a given action. How will the County determine if an action is sufficient to establish compliance, considering that no quantifiable objectives are stated? These shortcomings must be rectified by revising the RWMP to make use of clear, unambiguous action verbs linked to quantifiable objectives. The plan must state how progress toward the objectives will be measured and what remedial actions will be required if the initial action fails to meet the objective. We consider it a given that any credible natural resource management plan must have these basic standards. Without them, there is no reliable way for Jefferson County to evaluate or enforce compliance. In summary, it is our conclusion that the Revised Wildlife Management Plan does not describe management actions in sufficient detail or identify measureable performance standards that will to allow Jefferson County to determine whether the applicant is in compliance with their commitments to mitigate the MPR's impacts on wildlife. It is important to note that the Development Agreement is a contract between the County and the developer. A contract must contain legally binding language that specifies the responsibilities of the parties in sufficient detail that it will allow the County to objectively determine whether those responsibilities have been met, and to compel compliance if they aren't met. Approval of a contract based bn verbal commitments or on vague, unenforceable prorliises is not in the best interests of Jefferson County or its citizens. The Point No Point Treaty Council and the S' Klallam Tribes respectfully urge Jefferson County to reject the county staff's conclusion that the RWMP is in compliance with County Ordinance 01-0128-08, and to reject the recommendation that the DA be approved as written, until the RWMP is revised to include quantifiable and measureable performance standards, and clear, unambiguous, enforceable language. We also urge Jefferson County to continue to consult with us regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR's proposed actions to manage wildlife. Respectfully, Timothy P. Cullinan Wildlife Program Manager PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 3 of 14 Appendix A The Revised Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP), adopted by reference into the Draft Development Agreement by and between Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR), does not meet the requirements specified in Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1), which requires that the plan be developed in consultation with local tribes "to prevent the diminishment of tribal wildlife resources." The plan does not adequately address the potential adverse impacts that the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR will have on wildlife, particularly on the Duckabush elk herd. The RWMP has only partially met the original objectives specified by Jefferson County. The November 2, 2017 Revised Wildlife Management Plan is inadequate for the following reasons: 1. It relies on outdated information and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd. 2. The plan fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. 3. The RWMP does not adequately address the risk of vehicle collisions with elk. 4. The RWMP does not adequately describe the conditions under which remedial management actions will be taken, and leaves too much discretion to the developer to decide when such actions are necessary. 5. The plan does not provide assurances to the tribes that lethal control will not be used when conflicts with nuisance wildlife occur. We will address and elaborate on each of these points below, focusing on the risks to and potential impacts on the Duckabush elk herd, which is the wildlife resource of greatest importance to the S'Klallam Tribes in the vicinity of the proposed MPR. 1. The RWMP relies on outdated information and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd. The plan contains outdated information and erroneous statements that indicate a lack of understanding of the biology and ecology of the Duckabush elk. This is important because sound wildlife management is only as good as the scientific information it is based upon. Without a thorough understanding of the behavior and life history of the local elk herd, there is the risk that any management recommendations will be flawed and will prove to be ineffective. Some of the statements made in the RWMP about the Duckabush elk herd describe conditions that existed 15 to 20 years ago, but are no longer extant today. In some cases statements are made without supporting evidence or literature citations. Overall it is evident that the author of the plan did not possess sufficient knowledge to assess risks and to formulate effective management recommendations. For example: a) The RWMP states `Elk migrate on a seasonal pattern and can be expected to be in the project vicinity during certain times of the year" (page 5, paragraph 2). While it is true that in some parts of the West elk migrate seasonally, that is not true of the Duckabush herd. The herd is resident year-round. It has not undergone a true migration since 1993. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 4 of 13 Some individuals are nomadic, and may travel up to 13 kilometers from one end of their range to the other, but this is not true migration. This is important because the incorrect statement above implies that there will be extended periods during the year when elk will not be present in the vicinity of Black Point. That is not the case. Most of the herd can be in the MPR vicinity at any time, so the risk that elk will cross the highway and occupy the MPR is a 365 -day per year risk. b) In the same paragraph, the RWMP states `Elk could potentially... inhabit [Black Point] for short durations during the year." The RWMP does not define "short durations" so it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of that statement. Our current understanding of deer and elk foraging is based on a behavioral model that predicts that animals will continue feeding in an area until the quality of the food is depleted below the quality in other, nearby areas (Hobbs and Swift 1985). Only then will the animals abandon that area and move to a new one. The use of the term "short durations" understates the risk that elk will occupy the nutrient -rich foraging areas on the golf course for extended periods. We have observed elk occupying grassy fields (similar to fairways) in the immediate vicinity for up to seven consecutive days when the quality of the forage is good. c) The RWMP states on page 7 "the [MPR] site is adjacent to mapped elk crucial wintering range (WDFW, 2017)." This statement is misleading and irrelevant for several reasons. Although the citation—a link to WDFW's web site—is dated 2017, the maps on that web page have not been updated since the year 2000. The Duckabush elk herd's range has expanded since then, so the 2000 winter range map is nearly useless. Second, the reference to winter range implies that elk will be in the vicinity only during winter, which is not the case, as noted above. Furthermore, the focus on winter range is outdated by almost 20 years (Cook et al. 1998). It is now generally accepted among wildlife ecologists that elk behavior and populations are driven not by the location and adequacy of winter habitat, but by the quality of food on summer and autumn ranges (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 2004, Hutchins 2006, Cook et al. 2016). d) The RWMP makbs a few general statements about sizes of elk populations and bull -to - cow ratios, but contains no information about the size of the Duckabush herd. It states "a herd could be as small as 4 individuals" (page 5, paragraph 2), a statement whose utility eludes us. This statement understates the risks associated with elk occupying the MPR and causing damage. Our census records show that at times the Duckabush herd has contained as many as 80 individuals. 2. The plan fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. Since 2007, when Jefferson County solicited public comments on the original FEIS for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the PNPTC has struggled to convince the project developer that there is a high probability that changes in habitat—particularly the removal of forest canopy and the establishment of nutrient -rich grassy areas—will attract elk to Black Point. In our 2007 comments we stated: It cannot be assumed that the current level of elk use of Black Point is a reliable indicator of future use. Our experience suggests that elk use of Black Point is currently low because most of the site is occupied by second -growth closed -canopy coniferous forest, a habitat type that characteristically produces low quality and quantity elk forage. As the habitat changes due to the PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 5 of 13 construction of the golf course and the development of lawns and other open areas, the site will become more attractive to elk. Elk are opportunistic feeders, and are particularly fond of open areas with rich, abundant grass, particularly in the spring when the grassy areas are greening up." We went on to cite radio -tracking data dating to the year 2000 that showed that elk habitually occurred in the immediate vicinity of Black Point and that elk are likely to expand or alter their home range to exploit foraging habitat when it appears in previously unused areas. Since 2007 we have continued our monitoring and have been able to complete a more thorough analysis of the habitat changes and elk behavior changes that have occurred over the past 30 years west and south of Black point. The results of the analysis leave little doubt that elk will alter their range when new food sources appear on the landscape as a result of human activity. It is a well-established fact that removing the canopy of a mature coniferous forest results in greater quantity and quality of forage for elk on that site. The reason for this is that canopy removal vastly increases the amount of solar radiation reaching plants at ground level, resulting in more energy available for photosynthesis. Removal of the canopy trees also makes more water and nutrients available -for the ground level plants. Both of these factors result in rapid and vigorous growth of nutrient -rich plants—grasses, forbs, and deciduous shrubs—within reach of the elk. A recent comprehensive region -wide study of elk nutrition (Cook et al. 2016) found that the abundance of elk forage in young forest stands 5 to 10 years following clearcut logging Figure 1) ranged from 3,000 to 4,500 kg/ha (1.3 to 2.0 tons per acre). By contrast, elk forage production in older forests with full canopies (20 to 50 years old—Figure 2) was found to be 100 to 300 kg/ha (only 89 to 267 pounds per acre). Furthermore, the abundance of the highest - quality, most -preferred plants was 7 to 1.0 times higher in the young clearcuts than it was in the 20 to 50 -year-old forest stands. Based on the landscape management actions described in the MPR plan and FEIS—removal of the forest canopy and establishment of grasses and deciduous shrubs—we are led to the conclusion that the amount of elk forage available would closely resemble the conditions found in young forest stands. Production of elk forage would likely be thousands of pounds per acre per year. The question then becomes, would that amount be sufficient to act as an attractant to elk, causing them to cross U.S. 101 and occupy the MPR site? Our research strongly suggests the answer is yes. The forage conditions in different aged forests cited by Cook et al. above explains why elk currently aren't found in the closed -canopy forests on Black Point. At present, there simply isn't enough food available to provide an incentive for elk to cross the highway at that location. We know, however, that when the habitat changes and abundant forage becomes available elk will alter their behavior and shift their home range to exploit the new food source. This is illustrated by our assessment of habitat conditions in the treaty area and our tracking of elk behavior through radio -telemetry. Monitoring of the behavior and home range of the Duckabush elk herd via telemetry dates back to the mid-1980s (Schroer 1986). The Point No Point Treaty Council began monitoring the Duckabush elk in 1995, and it continues to the present. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 6 of 13 Figure 1. A forest stand in the 5 to 10 -year age class. Abundant grasses and deciduous shrubs can provide 1 to 2 tons of elk forage per acre per year (Cook et al. 2016). Figure 2. A forest stand in the 20 to 50 -year age class. The closed canopy prevents solar radiation from reaching the understory. Stands in this age class produce only a few hundred pound PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 7 of 13 In the late 1990s the Duckabush elk herd occupied a home range extending west about five miles up the Duckabush River valley, north along the ridge east of Mount Jupiter, and south to a point about 0.5 miles north of McDonald creek (Figure 3). In that decade there was little or no incentive for the herd to shift its range farther south because most of the land there was in closed - canopy coniferous forest that did not provide sufficient forage to support a population of elk. The herd remained primarily in the Duckabush watershed, where riparian forest understories, small openings, and recent (less than 10 -year-old) clearcuts provided adequate forage. Figure 3. Landscape conditions and the range of the Duckabush' elk herd in the late 1990s. Elk Keuu o were not detected south of °•. McDonald Creek. o o S 0 o r ,Black Point Jefferson,, N. Fork Fl¢on Creek / /9 r S. F.,* Ftlto_uCCrak Jefferson -Mason &6nfy Line s Triton Head fix - Legend Forest clearcuts < 10 years old Casono Elk locations 1996-2000 CO o cL Proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR w Olympic National Forest k` Hood Canal State Forest aF Esn, HERE. DeLorme, Mapmylndia. ej OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Between 2001 and 2009 the herd expanded its home range more than six miles in a southwesterly direction. This home range shift coincided with a rapid increase in logging on the Hood Canal State Forest, a large expanse of state-owned commercial timber land managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). From 1960 to 2000 DNR timber harvest in this area was limited to less than 245 acres per decade. Then, in 1999 DNR began an aggressive timber production effort, and logged 863 acres during the following decade. This resulted in hundreds of acres of high -productivity clearcuts where none had existed before Figure 4). By the 2010s decade the Duckabush elk herd had shifted its range to occupy areas south of McDonald Creek where elk previously had not been detected, including the Waketickeh watershed in Mason County (Figure 4). PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 8 of 13 We can conclude from these data that elk will travel long distances and alter their home range in response to habitat changes that provide new sources of abundant and high-quality forage. We can say with confidence that there is a high probability that elk will cross U.S. 101 to exploit the newly created forage on Black Point. If a six -mile expanse of forest and two major creek canyons (McDonald and Fulton Creeks) did not pose a barrier to elk dispersal, it is unlikely that highway 101 will be a barrier to the movement of hungry elk. To prevent elk from responding to the increase in forage resulting from golf course construction and crossing Highway 101 to occupy Black Point, the PNPTC has advocated for construction of an exclusion fence, particularly along the western border of the MPR site. As noted in our April 9, 2018 letter however, the RWMP does not contain an adequate description of the proposed exclusion fence. Consequently, Jefferson County does not have a legally binding commitment from the developer that an exclusion fence will meet the objective of deterring elk from entering Black Point. 3. The RWMP does not adequately address the risk of vehicle collisions with elk The management strategy to reduce vehicle collisions—a matter of utmost importance to our tribes—is described in a single sentence. No further information is provided regarding the design PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 9 of 13 or specifications of the warning system, how it will be deployed and maintained, and how it will function. One might anticipate from the description of methods and from past discussions with Statesman that the intent is to deploy a highway warning light system similar to the one currently used on U.S. 101 near Sequim in Clallam County (Figure 5). If that is the case, then it should be explicitly stated in the "management strategies" section. The description of the action should state where the system will be located, how many signs will be installed, how they will interface with the elk movements, who will be responsible for capturing and collaring elk, who will replace collars when they wear out, and who will be responsible for maintenance of all the system components. These questions are important. When the Sequim warning system was deployed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in Sequim in 2001 the cost of installing the lights was $75,000 ($104,848 in 2017 dollars; Shelly Ament, WDFW Asst. District Biologist, personal communication, 2014). Since then WDFW and PNPTC have spent more than $10,000 to attach collars to elk. In addition there are ongoing maintenance costs, costs for power, and costs of repair. Figure 5. An elk crossing highway warning sign on U.S. 101 east of Sequim. Flashing lights are activated when a radio -collared elk approaches within 0.25 miles of the highway. The perfunctory and apathetic description of the vehicle collisions reduction strategy leaves too many questions unanswered. Until a more definitive description of this management strategy is provided, our tribes do not consider the project developers to have met their obligation to develop a plan to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources and reduce the potential for vehicle collisions. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 10 of 13 4. The Revised Wildlife Management Plan does not adequately describe the conditions under which remedial management actions will be taken, and leaves too much discretion to one party to decide when such actions are necessary. The RWMP describes several conditional actions, but does not adequately describe the conditions under which the management action will be implemented. For example the RWMP states that "after the developer has determined that noise -deterrents, smell -deterrents and visual deterrents have proven ineffective, then the developer will install a fence ... to discourage [elk] presence." This leads to the question, how do we define "ineffective"? Our tribes regard this as a risky and inadequate provision because it provides no assurances that the necessary management action will ever be taken. It leaves the discretion of whether to implement a management action to a single stakeholder (Statesman), without oversight from affected parties like the County, State or Tribes. Better accountability must be built into such conditional provisions. 5. The plan does not provide assurances that lethal control will not be used when conflicts with wildlife occur. It appears that the author of the RWMP did not fully understand the reason why Ordinance 01- 0128-08 requires a focus on non -lethal management strategies. The RWMP uses the term "non- lethal" only twice, but both times it is in the context of merely quoting the Ordinance—the RWMP doesn't actually state that no lethal removal of animals will occur. No further discussion is provided, nor does the RWMP discuss what recourse might be taken if none of the strategies described therein fail to resolve wildlife conflicts. In our original 2007 comments on the FEIS, the PNPTC expressed the tribes' concerns about the potential conflicts that will occur if and when foraging elk damage high-value landscaping. Our fear is that this will lead to increased demands to control elk damage by lethal removal of animals from the population... We do not support, and cannot accept, lethal control to reduce property damage caused by elk." Thus the genesis of the non -lethal provision in the ordinance was the S' Klallam Tribes' insistence that animals must not be killed to protect fairways, greens, and other plantings. As currently written, the RWMP does not follow through and describe what will happen if hazing, fencing, etc. don't work. Consequently, the RWMP does not provide adequate assurances that animals won't be destroyed. The RWMP must contain an expressed, definitive, enforceable commitment that wild animals will not be killed when conflicts arise, except in cases where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety. General Comments: Overall the Revised Wildlife Management Plan is merely a superficial attempt to meet the minimal requirements of Ordinance 01.-0128-08. Its 18 pages contain mostly background information and site descriptions that appear to be cut and pasted from the 2012 Habitat Management Plan. There is little new information. The elk management strategies (of greatest importance to the S'Klallam Tribes) are poorly conceived, inadequately described, and will likely prove ineffective. Ultimately, there are only two elk management strategies proposed: aversive conditioning (hazing with scare tactics) and exclusion devices (fencing). Use of the PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 11 of 13 latter is conditional upon the developer unilaterally deciding whether the former has proven ineffective. Our experience with elk management leads us to conclude that both of the proposed elk management strategies will fail. Hazing is time consuming and it is effective only until the animals become habituated to the aversive conditioning techniques. Hazing was attempted two decades ago in an effort to drive the Sequim elk herd away from high-density housing areas and from high-value crop fields. Beginning in 1995 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW) employed four part-time staff and a dozen volunteers to haze elk, at a cost of $20,000 per year ($32,103 in 2017 dollars). That sum does not include the cost of the time WDFW biologists and administrators spent organizing and managing personnel—the full cost was much higher. WDFW terminated the project in 1997 due to the high cost and the ineffectiveness of the effort. In response to public pressure it started hazing again in the year 2000. By 2004 efforts to control the Sequim elk herd—which comprised only one percent of the regional elk population— were consuming 33% of WDFW's regional elk management budget (Jack Smith, WDFW Region 6 Wildlife Division Manager, personal communication 2007; Cullinan 2015). WDFW eventually concluded that the hazing program was futile, terminated it, and drastically increased the number of hunting permits to implement lethal control. Fencing has proven to be a reliable means of excluding elk from occupying areas where they are not desired. It is the only credible preventive measure available to minimize the risk that elk will cross U.S. 101 and take up residence on the MPR site. The hazing strategies described in the RWMP provide little or no assurance that elk will not occupy the site for long periods and damage landscaping. The need to build a fence is inevitable. We assert, based on decades of experience with elk behavior that fencing will be most effective if it is installed before elk have a chance to enter the site and feed on the MPR landscape. If the fence is built after the elk have become habituated to the nutrient -rich foraging areas on the MPR site, there is a greater risk that they will continue to cross U.S. 101 to seek ways to penetrate or circumvent the fence, thus exposing both the elk and motorists to a higher risk of collisions. Consequently, fencing must be constructed before or concurrent with clearing the forest and developing greens, fairways, and lawns. Unfortunately, the RWMP does not state a time frame for fence construction, and suggests that fencing will be done "only as a last resort." Elk are an important food and ceremonial resource for the S' Klallam Tribes. The Duckabush elk herd is one of the two most important herds to the Port Gamble S' Klallam Tribe. It is a vital economic and cultural resource. For three decades we have managed it with utmost care. This year, in response to concerns about population declines our tribes closed hunting of cow elk in the range of the Duckabush herd, and curtailed the hunting of bull elk. The S' Klallam Tribes cannot afford losses brought about by poor planning and a lack of commitment to wildlife stewardship by the MPR developers. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. Every hour that the elk spend in high human density areas inaccessible to tribal hunters is an hour that the tribe is denied its treaty right to hunt. The RWMP was developed without sufficient consultation with qualified local wildlife biologists. As a result, it was developed without state- of-the-art scientific information specific to local elk herds. Consequently, it contains inadequate and ineffective recommendations that pose substantial risks to wildlife and to S' Klallam treaty rights. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 12 of 13 Literature Cited: Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs 141: 1-61. Cook, J.G., R.C. Cook, R.W. Davis, and L.L. Irwin. 2016. Nutritional ecology of elk during summer and autumn in the Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs 195: 1-81. Cullinan, T. 2015. Adapting elk harvest in response to land use change—a 40 -year case study. p. 30 in Jones, P., E. Merrill, R. Corrigan, and M. Neufeld. 2015. Proceedings of the eleventh biennial western states and provinces elk and deer workshop. Alberta Environment & Sustainable Resource Development, Canmore, Alberta. Hobbs, N.T. and D.M. Swift. 1985. Estimates of habitat carrying capacity incorporating explicit nutritional constraints. J. Wildlife Management 49:814-822. Hutchins, N.R. 2006. Diet, nutrition, and reproductive success of Roosevelt elk in managed forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Humbolt State University, Arcata, California. 104 pp. Schroer, G.L. 1986. Seasonal movements and distribution of migratory Roosevelt elk in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 85 PP. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004. Olympic Elk Herd Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 52pp. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 13 of 13 cC . mac. "9I"$ RliNG April 9, 2018'' These comments were previously submitted by e-mail: APR 0 9 2018 Comments of Rebekah Ross and John "Hal" Beattie JEFFERSON COUNTY We own property on Hood Canal immediately adjacent and tj7ow4is;sinNllFPs Developer's Property. We oppose the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development for many reasons, including the following: 1. Well Water Issues We have a well that has, for the past 20 years, supplied us abundant, clear drinking water. We are concerned about the resort pulling water from the aquifer such that our well will run dry or suffer saltwater intrusion. We are aware that golf courses use a tremendous amount of water. This is particularly true in our area, which can have a drought in the months of July through September, the months in which the highest number of visitors would be expected. (Indeed, in order to protect our aquifer, we plant drought -tolerant landscaping on our own property). Use of the kettles to store water, part of the prior plan, is apparently is no longer on the table due to other mitigation now in place. In Appendix O, there is supposed mitigation for this concern. However, the proposed mitigation is far from sufficient. Appendix O defines a "Neighboring Well" in relevant part as follows: Neighboring Well' means any municipal, community or individual water supply well on Black Point that is not located on the Developer's Property, located between the Developer's Property and Hood Canal and that exists as of the effective date of the Development Agreement." Presumably, our well is included, as part of the Developer's Property wraps around to the North of our property, and our property is between that section of the Developers Property and Hood Canal. However, there may be other private wells that are not included. We propose that the language be changed to add "or within .5 miles of the Developer's Property". If there are studies that show the size of the aquifer from which the Development would draw, perhaps a number other than .5 miles wo.uld be suitable. Further, Appendix O defines "Baseline Standard" in relevant part as follows: Baseline Standard' means:... (ii) for individual wells, obtain approval from Ecology and the Director of DCD (in consultation with the Environmental Health Director) for sampling at least one individual well located waterward of the Developer's Property in each direction to the East and South of the Developer's Property. Then, the Developer shall provide to Ecology and the Director of DCD the results from samples from the Comments of R h Ross and John l la!` Beattie - 1 selected individual wells not less than 30 days prior to the start of construction. Prior to construction, the Developer also shall provide Ecology and DCD copies of the last three annual reports filed by the Pleasant Tides Operator." This definition does not make any sense. (Taking out the qualifiers, it's stating standard ... means ... obtain... ") It should say something like: "for individual wells, the result of testing of sampling of at least one well located to the East and one well located waterward of the Developer's Property. Such sampling and testing of individual wells shall be obtained at the Developer's expense and the Developer shall provide to Ecology and the Director of DCD the results from samples from the selected individual wells not less than 30 days prior to the start of construction." I'm not aware that any particular approval is needed from "Ecology and the Director of DCD (in consultation with the Environmental Health Director)" to sample an individual well if the homeowner approves the testing. Because there are few wells that fall within the definition of Neighboring Wells, and because neighbors may be concerned that the Developer might choose non -representative wells for sampling, the following language should be added: "The Developer shall pay for sampling and testing services for any Neighboring Wells at the request of the owners of such wells". Section (5)(d) Replacement Water Required for Affected Neighboring Wells, states in relevant part: If Initial Mitigation Measures do not address the Potential Threat, the Developer shall provide a replacement water source for affected Neighboring Wells if it the Potential Threat is caused by the Pleasant Harbor Wells." This does not clarify who will determine if the Potential Threat is caused by Pleasant Harbor Wells. If the Developer denies that the Potential Threat is caused by it, then this sets the stage for an expensive lawsuit by neighbors, such as ourselves, who have had our domestic water supply compromised. It seems logical to assume that if there is saltwater intrusion or failure of our well that has served us for decades, this would be due to the Developer drawing so much water to keep its golf course green and for the domestic water use of hundreds of visitors that there is insufficient water remaining in the aquifer for other long-term neighbors. The language "if it the Potential Threat is caused by the Pleasant Harbor Wells" should be deleted. In the alternative it should be replaced with "unless the Developer is able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole cause for the Potential Threat was a cause other than the Development and/or the Pleasant Harbor Wells. The Developer shall indemnify owners of Neighboring Wells for all reasonable costs associated with the determination of the cause of the Potential Threat." The section goes on to say: The Developer, in its sole discretion and at its sole cost, may: (i) Allow connection to the Pleasant Harbor Water System; or, (ii) drill a substitute water supply well to replace the affected Neighboring Well." Comments of Rebekah Ross and John "Hal" Beattie - 2 This section assumes that a drilled substitute water supply will supply clean water. However, if the aquifer has saltwater intrusion, this might not be a solution. It may be necessary to deliver water by truck if the aquifer fails and the Developer does not have a sufficient water treatment system. Furthermore, it is troubling that an agreement between the Developer and the County should reference other property owners having to release claims. If we are satisfied that the Developer has resolved our water issues forever, then we would not have a claim. However, the provisions apply only if the Potential Threat is discovered in during the termination of the Development Agreement. If, 25 years down the road, there is another Potential Threat, the neighboring properties would have no recourse. As a practical matter, we would also have no recourse if the Development is not successful. If there is saltwater intrusion, and the development fails, the Developer should still be responsible. The only means to assure the Developer will meet its responsibility is to requirement it to post a bond sufficient in amount to cover all contingencies. 2. Other Water Issues We are concerned about wastewater that likely would contain chemicals associated with golf course maintenance, such as pesticides and herbicides, and chemicals and wastes associated with high density human habitation. We are concerned about wastes and runoff associated with the construction phases. We are concerned about both contamination of the aquifer, and the fact that Hood Canal is unable to effectively flush contaminants that inevitably would reach it sooner or later. The current owners may have the best intentions to protect Hood Canal and the aquifer. However, mistakes and accidents happen, and systems fail. The sheer quantity of contaminants associated with a golf course and and hundreds of residences adjacent to the fragile Hood Canal is a recipe for disaster. 1 Traffic Float plane delivery of guests should not be allowed and this should be expressly stated in the Development Plan. Nesting ospreys, bald eagles, great blue herons and other marine birds and mammals now existing on Black Point would be negatively impacted by the noise of such flights. Float plane traffic would be particularly troublesome if it were allowed in the compact Pleasant Harbor. However, even if the planes were to land in Hood Canal, marine mammals, waterfowl, and boaters, as well as neighbors such as ourselves, would be impacted by the noise of planes. In a presentation to the community, the Statesman Group representative said they no longer planned float plane traffic. Despite this, I note that the Statesman Group website still advertises that the development would be accessible by 20 minutes by float plane. Thus, the representation of the Statesman representative cannot be believed. Accordingly, a prohibition on float plane traffic should be part of the Development Plan. Comments of Rebekah Ross and John "Hal" Beattie - 3 Also the public boat ramp and associated parking now easily serving the community except for the very short shrimp season) will be overwhelmed if even a fraction of the residents of the resort use it to launch their boats. This is just one of the ways that the staggering size of the planned resort will harm the quality of life of this small community. Traffic on 101 will be a nightmare. Especially if the turnover of the residents at the resort takes place on weekends, as is often the case for this type of resort. We have not found in the Development Plan any proposed mitigation that addresses the increased traffic along Highway 101, particularly during peak summer months. We frequently bicycle into Brinnon for our mail, and see other bicyclists and pedestrians on the shoulders of 101. This portion of Highway 101 poses challenges, as the shoulders are very narrow. Fortunately, with the amount of traffic we have now, we generally feel safe. However, if there were a steady stream of traffic going both directions, this would be quite unsafe. This is one of the things that make the large-scale proposed Development inappropriate for this rural area, and that cannot be mitigated away. 4. Effects of High Density Development on Neighbors We believe that it would be impossible to adequately mitigate the multiple negative impacts if a development on the scale of the Statesman Group proposed development were allowed to proceed. We are also concerned that even if the current developers in good faith believe their project will have minimal negative impacts, there is no guarantee that they or their successors (whoever they might be) will meet these goals. In fact, we rather expect the project to fail (after it wrecks the rural character of Brinnon), as there is a small window of months in the year when visitors would be interested in staying in Brinnon, and because of market saturation in light of the planned resort hotel and improved facilities in Blynn within a couple years. See Jamestown Tribe targets 2020 for hotel tower; full resort plans taking shape in Blyn", Sequim Gazette, Oct. 11, 2017. http://www.sequimgazette.com/news/qamestown- tribe-targets-2020-for-hotel-tower-full-resort-plans-taking-shape-in-blyn/ With our county's limited resources, we are doubtful that there can or would be constant monitoring or the will/ability to shut down the project if it turns out the goals are not met. Unless the Developer posts a bond sufficient to cover all the costs our community will incur if it fails to meet its obligations, the Developer could walk away, leaving the rest of us to bear the costs. In sum, the Statesman Group proposed development is not consistent with the current comprehensive plan's goals, particularly those related to rural character and preservation of the natural environment, and it could cause lasting harm to its neighbors. Rebekah Ross and John "Hal" Beattie P%J 1 , 4L Comments of Rebekah Ross and Jahn 11a{" Beattie - 4 C jt7CC ICA q IC41F L-A APR 09 2018 Board of County Commissioners April 4, 2018 A:kSON COUNTY Planning Commissioners M IM S f y ERS With concerns for the quality of rural living in the Brinnon area; I find myself here thanks to the proposed MPR project on Black Pt. My information comes from the very first community meeting in Brinnon and Garth Mann's plans for the 235 or so acres he had purchased on Blk. Pt. through the latest Jefferson County Planning Commissioner meeting. I will not go into the various issues of such a project and it's impact on environment, water quality, wild life, kettles, traffic, fisheries, etc. My concern is the Growth Management Plans for south Jefferson county established to maintain a rural way of life seem to be totally forgotten with this proposed 890 unit project. Growth Management determined to maintain a rural environment in south Jefferson County large tracts of land could not be broken down into smaller than 5 acre tracts, R-5. The 1CPC informed me at a recent meeting that the 235 odd acers on Black Pt. was zoned as 10 acer tracts when purchased by Garth Mann and company. The planning commissioners also stated at that said meeting that the county had not had any experience with such a large land use proposal, Master Plan Resort. With Mann's past experience in this type of development; he was able to persuade the DCD and county commissioners to rezone the 23 odd R-10 tracts into MPR zoning. At a recent planning commission meeting it was stated by someone in the audience who was part of the Growth Management plan that they had thought a golf course would be a good idea. This happened without much input from community people. And in talking with others, the suggestion was for a few houses NOT almost 900 units. There are 90 houses on Black Point today. It does not seem likely that adding the almost 900 units of which there are 240 houses; that the area will be able to sustain the demands on the aquifer. The latest census of Brinnon had roughly 800 people. If the proposed 890 unit development were to proceed to build out as planned the population of Brinnon could at least triple but probably be far more at than that at times. So much for rural living! I am shocked at in all the planning that went into growth management that in a very short period of time the growth regulations were totally forgotten by the county, over looked and changed in favor of the developer. Were the land owners and residence of a true way of rural life in south Jefferson county simply forgotten? R-10 is what the area can sustain. Please step back and take a few deep breaths, open your eyes to the possible futures of south Jefferson county before you sign off on this proposal. The old residence of south Brinnon want nothing to do with this MPR monster. It seems the project is being promoted by the "new comers". Those who retired to this area from major cities to enjoy a rural way of living ... I am once again very confused how this human race thinks! Take that deep breath now. Thank you for taking the time, Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush, Rd Brinnon, Wa. 98320 t'C. Boccic, ` i lei Board of County Commissioners; RECEIVFnl Marc 26, 2t 09 2018 Planning Commisioners E `` We are writing against the MPR development in Brinnon. We believe it to be a flawed process from the beginning in that the county had NO PLAN and listened to the developer's suggestions. It benefits the developer to great lengths and leaves local residents with a degradation of their rural neighborhood with little benefit to them. The county is seeking revenue but it will be at such a high cost that the overcrowded roads and burden on resources may end up costing them more. It will not necessarily be beneficial to Brinnon and could ultimately, cause the loss of the precious waters of Hood Canal. The MPR is given 890 units; 240 are homes, 216 condos or town homes, 154 hotel rooms plus the 100 low cost units for employees. There are an additional 317 units in the maritime village with 123 units in the golf course SO that is considerably more than 890. That is a lot of water usage in showers and toilets flushing. Wonder how that all will affect the one aquifer on Black Point? This does not sound like it maintains the rural qualities of Brinnon. The 2010 census of Brinnon population is 797. The population of the resort would add two to three the population of Brinnon. This would be during the late spring to summer months when camping, beach use and travel to Brinnon are at its height. Don't forget to factor in the RV slots. RV's are so much fun to be forced to drive behind. This adds more burden to roads and over harvesting of shellfish on beaches. This is an environmental disaster in the making when you add to the wastewater even if treated pharmaceuticals will find their way to the canal) dumped into the waters of Hood Canal. The pollution contaminants from cars, trucks and RV's will most certainly add to the declining health of the waterway. The over population burden on a small rural area will also affect travel on the two main roadways. One concern is the small narrow country road of the Duckabush that is the nearest gateway to hiking the Olympic Wilderness with several trails open for day hikes. This does not give local residence much reprieve from the overpopulation on their rural life. Our experience has been that most seem unable to read NO TRESPASSING or PRIVATE PROPERTY signs as they turn around in my driveway. Highway 101 wrecks close that road for hours and are more likely to turn the Black Point entrance into another Paradise Road wreck area where people make left turns onto a swiftly moving highway. This one though has more obstruction to see traffic clearly due to being at the top of a hill and corner. Another concern is the viablilty of a golf course. There are many many golf courses on the Peninsula from Hansville area, Port Ludlow, two in Port Townsend, Lake Cushman, Alderbrook, two in Sequim and several south in Shelton area. What would the draw be to come to Brinnon to make such a large venture successful? I have not found one resort with the capacity of the MPR; most fall within 200 rooms. (Little Creek 190, Alderbrook 93, Sequim Bay Lodge 54, Suquamish 186, Point No Point 85, 7 Cedars new Hotel will have 315). These have convention centers as well, golf course, and a casino. Is there a need for another golf course?? -I think not and certainly, not at the size of the MPR. I do not feel Brinnon needs to be the site of another Bayshore Motel or become a summer getaway like wintering in Yuma or Sequim. It leaves the full time Brinnon resident not having what Growth Management was to protect -a rural way of life. 890 units seems too large and with little to attract to be viable. Other major concerns have still not been fully addressed. The costs to taxpayers for road improvements and maintenance will add to county burdens and will not be offset by revenues generated. lobs are mostly minimum wage and seasonal with no guarantee that locals will get preferential hiring. Damage to the shellfish beds due to excessive water and chemical usage not to mention sewer drainage from the many showers and flushing toilets. Who will maintain the sewage project if they tie into the public one? Public services for fire and police will also be stretched. None of these are the panacea they are projecting to solve the issues of no employment in Brinnon. The MPR will probably increase our taxes! The impact on the environment is a huge concern. The over population will damage the precious waters of Hood Canal which are already fragile. The increased car traffic will greatly add to polluting the waters. The waste treatment does not remove phamaceuticals and would result in job losses in neighboring counties. The water usage on Black Point could destroy the only aquifer there. There is a habitat lost when the trees and area is changed dramatically. I do not feel that these losses are worth the revenue to the county. The unique feature of the kettles will be lost and should be saved. They represent a unique past of Brinnon not found in many areas. A lady once asked what we thought about the MPR and then shared her story of growing up on Port Ludlow Bay as a child visiting her family cabin by the bay. There were lots of shellfish and today, there are none. They vanished with over population and pollution of various kinds. That is my concern for Hood Canal waters which are fragile today. What will be left? I don't think you can undo this damage once it is too late. The resort will forever change the quiet rural qualities of Brinnon that attract people to move here. The MPR is not the job panacea it represents. Most of the jobs are seasonal and minimum wage. The MPR will pollute, deplete shellfish, overuse the Black Point aquifer, and change the quality of life of this very rural area. We know our life on the rural Duckabush road will be heavily impacted by the steady stream of travelers. The resort needs to have a smaller number of units to deflect the overpopulation demands on such a small area. Over 3000 people on such a small area will destroy its quiet rural solitude, water, and peaceful habitat. By significantly over populating Brinnon for five or six months does not seem to represent the goals of Growth Mangagement whose main goal was to maintain the rural quality of life in Brinnon. It won't be working then -will it? Think of it, over three thousand people in Brinnon and the two lane roads that we have and the detrimental effects of POLLUTION. Won't be fun for those who have lived here for many years seeking peace and solitude. It won't affect you, the commissioners or the people on the planning board but will dramatically, affect people who live on the Duckabush Rd and further south. IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK. It will forever change rural quiet Brinnon and not for the better. And if it fails or developer sells -what then? We strongly ask you to either reject the MRP proposal OR to reduce it's size to under 300 units and save the kettles. Growth Mangement isn't working for Brinnon locals. Is a fast food stop not far behind? Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon Wa 98320 My name is Roxann Knoll Et my husband 8t I have been property:, owners in Brinnon for 35 ears, and the past 14 years we haveY resided there full time. APR 0 9 2018 I don't really understand the opposition to this resort and why it is taking so long to be approved because it is such an asset for Brinnon t the surrounding communities. The residents 8t visitors to this resort will be spending their money in the entire county, something we desperately need. And, we have to consider what this developer is willing to do for our community. We are in desperate need of more deputies, jobs, &t health care. I am so worried that as my husband Et I get older we may have to move back to town Et leave the home that we love just to be closer to health care. I'm sure there are many others here who share that same fear. We also need jobs for all ages! This resort will provide that! Think of the opportunities for summer employment for our young people. Our 4 children had that opportunity working summers during high school Et college Et that is where they learned their good work ethic. I want that for the young people in our communities. Please consider all the facts. I love our area 8t think this is absolutely the best plan for it. r a 13N. coq Z3hr-n-wayv, /-tJA c/B32 U Commissioner MPR Hearing April 9, 2018 T>C- q, 4 4 PA) Rprr I My name is uane Knoll. My wife and I have been owners of property in Brinnon since 1983 and permanent residents since 20WN—Am employment background was tax and license for over 30 yrs. with a large municipality here in Washington and I can tell you that this county cannot continue the services it provides without increasing its tax base. Listen closely, increasing its tax base, not its taxes. Roughly 60% of Jefferson county comprises Olympic National Park and Forest and approximately 20% is under the jurisdiction of State or Federal agencies, it also includes the Hoh reservation and a portion of the Quinault. This does not leave much of a property tax base. With no jobs in our area, families are moving out. We are mostly retirees in the Brinnon area. This county as of the last census had the oldest median age in the state and nationally ranks as 18th. An aging community has implications for everything and everyone, education, business, medical services, recreation and social services, and of course retirement and aged living. This community and county only works if it has a diversified age group. This project can create that and create the jobs that would cater to younger workers and young families. You the commissioners need only look at Bend Oregon and the MPR implemented there. After its completion the area is now known as one of the best places to live in the U.S.. Your own 2018 budget shows the county's expenses continue to grow at a pace that exceeds the income that's to be collected. We can't even keep up with the number of deputies needed. The Statesman Group has agreed to assist in funding additional officers. The building of this resort is a huge increase to our property tax base. In addition we will gain sales tax revenue from the construction and materials etc, sales taxes will continue for years after its built. It would also be a huge increase to real estate excise taxes. It's about time this project moves to the permit process. Consessions were made, compromises were made, agreements signed and court cases won. All the reports are in, read and studied, it's time to move on. The benefits of this resort far outweigh the negative. We are fortunate the developer is still here and willing to move forward. It is unfair that this project is continually delayed . If this resort is not built with the current MPR, who WILL build? When I try to figure out the real economic profile for Jefferson county I can't figure it out. I'm not sure there really is one. There is one for Pt.Townsend, it's tourism. They gain the economic benefit from sales taxes collected not Jefferson county. Sales taxes collected in the city of Pt. Townsend only lag ALL of Jefferson County by a few hundred thousand dollars. Let's create an economic profile for ALL of Jefferson county. This project will increase tourism and increase our economic viability for all. This project will be something that our residents and other municipalities can point to and say Jefferson county along with the developer designed a true blueprint for future development. I had a few after thoughts that I did not have time to put into complete text today. I believe that one reason for some opposing the resort is their own fear and selfishness that the income created in Brinnon may drawdown from other areas, whereas studies would show the development would raise income in other areas of the county as well as surrounding areas. Past agreements cover the laws, rules and concerns signed by all parties. Future agreements and permits will do the same. The Brinnon Group's own website states greenwashing is dissemination of info to appear enviro friendly. What does the Brinnon Group call their own dissemination of MISINFORMATION? Who is the Brinnon Group? The registered agent, one business and their representing attorney. I've lived in Brinnon a long time and the only thing I know about them is their name. I'm not sure if the registered agent may have lived here prior but she is not a resident of Brinnon. Their 501c3 lists them as located in Snohomish and a mailing address of Granite Falls. We, the local residents of Brinnon are the ones to be listened to. Please do not succumb to the pressure of a few outsiders that have previously lost in court on more than one occasion. Most important here today, is your responsibility to uphold the previous reports and agreements and to issue the permits to proceed. Thank you! P© 0) 0 9 3a cc, bo-'14CA BOCC PO Box 1220 ph U) APR Port Townsend, Washington 98368 U TY Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort lucss-'101 - - I am totally supportive if the Pleasant Harbor Resort and want this to continue to be built. Sincerely, A ru od P0.13 o.x 13S 360 301 L1171 Rccc ICATLq Dr. William F. Zingheim Port Ludlow, WA 98365 zing@olympus.net 4/1/2018 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Building Permit Department jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us RECEIVED APR 0 9 2018 I am in my third decade as a Jefferson County resident. During that time I have observed the policies of the Jefferson County Building Department in regard to the process of obtaining building and development permits. At first, the rules and regulations required of permit applicants were consistent with the reasonable and prudent requirements used by other counties in this and other states. However, as the years have passed, the scope and volume of highly technical, detailed information required to mitigate or satisfy the County's requirements for a permit have grown to the extent that both the public and Courts have found them to be capricious, arbitrary, and unreasonable. It is now almost automatic that a permit applicant is required to hire one or more well-paid, County -Approved "experts" (minimum qualification: Phd. or ex -county employee) to mitigate all of the impediments to every imaginable aspect of property development which the Building Officials divine. Few, if any, middle income people can afford these administrative costs to build in this County. I have been present in those County offices and observed a furious potential permit applicator stormed out with his roll of plans, saying out loud as he left: "This is B.SY' The effect of the above policy has had the following intended and unintended consequences: 1) Economic development of the County area has floundered, while the neighboring Counties are thriving. The percentage of the small business failures in the County is astronomical. There is no population base which has sufficient discretionary funds to support them. The businesses which employ a population of this level must have stable well-paid employees. No businesses equals no jobs. No jobs equal no middle-income housing. 2) As an unintended consequence of the above, our County School Districts are very much in decline due to lack of students. Jefferson County has the oldest mean age per household of any county in the United States. These households are occupied by grandparents, not parents. There are simply not enough middle-class family child-bearing households in the County to supply the necessary school population to economically operate a school system. Conversely, there are not enough of these middle-income property owners to pay the taxes to support their children's schools. 3) Almost three-quarters of the income spent on day-to-day family living expenses of Jefferson County residents is spent outside Jefferson County! If you wish to see all of your old friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, stand at the entry to the Wall -Mart in Poulsbo! On a given Saturday morning, they will all be there. They all shop in Kitsap County. People simply do not buy most of their food, clothing, entertainment, cars, and other services in Jefferson County. Silverdale, Sequim, or Amazon are the choices. When buying goods in the few poorly - stocked stores in Jefferson County, the cruel byword you hear everywhere is: "We can order it for you and have it here next week. If you want is sooner, try Silverdale." Thus, sales tax is, and has been for years, hemorrhaging out of the County. The buying habits of the average person are directed out of our local markets. Selling beads and ice cream to the tourists in Port Townsend does not constitute the base for stable economy in rural Jefferson County. 4) With the arrival of the new property tax bill, it did not take long for me to realize that the property tax bill ( prorated on a monthly basis), was approaching the amount of my mortgage payment. With the cost of government rising each year, the tax bill should exceed my mortgage in two or three years. The failure to generate middle-income housing and business taxable parcels in the County is throwing a disproportionate tax burden on the existing property owners in the County. You have frozen our primary asset, and are taxing us off our land ! Many astute observers have correctly analyzed the behavior of the County Building Department as doing that which is necessary to perpetuate the political hegemony of the liberals of the City of Port Townsend. This has been done by the direction of the County Commissioners. They have discovered that the rights of the County Residents can be ignored, with little or no political risk. A classic example of this has been the County's effort for a decade to quietly stifle any progress in construction of a sanitary sewer system in Port Hadlock. With such a sewer system, the Port Hadlock community would expand and prosper with new businesses and middle class housing, challenging the political hegemony of Port townsend. Most dreaded of all: Port Hadlock might incorporate into a City, taking a huge bite off the County's tax rolls! On the other hand, it is safe for the politicians to appease the elderly retired and non- contributory (i.e. on welfare) hippy voting population of the City of Port Townsend. The fact is: The population and the economy of Port Townsend has little or nothing to do with the economy of the rest of Jefferson County, yet the voters of Port Townsend can easily carry any election which bears directly upon the economic welfare of County residents. Conversely, County voters cannot vote in elections which effect the economy of the City of Port Townsend! To most Port Townsend residence, Jefferson County is simply the impoverished backwater you must drive through to get to and from P.T.. They rarely stop in Chimicum while on their way to the Mall in Silverdale. I predict, without hesitation, that the behavior of the Commissioners and certain County Building Officials towards County Permit Applicants will soon come under further scrutiny of the Courts. You have already paid out County Taxpayers money in excess of a half -million dollars in damages for your capricious and arbitrary behavior in this regard. I understand that additional litigation is being actively contemplated and encouraged. I suggest that if your present policies and behavior continue with regard to the existing permit matters now before you, one or more may contain the straw which breaks your camel's back. Your decision on the ten -year-old Permit Application for the Pleasant Harbor matter will be carefully watched. Sincerely; Dr. t"ngheim Port Ludlow, WA cc: Philip Morley" <pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us David Sullivan" <dsullivan@jefferson.wa.us Kathleen Kler" < kkler@jefferson.wa.us Michael Haas" < mhaas@jefferson.wa.us Kate Dean" <kdean@jefferson.wa.us Cc,Cfc 4 Patty Charnas From: Kathleen Waldron <waldronk@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:50 AM To: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan fi 1P r 4Xg> 5 Cc: Patty Charnas; Michelle Farfan; wpburden@aol.com; flashlaski@gmaiI.com; barbarajoblair@gmail.com; Kathleen Waldron Subject: Save the Black Point Kettles! 44 Cy Dear Kate Dean, Kathleen Kler & David Sullivan: APR 0 9 2018 I know the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan has been developing for over 12 years... And yet, the Black Point Kettles are sacred to our Native brothers & sisters, & are , nique geological site... After studying with the Lakota Sioux for 2 years, I see all of this planet & all life on this planet as sacred. When I walk anywhere, I pick up litter, and think to myself, would people throw litter in their church or other sacred buildings? Why do they throw things on our sacred earth? And the Black Point Kettles are sacred native ritual sites ... Should we plow them up & throw waste in them? The Judeo Christian tradition has given people dominion over others & our planet. We have been taught to see nature as property to buy & use to make money.... The native & indigenous traditions live in harmony with all life, & live in respect & reverence for it. People are considered the youngest form on earth & they learn from their older brothers & sisters ... the rocks, trees, animals, etc. So we have 2 different world views. My father was a geologist, & I was raised with a reverence for our ancient land structures... Our natural creations took eons to develop and have been here for years. When I walk my beach, I pick up rocks & wonder how old they are & wish they could tell me their story. So we now have the Black Point Kettles, ancient geologic structures, honored for thousands of years by our native tribes. Versus a development plan that is a mere 12 years old... What is our responsibility for our sacred lands & those who revere them? Do we want them destroyed forever by thoughtless development!!! Do we want this on our conscious? Please find a way to save & honor our sacred Black Point Kettles! ! There must be a way to have some development without destroying these sites forever. I visualize a beautiful development that has pride & reverence for these sacred kettles, which bring joy & pride to all who are able to experience them, including our native families. Thank you for " hearing my cry" (Sioux words for prayer) Sincerely, Kathleen Waldron 50 Beach Drive, Nordland WA 98358 503-730-1098 waldronk@msn.com Sent from my iPad TcD BOCC PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 APR 0 9 2018 FFEJJSUN CUUNTYSubject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort!® I ONERS I am tired of hearing all the negative comments made by non-residents of our community about this resort. I want this resort to be built and think that after all these years; it's about time to get moving on it. Sincerely, CC,- 'FOCCI (C L qDz BOCC PO Box 1220 Port Townsend Washington 98358" A - wo 4ECEIVEP 1 a APR 0 9 2018 0 Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort 0 N 0 U N T Here we go again. Another comment period. How many has that been in the last 11-12 years? I am in favor of this resort and want this to move forward and have the county quit the delay tactics. Sincerely, CO I BOCC ' 40 PO Box 1220 APR o 9 2018 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 JEFFERSON COUr Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned W6s'briC I I S 5 0 It's time to get moving forward on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We've waited long enough. Sincerely, ec "c C y 9 I8' Douglas Henderson . y, Y 501 Osprey Ridge Dr. Port Ludlow, WA. 98365 APR 0 9 2018 360-437-4033 JEFFERSONcCERSO CwNTY MMISSION ERS ApriI4th 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA. 98368 RE: Pleasant Harbor MPR Dear Commissioners: I have been a resident of Port Ludlow, Jefferson County from 2004 to the present. During those years I have become very concerned in regard to the manner in which the County of Jefferson operates in relation to the citizens. I have recently become aware that a developer applied for the permitsforthe MPR for Pleasant Harbor just ten years ago and to this date they have not been issued. I also was made aware that the permit for the MPR for Port Ludlow took only seven months. This leads me to question what has been accomplished by Jefferson County in response to the application by Pleasant Harbor. I do understand that a considerable number of man hours have been expended bycounty employeesatwhat 1 would believeto be a considerable costsince theydo notwork for free. This reminds me of a projectthat was formulated for Port Hadlock involving sewersystem and was voted on, passed, funds collected from the tax payers and expended and to this date nothing has been achieved. My concern is that during my life I have witnessed far too many situations progress from the normal business process to the legal process due to many different reasons but most boil down to incompetence or capriciousness on the part of one or both of the litigants. Hence this leads to my question: IF the Pleasant Harbor Developer decided to sue Jefferson county overthis issue (failure to perform in a due diligent manner) and won would the taxpayers be responsible forthatcost? Who would Jefferson County use for attorney's? Has Jefferson Cou nty ever won a lawsuit? It appearsthat those persons in control in Jefferson County are not thinking about the residentswho are jobless, living belowthe poverty level and in sub -standard housingany more than they are considering the residents of Port Hadlock orthose students attending schools in Jefferson county that are rated in the bottom 20% within the State of Washington. When can I expect a response from the County Commissioner's regarding my concerns and their intentions in regard to the issues I have brought forth? Sincerely Doug Henderson 2-(2 to BOCC PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 E, I V E <_ r. Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort % j ° T' I want the resort to be built. How about considering the wishes of those of us who live here and not those recruited by the few who don't. Sincerely, BOCC PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 L Pad APR 0 0 2018 Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort -- I support the Pleasant Harbor Resort and want my voice heard Sincerely, COUNTYCOMMISSIORERS April 5, 2018 EAR k! NG, REC, 0 1 0BertLoomis 235 Edgewood Drive RECEIVEn Port Ludlow, WA 98365 bertl&ablespeed.com APR 0 9 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR Dear Commissioners: JEFFERSON CCNU TV COMMISSIONERIS I am writing this letter from the perspective of a twenty-eight year Port Ludlow resident, with more than fifty years experience as the owner of a real estate development, construction and brokerage company. To date, my company has completed forty-five projects, including the five -acre commercial/multi-family condominium development in Port Ludlow (Oak Bay Road at Osprey Ridge Drive). The County is fortunate that the Developer has had the patience to continue with the Pleasant Harbor project for more than a decade. The proponent has a long track record of developing and operating successful, high quality resorts in other states. Based on their record, I expect this project will be equally successful. The County designated the Black Point area as a master planned resort (MPR) more than sixteen years ago. It is now time for the County to accomplish that goal. After carefully reviewing the current development proposal, I encourage you to approve the plan as submitted. This, by far, is the most environmentally sensitive and comprehensive development plan submitted to Jefferson County. This project will set the standards for future high quality developments that Jefferson County residents expect and deserve. Keep in mind, the significant and far reaching impact this one hundred forty million dollar ($140,000,000) development will have on Jefferson County's economy: 1,750* construction jobs, 206* new resort jobs, increased sales and property taxes, December 2015 EIS Report creation of more than four hundred new tax parcels and a marked increase in tourist dollars. Jefferson County has repeatedly cited the need to diversify its economy so it is not dependant on industries it has relied upon in the past (i.e. fishing, timber, paper mills, etc.) Tourism is an excellent alternative for increasing the County's economy. Incredibly, the Developer has had to wait for more than ten years, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to process this application. Approval of this development will go a long way towards changing the perception that Jefferson County is anti -development, anti -business and generally anti -growth. Also, a significant increase in the property tax base will certainly be greatly appreciated by the County's voters and taxpayers. You have the responsibility to represent the best interest of all Jefferson County residents, not just small vocal minorities, or special interest groups. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, fj2l.t Bert Loomis 2 The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Justice Delayed is Justice Denied The time to approve the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon is now. Approval of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a simple question of economic justice for Brinnon and everyone who calls Jefferson County home. Families are being forced out of the Brinnon area at an alarming rate. Between 2014 and 2015 the population of Brinnon fell from 767 to 705, an 8.08% decline in a single year. Families are being forced out of Brinnon because there aren't enough jobs. From 2014 to 2015, employment in Brinnon declined at an astonishing rate of 16.76%. More than 18% of the people in Brinnon live below the poverty line - a poverty rate nearly 25% higher than the national average. For those who haven't been forced out yet, average wages in Brinnon are lower than Jefferson County, lower than Washington State and lower than the national average. Even worse, wage growth lags far behind the rate of inflation. The economic hardship forced upon the people of Brinnon and southeastern Jefferson County is a human injustice and a complete failure of compassion by the county government. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can reverse years of economic decline and crushing poverty in the area. Guided by an environmental plan that represents the gold standard of ecological stewardship, the Pleasant Harbor MPR will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs in the construction trades and other occupations, today and for years into the future. The Pleasant Harbor MPR not only brings economic justice to the people who live there now, it will create jobs and prosperity so the next generation can raise their families in southeastern Jefferson County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is a significant expansion of the county's tax base. This $140 million project will generate millions in Jefferson County sales tax and millions more in real estate taxes. The tax revenue generated by the Pleasant Harbor MPR will help Jefferson County provide more and better schools, fire and police service, health care and other critical services to all the people of the county. By comparison, the Port Ludlow MPR was quickly reviewed and approved, resulting in nearly 20 years of economic growth in the area and with a proven track record of sound environmental stewardship. The Pleasant Harbor MPR has languished for more than a decade. That's 10 years of lost economic prosperity for the people of Brinnon, southeastern Jefferson County, and all residents of the county. Economic justice for Brinnon has been delayed far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied and the time for action is now. The county should approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR without further delay. Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Good morning: q4 Michelle Farfan Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:24 AM Leslie Locke; Julie Shannon Philip Morley; Patty Charnas FW: PHMP primary_rights_Jeff_Co_DCD.pdf, Hood Canal Agreement.pdf, Primary_Rights.pdf; Black_Point_Jeff_Co_DCD.pdf Please include the attached documents from the Skokomish Tribe into the public hearing record for the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Thank you very much! 9%0t,eu,Pi Fa*f t4V Associate Planner, Pleasant Harbor MPR Lead Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 V: 360-379-4463 F: 360-379-4451 Work hours — M, T, W mfarfan@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. 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. From: Pavel, Joseph [mailto:jpavel@skokomish.org] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 2:52 PM To: Patty Charnas <PCharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Michelle Farfan <MFarfan@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: PHMP Attached is a statement reaffirming our prior input on the project, as well as a statement confirming the Skokomish Tribe Primary Right, along with supporting documentation. Joseph Pavel, Director Skokomish Department of Natural Resources 80 North Tribal Center Road Skokomish Nation, WA 98584 360 877 5213 cell 360 490 7954 H z+ Llrr Skokomish Indian Tribe Natural Resources Department (360) 877-5213 N. 541 Tribal Center Road Fax (360) 877-5148 Skokomish Nation, WA 98584 April 9, 2018 Patty Charmas, Director Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Ms, Charmas, The Skokomish Indian Tribe holds the primary treaty fishing right in Hood Canal, so any permit applications submitted to the three local counties (Mason, Jefferson, & Kitsap) or other state and federal agencies that involve activities potentially impacting natural resources of Hood Canal and associated watersheds are to be primarily reviewed by the Skokomish Tribe. The Skokomish Tribe has agreed not to exercise the primary right with respect to the Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, and Lower Elwha Klallam for Hood Canal north of Ayock Point and watersheds draining into Hood Canal north of Ayock Point and share with them review authority on activities effecting those waters. The Skokomish Tribe continues to maintain the primary right to all of Hood. Canal and associated watersheds with respect to the Suquamish Tribe. We do welcome any assistance or feedback on permit review and comment from our neighboring Tribes, however, the Skokomish Tribe's DNR staff will be the primary authors of any comments being provided to other agencies on permitting activities in Hood Canal other than as noted above for waters north of Ayock Point. Sincerely, oseph Pavel, Director Skokomish Natural Resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 1.1 15 16 { J 17 iR 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Special Master Robert Cooper fin trnr ^ tn a UNITED STATES- DISTRICT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHFftJG'&QP[., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, i et al., j Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. CIVIL NO. 9213 - Phase I HOOD CANAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, PORT GAMBLE BAND OF KLALLAM INDIANS, LOWER ELWHA BAND OF KLALLAM INDIANS AND JAMESTOWN BAND OF KLALLAM INDIANS The Skokomish Indian Tribe, Port Gamble Band of Klallam Indians, Lower Elwha Band of Klallam Indians and Jamestown Band of Klallam Indians [hereinafter referred to as "the Stipulating Parties"] agree as follows: I. PURPOSE OF'SETTLE,SENT 1. The purpose of this Hood Canal Agreement is to achieve a mutually acceptable settlement among the Stipulating Parties of the following litigation: A. Request for Determination Re: Primary Right of Skokomish Indian Tribe in Hood Canal Fishery, filed June 17, 1981 hereinafter "Skokomish Primary Right case"). Hood Canal Agreement - 1 WicKwiRE, LEK'Is. GOLDYARK SCCHORR CAO X.—. ft,— .a 5arr: c,w rw ono -.ox oe— FON a22.0600 Y 3 4 5 6 8 9 1a 11 12 i 131 f I5 16 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 40 B. Request for Determination: Port Gamble Klallam Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas, filed August 11, 1978 hereinafter "Porgy. Gamble Klallam U and A case"). C. Request for Determination: Lower Elwha Klallam Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas, filed August 11, 1976 hereinafter "Lower Elwha Klallam U and A case"). 2. It is the intent of the Stipulating Parties to confirm and preserve the pre=treaty historical relationship between the Clallam and Skokomish (or Twana) peoples concerning fishing rights in the Hood Canal fishery. Because of their close inter- tribal relationship and the fact that historically the Skokomish Tribe and the Klallam Bands have been able to share the Hood Canal fishery resources on a mutually acceptable basis, the Skokomish `tribe and the Klallam Bands have determined that the best course for them is to settle any differences between them regarding fishing in Hood Canal by this Agreement rather than by further litigation. II. BASIS FOR SETTLEMENT 3. The Skokomish Indian Tribe filed its request for deter- mination of its primary right.i,ti the. Hood Canal fishery on June 17, 1981. In that proceeding the Skokomish Tribe seeks a determination that its "L-reaty fishing rights in Hood Canal and all the rivers and streams draining into the Canal are primary to Hood Canal Agreement - 2 L- C-1cca — WicrwiRE. Lpwrs. GoIDHAAK sc"ORR xo `Savnann pl;[wiry Mal* a2a.0ew S u,ptc, Y.a}SIMOTON 64:61 1 2 3 4 5 6, s, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21122 23 i 24 25 , 26 i 4 4 the rights of any other tribe which has or claims to have usual and accustomed fishing places there." Skokomish Tribe's Request for Determination Re: Primary Right of Skokomish Indian Tribe in Hood Canal Fishery. The Skokomish Tribe also asserts in this proceeding that its primary right "includes the right to regulate or prohibit fishing by other tribes in Hood Canal and all rivers and streams draining into it." Id. The Port Gamble Klallam Band, the Makah Tribe, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Suquamish Tribe objected to the Skokomish Tribe's,primary right request. 4. The Skokomish Tribe's primary right request was ini- tiated to protect the Tribe's vital interests in the Hood Canal fishery. Since time immemorial, members of the Skokomish Tribe and its aboriginal predecessors have relied for their livelihood on the Hood Canal fishery. Today the Skokomish Tribe continues to be entirely dependent on the Hood Canal fishery for its catch because it has no established usual and accustomed fishing places outside Hood Canal'arid the rivers and streams draining into it. Historically, substantial numbers of Clallam Indians have also fished in Hood Carial arid -in river"s a—nd streams draining into it. Today the Klallam Bands, and particularly the Port Gamble Band of Klallam Indians, continue tohave a strong interest in access to and protection of.the Hood Canal fishery. 5. The Stipulating Parties agree to the entry of the following -findings of fact to support this agreement: Hood Canal Agreement - 3 ti,.,, ar.t.., rCKWIRE, LE!wrs. GOLDMARK SCHORR nee riarw..a ButSttro Surro.,K aNtvaxN "at" 1 2 3 4 S b 7 s 9 1Q i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is to A. On and before January 6, 1855, the date the Treaty of Point -No -Point was executed by its signatories, the Skokomish Tribe, through its aboriginal predecessors the Twana Indians; exercised legitimate territorial control over the Hood Canal fishery, including Hood Canal and all rivers and streams draining into it. This territorial control was the product of: (1) the proximity of Hood Canal and its drainage basin to the winter villages and summer camping and fishing grounds of the Twana people; (2) the high frequency of use of the Hood Canal and the rivers and streams draining into it by the Twana Indians; (3) a contemporary conception among the Coast Salish Indians (of whom the Stipulating Parties are constituent groups) that Hood Canal and the rivers and streams draining into it were legitimately in the possession o; the Twana people and subject to use by others only upon invitation and permission given by the Twana; (4) behavior of the Stipulating Parties consistent with a mutual recogni tion that the Twanas controlled the Hood Canal fishery, including Hood Canal and all rivers and streams draining into it. B. The Clallam Indians, the aboriginal predecessors of the Stipulating Klallam Bands, and the Twana Indians enjoyed a strong and cordial relationship at and before treaty time. This relationship was unique in degree to the two peoples and Hood Canal Agreement - 4 Lwr Qrr .A or Wxcxwme, LRwis. GOLDMARH SCHORR eoC H.rna.o Bviwu o 1tATT.[.N aw 1w4TOK 09)Oi L4G 024.O6C3 MW 1' 2 3 4 5 6 718 9 10 I1 12 13 14 { I16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 was founded in a common culture, mutual. respect and admira- tion, and resulting marriage and ritual .ties. The Clallam villages were situated at the mouths of rivers draining into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Each year significant numbers of Clallam Indians would travel from their villages to sites on Hood Canal to fish with the Twana. Most, if not all, of these Clallam visitors wer.e-martia'ge-relatives of Twana Indians. The Clallam who fished on flood Canaldid so with the understanding that the Hood_Canal fishery was Twana territory. There is no evidence that the Twana people ever attempted to, or did, exclude Clallam fishermen from the Hood Canal fishery, or that any need to do so ever arose. Because of their shared culture and the perceived importance of favorable relations between the Clallam and Twana peoples, it is likely that the Twana people welcomed and affirmatively encouraged Clallam fr.iehds 'and marriage relatives to come to the Hood Canal area for fishing, as well as for socializing and ritual activities. The Clallam reciprocated by inviting Twana people to their villages as guests and relatives. 6. The Stipulating Parties hereby agree to the introduction and consideration by the Court of the following evidence in sup- port of the above -stated findings: A. Dr. Barbara Lane, "Anthropological Report on the Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Skokomish Tribe of Indians," Exhibit USA 23; Hood Canal Agreement - 5 L. Orem.0, WICRW7PE, LEWIS. GOLDNARK SCHORR a0 0 H- I1V-0 5ue'La,b'sa Vowx oeiw M" e22-0003 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 i B. Dr. Barbara Lane, "Skokomish Usual and Accustomed Fishing Places in Hood Canal: A Supplemental Report" February, 1981), filed on June 17, 1981, as Exhibit A to Skokomish Tribe's Request for Determination herein; C. Deposition of Dr. William W. Elmendorf February 25-26, 1982), taken and lodged herein; D. Dr. William W. Elmendorf, The Structure of Twana Culture, Monographic Supplement No. 2; Research Studies, Volume 28, No. 3 (September 1960) (with comparative notes on the structure of Yurok culture), attached to the deposition of Dr. Elmendorf as Exhibit 2; E. All primary and secondary sources to the extent referred to in the foregoing documents. III. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, the Stipulating Parties hereby agree as follows: 7. A. The Skokomish Tribe has the primary right to fish in the Flood Canal fishery. As used in this Agreement, the term Hood Canal fishery" includes, all waters of the Hood Canal south of a line drawn between Foulweather Bluff.and Olele Point, and all rivers and streams draining into Hood Canal. The primary right of the Skokomish Tribe is an aboriginal right of that tribe confirmed and preserved by the Treaty of Point -No -Point (12 Stat. Hood Canal Agreement - 6 L.w Cn.... .. Wich'wiRB. Lewis. GOLDKARK SCHORR Cao M.TM.ID BU:LDLwo S 4TTlL. Wi.sn1.OTOM pU:OL i 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 M 933). (See United States v. Lower Elwha Tribe, 642 F.2d 1141 9th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 102 S. Ct. 320 (1981).) B. Because of the close relationship that exists and has existed between the Skokomish Tribe and the Klallam Bands and because they have traditionally fished together in Hood Canal sharing the fishery resources in a mutually acceptable manner, the Stipulating Parties further agree that north of Ayock Point on Hood Canal the Skokomish Tribe and the Klallam Bands may exer- cise their respective treaty fishing rights without any limita- tion or control whatsoever by any of the Stipulating Parties, except as the Stipulating Parties may mutually agree by compact or otherwise. The Skokomish Tribe specifically agrees that it will not, under any condition or for any reason whatsoever, exer- cise or seek to exercise its primary right on Hood Canal north of Ayock Point, or on the streams and rivers draining into Hood Canal north of Ayock Point, against any of the other Stipulating Parties without its or their express consent. 8. The parties agree that the usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the Port Gamble Band and Lower Elwha Band as set forth in the "Corrected Order Re: Request for 'Determination of Port Gamble and Lower Elwha Usual and Accustomed Fishing Places" filed October 28, 1981, be revised to exclude the Skokomish River and all of its tributaries from Klallam usual and accustomed fishing areas. The intent of the parties is that the Klallam usual and Hood Canal Agreement - 7 Uw C"Mzs W WicimmE. LEwls. GoLnHAmr SCHORR Q M.r 0 U.—wo S..,sicr, M'.enl»oiaM ..104 Woe, 022•Gr003 26 accustomed fishing areas shall include all of Hood Canal and the streams draining into Hood Canal except the Skokomish River and all of its tributaries, but that fishing in Hood Canal and the streams draining into Hood Canal shall be subject to the primary right of the Skokomish Tribe as set.£orth in paragraph 7 of this Agreement. To that end, the parties agree that findings of fact 341 and 342 of the Court's October 28, 1981, order be revised to read as follows: 341. The usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the Port Gamble -Band of Klallam Indians include the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and all the streams draining into the Strait from the Hoko River east to the mouth of Hood Canal. In addition, the Port Gamble Klallam Band has usual and accustomed fishing rights.to'the Sekiu River, but the fishing on this river shall be subject to the control an regulation of the Makah Indian Tribe. Furthermore, the usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the Port Gamble Klallam Band include the waters of the San Juan Island archipelago and the waters off the west coast of Whidbey Island. The usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the Port Gamble Klallam Band also include Hood Canal and all streams draining into flood Canal except the Skokomish River and all of its tributaries. 342. The usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the Lower Elwha Band of Klallam Indians include, in addition to those deter- mined in the Order of April. 18, 1975, 459 F. Supp. at 1049, and the Order of March 10, 1976,. 459 F. Supp. at 1066; the waters of the San Juan Island archipelago and the waters off the west coast of Whidbey island and Hood Canal and all streams draining into Hood Canal except the Skokomish River and all of its tributaries. Hood Canal Agreement - 8 Lw 0— nn a, W icxwIRe, L£wts, GOLDHARK SCHORR ao4 H.rw.xa IIV:u u+o cwT TLe,Mi ll l•'OTCM P010{ 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 E 9. The parties recognize that the Jamestown Band does not yet have adjudicated usual and accustomed fishing areas and are currently fishing pursuant to an interim order. The parties agree that while fishing pursuant to any interim orders, the Jamestown Band's treaty fishing rights in Hood Canal and the streams draining into Flood Canal shall be as .follows: The usual and accustomed fishing grounds of the Jamestown Band of Rlallam Indians include Hood Canal and' all streams 'draining into Hood Canal except the Skokomish River and all of its tributaries. Nothing in this paragraph shall have the effect of waiving or qualifying any objection to the final determination of usual and accustomed fishing ar'ea's of the Jamestown Band by any of the other Stipulating Parties. 10. Resolutions of the governing bodies of the Stipulating Parties are attached hereto in support of this Agreement. Dated: ZS 2 p, airpeon, Skokomishri-5a7- Councilr Da ted Chairm Port Gam le Klallam Band 7 Dated: 11 1/d"v ( airman, Lower Ellwha Rlallam Band Hood Canal Agreement -- 9 1— O—C.. (o* il'rcmum, LEwfs, GormxrARK SCKORR C00 Nwn. Btu _w 0001 see -060,i I' 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated: ® ` 02 C aian, Jamestown Klallam and Dated: QcrirvrL— Z (4 S Z- Presented by: EISENHOWER, CARLSON, NEWLANDS, REHA, HENRICT & UINN By _ R r Hlic ae R. Thorn Attorneys for Port Gamble Klallam Tribe 19ICD71RE, LEWIS, GOLDMARK SCHORR Dated; /Uo c_ -r z_ By J Gregory ,2. 0 L ary Attorneys for Sko ish Tribe [on Skokomish Tribe's Primary Right Request] Dated: p en V. Quesen erry A torney ;or Skokomish Tribe [on Port Gamble U&A Request] The United States will file a separate statement on the foregoing Agreement.] Dated." Z Hood Canal Agreement - 10 k. 1 61. Ce nen St n Attorney for Jamestown Klallam Sand E— Orr c ea or WzcKwIRE, LEwrs. GOL MARK 8e $-HOAR aao rtar. na av u ro S i.TTLi.`1.a31lM OTOM De704 C200 er_•oeo3 l) 2 3 ' 4 S 6 7 B' 9 YO 11 12 r 13 14 is 16 17 l8 19 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 r LEDY 1. D; V OF RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MAS.IRIL._ Pursuant to the authority conferred upon n.e by the Amended order of Reference to Special Master (Primary Right of Skokomish Indian Tribe in Hood Canal), entered herein or June 13, 1982, I have reviewed and hereby recommend that the Ccurt approve the foregoing Hood Canal Agreement to the extent it concerns the pri- mary right of the Skokomish Tribe in the Hood Canal fishery in relation to the Klallam Bands named in the agreement. The matter referred to in paragraph 8 of the Hood Canal Agreement (dispute concerning location of Klallam usual and accustomed fishing places in the hood Canal fishery) has not been referred to me and is presently pending before the Court. Accordingly, I make no recommendation concerning the contents of t that paragraph. Dated i Robert E. Cooper Special Master ORDER Upon review of the foregoing Hood Canal Agreement and con- sideration of the recommendation of Special Master Robert E. Cooper concerning that agreement, the Court f.nds that the agreement represents a fair -and equitable recolubion between the Hood Canal Agreement - 11 W I C Kx : RE, LEWIS. GOIDMA R K scaoax s» M.nu.o Bu a<ro 1 2 4 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Skokomish Tribe and the named Klallam Bands of the matters iden- tified therein, and it is therefore ORDERED that the foregoingHood Canal Agreement is approved and the terms thereof are binding upon the parties to the agreement; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the United States submit an appropriate form of order to effect the revision of findings of fact 341 and 342 of the Court's October 28, 1981 Order, as provided by paragraph 8 of the foregoing Hood Canal Agreenent. Dated Hood Canal Agreement - 12 Walter E, Craig United States Distri trJudge Wremwim3, Lnwra. COXMMARK SCIV)RR 500 M-.. 8M"Llt'wlawx_" "I" ftoN oesk-oaoa Y • .--. , * i .ti. : i ' i + iw! • .:. i'.••i r T •.i i..i w t '. - . .-. I' ' R'J tii• '.R I RY +. M •H i' .1••N. F r.{..! ,.. J 1•- H'i,A.M.I•.i-{ l'••- 4 I + I:.f i•t .i• yYy RY- t.+ j+} 4 I•k i4 -y-IL.: i.L.i-i SJ t, }.t 4.4. :..n}..1.J ;'•S 1..1•Y- t` h. 4 •f•.ti1•'R-•!~.-Ay. f.y-! .A i4.i ..PJ•11J"'I"-hV•it..!_ ...(,.#.. J.t M.r..l. J.. I. i..!•.I..j, r..R..l...•..1 r.v-... Skokomish Indian Tribe Natural Resources Department (360) 877-5213 N. 541 Tribal Center Road Fax (360) 877-5148 Skokomish Nation, WA 98584 April 9", 2018 Patty Charms, Director Jefferson County Community Development Jefferson County Courthouse P.O. Box 1220 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 1-360-379-4493 Dear Ms. Charnas, Jefferson County and the Statesman's Group have been working with Skokomish Indian Tribe for over a decade to ensure that the Tribe's cultural and environmental concerns with this project are addressed. The Skokomish Indian Tribe's culture and livelihood are directly linked to the health of the Hood Canal. It is of the utmost importance to the Tribe that this project is done in way that works to ensure that it will not impact the health of the Hood Canal or the associated uplands. At this point in time the Tribe believes that the measures proposed under the development agreement and the current development plan will most likely not impact the health of Hood Canal and its uplands. The Tribe had concerns with the potential water quality impacts from the project because of the unique water situation at the project site and it's vicinity to Hood Canal. After several iterations the Skokomish Tribe feels that the new reduced foot print of the golf course, monitoring wells, and other measures put into place will reduce the potential for water contamination from the project and offers a satisfactory way to monitor water quality at the site. The Tribe had concerns about Elk populations that are known to use the area. The most recent version of the plan has taken steps to address these concerns and the Tribe feels that the proposed measure are adequate to protect and deter the Elk, so they will not be at risk from this project. The Tribe had concerns with the site being a culturally significant area to the Skokomish Indian Tribe. Jefferson County has worked closely with the Skokomish Tribe's Tribal Historic Preservation officer (THPO) to address these concerns. At this time the THPO feels that the measures Jefferson County and the proponent of this project, have taken will ensure that the existing sites and any incidental cultural findings found during construction will be handled in a respectful way with full coordination between the THPO, the project proponent, and Jefferson County. Prepared by; Randy Lumper Habitat Policy Analyst for the Skokomish Indian Tribe The Skokomish Tribe reserves the right to continue to comment on any changes and issues that may arise from the implementation of this project. There are many types of industrial development that can occur in a watershed, and the Skokomish Tribe recognizes that development is going to occur, however to be able to guide the type and extent of that development is critical to maintaining a healthy ecosystem for the Hood Canal. The Tribe appreciates that Jefferson County and the Statesman's group have worked very closely with the Tribe to address the Tribe's concerns. Sincerely, Joseph Pavel, Director Skokomish Natural Resources Department jpavel(cr.,skokomish.org Skokomish Indian Tribe 80 North Tribal Center Rd Skokomish, WA 98584 1-360-877-5213 Prepared by; Randy Lumper Habitat Policy Analyst for the Skokomish Indian Tribe tic .-CQ,(&, effbocc From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 3:33 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: shlanayl@skokomish.org; thpo@pgst.nsn.us; Bill White (bill.white@Elwha.org); David Brownell (dbrownell@jamestowntribe.org); wpburden@aol.com Subject: Re: Comments for Public Hearing on Black Point-Pleasant Harbor Master Planed Development Attachments: 081106-13-JE_040918_B lack Point Kettles_Pleasant Harbor Master Plan (DAHP).pdf Please see our attached comments for this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) P: 360-586-3088 C: 360-628-2755 April 9, 2018 Ms. Kate Dean County Commissioner Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA98368 Allyson Brooks Ph.D., Director State Historic Preservation Officer In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 081106 -13 -JE Property: Statesman Group Master Planned Resort in Brinnon's Black Point and Pleasant Harbor Marina, Jefferson Co. Re: Archaeology-DAHP Comments for Public Hearing for Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Dear Ms. Dean: The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) has been involved in the review of the proposed development since 2006. While we have some information regarding archaeological materials within the project, there is no information regarding consultation or review undertaken for cultural values. New information has been presented regarding the geological and cultural value of the project area within the past months. RCW 43.21C.020 recognizes the responsibility to "Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage. " Further, RCW 43.21.030 (b) Guidelines for state agencies, local governments—Statements—ReportsAdviceInformation states (e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. Question 13(b) of the SEPA checklist asks: Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence ofIndian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to idents such resources. The cultural importance of the project area was not addressed in any of the studies or documents agencies or public relied upon to make comments or decisions regarding the development. The project are contains unique and geologically significant features. In additional we have a draft Traditional Cultural Property form submitted by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. While the form is not complete at this time the information we have evaluated indicates the kettles are of cultural and spiritual importance to the Tribe(s). There is a precontact archaeological site recorded in the project area which supports the longtime use of the area by native peoples. Coupled with the uniqueness of the geological features, the kettles would qualify as both a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) as well as a Cultural Landscape (CL) and would be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). STATg State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 _ z www.dahp.wa.gov 0byrsao The cultural resources studies conducted for the project did not discover or report either the geological or cultural value of the kettles nor was it sufficient for the scope of the project which would disturb or destroy the features that make the kettles and landscape culturally and geologically remarkable. Nor was this information reported in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We recommend that the project be redesigned to preserve the kettles and the unique cultural landscape. We would also request that the cultural resources study be updated to include an traditional cultural property study. The Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) for this project almost 10 years ago needs to be updated based on the eventual development approved. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments 360) 586-3088 gretchen.kaehler(2dahp.wa.gov cc. Kris Miller, THPO, Skokomish Tribe Bill White, Archaeologist, Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe David Brownell, Cultural Resources, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Stormy Purser, THPO, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Lys Burden, Native Connection Action Group effbocc From: wpburden@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 4:23 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on the Pleaseant Harbor MPR Agreement & Development Regulations To: Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, Washington From: Lys Burden, 310 Willow Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 I have reviewed both the Development Agreement and current draft of the Development Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort and submit both general and some specific comments below. General Concerns: Of immediate concern, once these documents are approved and signed, is the Phase I development including a grading plan that will destroy both Kettles B and C almost immediately. We are especially concerned about the destruction of Kettle B, a significant landform in the State of Washington and nationwide, as a deep, dry kettle containing a seasonal wetland and identified by both the Skokomish and S'Klallam tribes as a sacred site in their early letters of 2008. We, the members of the Native Connections Action Group, learned from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation that the Tamanowas Rock site contained NO ARTIFACTS to indicate it was used by indigenous people. The only sign found was a small shell mound in the general area, yet this site is now recognized by the State and National Historic Preservation agencies as very significant. Tribes, residents and visitors alike enjoy and revere this site. We think the kettles deserve the same consideration and protection and not a rush to destruction as outlined in the regulations and agreement. We understand that the developer was willing to alter his plans to save these significant landforms and put them under tribal protection and management, but bulked at his proposal when the change might involve further agency review and costs. We think it is unconscionable to destroy significant landforms that are also regarded as tribal sacred sites, under the guise of saving a few thousand dollars for development investors. We are willing to conduct a fundraising effort to pay for the additional FSEIS updates needed in order to save this irreplaceable site. We also note that throughout this long process of development evaluation and negotiation with the tribes, especially those directly concerned with the health and vitality of the Hood Canal (Port Gamble S'Klallam and Skokomish Tribes), there were numerous government to government meetings, in which concerns were discussed in detail. These were usually followed up with letters from the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe that detailed their continuing concerns about wildlife, shellfish, cultural and sacred sites, water quality, etc., yet there was little or no response or accommodation of these concerns by Jefferson County, ever. The tribal concerns were continually ignored and remained unresolved to the satisfaction of tribal resource managers. No action equals total disrespect, especially when tribal concerns also reflect many public concerns about this development. We think a county government can and should do better in respecting the needs and concerns of our sovereign tribal neighbors, especially as defined in federal law. With respect to federal law, under Developer Agreement Section 12 GENERAL PROVISIONS, 12.1 Governing Law, since this developer is Canadian, even thought there is a U.S. address, and this agreement affects sovereign tribal nations, we do not understand why federal law is not mentioned in this section. We feel it is an omission. Also, I have another specific comment about Developer Agreement Section 10 PHASING, 10.3 Public Amenities and Access, the amenities listed do not include passive recreation opportunities such as places for walking and safe bicycling. Resort residents, as well as short-term vacationers and other visitors are very interested in and seek opportunities for active recreation (and transportation) as evidenced in the most recent Washington State Outdoor Recreation Plan. I feel this omission is a big one, considering the popularity of walking, hiking and bicycling on the Olympic Peninsula. In conclusion, I have received and read the most recent letters drafted for the public hearing on the Pleasant Harbor MPR from both the Jefferson County Planning Commission and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and completely endorse all that was included in both letters. They not only speak to specific concerns, but also general concerns that are held by many Jefferson County residents, as well as residents in other counties that surround the Hood Canal. We hope you will genuinely work to address these and many other concerns mentioned, especially the non-compliance with the intent and wording of your own Ordinance 01-0128-08. Sincerely, Lys Burden, member Native Connections Action Group Local 2020 Transportation Lab Action Group effbocc From: Tim Cullinan <tcullinan@pnptc.org> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 4:30 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Attachments: Pleasant Harbor MPR_FINAL WLMgmtPlan PUBLIC comments_PNPTC.pdf Please find attached the Point No Point Treaty Council's official comments on the Pleasant Harbor Draft Development Agreement with Jefferson County. I will also hand -deliver a hard copy at the April 9h public hearing in Port Townsend. Tim Cullinan Wildlife Program Manager Point No Point Treaty Council 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, WA 98370 360-731-8674 tcullinan@r)nptc.org 1 POINT NO POINT TREATY COUNCIL Port Gamble S'Klallam * Jamestown S'Klallam April 9, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. BOX 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Also sent by email to ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.usus Subject: Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort and Pleasant Harbor MPR Revised Wildlife Management Plan Dear Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) is writing in response to Jefferson County's request for public comments specific to the Draft Development Agreement by and between Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The PNPTC is a natural resource management organization formed in 1974 to assist the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes in fulfilling the requirements placed upon them by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Washington (the "Boldt Decision"). The Treaty Council confirms the reserved rights established in the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, and implements goals set by member tribes for resource conservation, management, and the protection of treaty rights. Since 2001 the PNPTC and our member Tribes have monitored and evaluated the development of a MPR on Black Point. The S'Klallam Tribes maintain a special interest in this area, as they depend on local natural resources for their cultural, economic, and spiritual well-being. Our concerns are described in the comments submitted to you by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe regarding the adoption of the Development Agreement. This letter elaborates on the S'Klallam Tribes' concerns about the potential detrimental impacts of the MPR development on wildlife and on treaty hunting rights. As you are aware, the developer of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Statesman Group, submitted a Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) prepared by GeoEngineers Inc. of Tacoma to comply with the requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1). A revision of that WMP was submitted in November 2017. County staff have concluded that the Revised. Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP) "is consistent with this section of the ordinance," and has recommended approval of the Development Agreement with the RWMP adopted by reference. Following our review of the RWMP, it is our conclusion that the plan only partially meets the requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08. We therefore request that the Jefferson County Commissioners reject the staff recommendation, and do not approve the Development Agreement until the RWMP is revised to provide greater assurances that the impacts of the MPR development on wildlife and treaty rights will be responsibly mitigated. Since 2007 the Point No Point Treaty Council has provided Jefferson County with advice and comments regarding the mitigation of impacts of the MPR development on wildlife and treaty rights. Central to our concerns has been the fate of the Roosevelt elk herd that inhabits the Duckabush river valley and several smaller drainages along Hood Canal. Most recently, we submitted letters reviewing and critiquing the WMP and RWMP in 2017. In those letters we expressed several major concerns regarding the ability of the plans to function as credible, effective blueprints for ensuring the sustainability of the Duckabush elk herd. Among those concerns were: 1. The RWMP is scientifically flawed and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd. 2. The plan fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. 3. The RWMP does not adequately address the risk of vehicle collisions with elk. 4. The RWMP does not provide assurances that lethal control will not be used when conflicts with wildlife occur. The rationale for these concerns is described in Appendix A attached to this letter. The major flaw in the RWMP, however, is that it does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow Jefferson County to evaluate or enforce compliance with the plan. It is unclear to us how Jefferson County will be able to monitor or enforce compliance with the RWMP, given its vague and incomplete descriptions of wildlife management actions, its lack of specificity, and its lack of measurable performance standards. On several occasions the developer has made verbal commitments to Jefferson County to implement certain wildlife management actions, yet these commitments don't appear in print in the RWMP, or they don't appear in a form that ensures accountability or enforceability. The provision relating to the installation of an elk exclusion fence illustrates this point. The RWMP sums up this vital wildlife management action in a single sentence, stating only that "the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns of PGST [Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe] to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access to the 9 holes of golf course grasses" (page 8, first full paragraph). There is a need for the RWMP to describe the fence in sufficient detail to allow the Jefferson County staff to evaluate whether the developer has met the County's expectations for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife. Note that the RWMP doesn't even state during which phase of development the fence will be constructed. To add to the confusion, farther down on page 8 (second bullet point) the RWMP states that installation of a fence will be done "as a last resort." On an October 19, 2017 site visit to Black Point the developer stated that the golf course would be landscaped using junipers and other unpalatable plants between tee boxes and fairways, to avoid attracting elk. The RWMP, however, states only that the applicant "will investigate" whether such technology exists. No further detail about the landscaping of the golf course is provided, despite concurrence that use of unpalatable plants is a key component of preventing elk from occupying the site. There is need for the RWMP to elaborate on this proposed management action. Considering the vague, non -committal language in the RWMP, we must ask how Jefferson County will be able to measure compliance with the RWMP. In our experience, any statement of proposed actions that is intended to be legally binding must contain performance standards that are objective, quantifiable, and measureable. The RWMP fails to identify such standards. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 2 of 13 Without quantifiable standards against which to measure performance, Jefferson County will not be able to evaluate or compel compliance with the RWMP. The RWMP uses terms such as "reduce," "minimize," and "prevent diminishment of." In most cases, however, no baseline level is identified. We question how Jefferson County will be able to determine whether reduction of an impact or diminishment of a resource has occurred without knowing a baseline level. Even if the baseline level were known, in most cases the RWMP doesn't specify the magnitude of the reduction or diminishment expected of a given action. How will the County determine if an action is sufficient to establish compliance, considering that no quantifiable objectives are stated? These shortcomings must be rectified by revising the RWMP to make use of clear, unambiguous action verbs linked to quantifiable objectives. The plan must state how progress toward the objectives will be measured and what remedial actions will be required if the initial action fails to meet the objective. We consider it a given that any credible natural resource management plan must have these basic standards. Without them, there is no reliable way for Jefferson County to evaluate or enforce compliance. In summary, it is our conclusion that the Revised Wildlife Management Plan does not describe management actions in sufficient detail or identify measureable performance standards that will to allow Jefferson County to determine whether the applicant is in compliance with their commitments to mitigate the MPR's impacts on wildlife. It is important to note that the Development Agreement is a contract between the County and the developer. A contract must contain legally binding language that specifies the responsibilities of the parties in sufficient detail that it will allow the County to objectively determine whether those responsibilities have been met, and to compel compliance if they aren't met. Approval of a contract based on verbal commitments or on vague, unenforceable promises is not in the best interests of Jefferson County or its citizens. The Point No Point Treaty Council and the S'Klallam Tribes respectfully urge Jefferson County to reject the county staff's conclusion that the RWMP is in compliance with County Ordinance 01-0128-08, and to reject the recommendation that the DA be approved as written, until the RWMP is revised to include quantifiable and measureable performance standards, and clear, unambiguous, enforceable language. We also urge Jefferson County to continue to consult with us regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR's proposed actions to manage wildlife. Respectfully, Timothy P. Cullinan Wildlife Program Manager PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 3 of 13 Appendix A The Revised Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP), adopted by reference into the Draft Development Agreement by and between Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR), does not meet the requirements specified in Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(1), which requires that the plan be developed in consultation with local tribes "to prevent the diminishment of tribal wildlife resources." The plan does not adequately address the potential adverse impacts that the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR will have on wildlife, particularly on the Duckabush elk herd. The RWMP has only partially met the original objectives specified by Jefferson County. The November 2, 2017 Revised Wildlife Management Plan is inadequate for the following reasons: 1. It relies on outdated information and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd. 2. The plan fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. 3. The RWMP does not adequately address the risk of vehicle collisions with elk. 4. The RWMP does not adequately describe the conditions under which remedial management actions will be taken, and leaves too much discretion to the developer to decide when such actions are necessary. 5. The plan does not provide assurances to the tribes that lethal control will not be used when conflicts with nuisance wildlife occur. We will address and elaborate on each of these points below, focusing on the risks to and potential impacts on the Duckabush elk herd, which is the wildlife resource of greatest importance to the S'Klallam Tribes in the vicinity of the proposed MPR. 1. The RWMP relies on outdated information and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd. The plan contains outdated information and erroneous statements that indicate a lack of understanding of the biology and ecology of the Duckabush elk. This is important because sound wildlife management is only as good as the scientific information it is based upon. Without a thorough understanding of the behavior and life history of the local elk herd, there is the risk that any management recommendations will be flawed and will prove to be ineffective. Some of the statements made in the RWMP about the Duckabush elk herd describe conditions that existed 15 to 20 years ago, but are no longer extant today. In some cases statements are made without supporting evidence or literature citations. Overall it is evident that the author of the plan did not possess sufficient knowledge to assess risks and to formulate effective management recommendations. For example: a) The RWMP states "Elk migrate on a seasonal pattern and can be expected to be in the project vicinity during certain times of the year" (page 5, paragraph 2). While it is true that in some parts of the West elk migrate seasonally, that is not true of the Duckabush herd. The herd is resident year-round. It has not undergone a true migration since 1993. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 4 of 13 Some individuals are nomadic, and may travel up to 13 kilometers from one end of their range to the other, but this is not true migration. This is important because the incorrect statement above implies that there will be extended periods during the year when elk will not be present in the vicinity of Black Point. That is not the case. Most of the herd can be in the MPR vicinity at any time, so the risk that elk will cross the highway and occupy the MPR is a 365 -day per year risk. b) In the same paragraph, the RWMP states `Elk could potentially... inhabit [Black Point] for short durations during the year." The RWMP does not define "short durations" so it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of that statement. Our current understanding of deer and elk foraging is based on a behavioral model that predicts that animals will continue feeding in an area until the quality of the food is depleted below the quality in other, nearby areas (Hobbs and Swift 1985). Only then will the animals abandon that area and move to a new one. The use of the term "short durations" understates the risk that elk will occupy the nutrient -rich foraging areas on the golf course for extended periods. We have observed elk occupying grassy fields (similar to fairways) in the immediate vicinity for up to seven consecutive days when the quality of the forage is good. c) The RWMP states on page 7 "the [MPR] site is adjacent to mapped elk crucial wintering range (WDFW, 2017)." This statement is misleading and irrelevant for several reasons. Although the citation—a link to WDFW's web site—is dated 2017, the maps on that web page have not been updated since the year 2000. The Duckabush elk herd's range has expanded since then, so the 2000 winter range map is nearly useless. Second, the reference to winter range implies that elk will be in the vicinity only during winter, which is not the case, as noted above. Furthermore, the focus on winter range is outdated by almost 20 years (Cook et al. 1998). It is now generally accepted among wildlife ecologists that elk behavior and populations are driven not by the location and adequacy of winter habitat, but by the quality of food on summer and autumn ranges (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 2004, Hutchins 2006, Cook et al. 2016). d) The RWMP makes a few general statements about sizes of elk populations and bull -to - cow ratios, but contains no information about the size of the Duckabush herd. It states "a herd could be as small as 4 individuals" (page 5, paragraph 2), a statement whose utility eludes us. This statement understates the risks associated with elk occupying the MPR and causing damage. Our census records show that at times the Duckabush herd has contained as many as 80 individuals. 2. The plan fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. Since 2007, when Jefferson County solicited public comments on the original FEIS for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the PNPTC has struggled to convince the project developer that there is a high probability that changes in habitat—particularly the removal of forest canopy and the establishment of nutrient -rich grassy areas—will attract elk to Black Point. In our 2007 comments we stated: It cannot be assumed that the current level of elk use of Black Point is a reliable indicator of future use. Our experience suggests that elk use of Black Point is currently low because most of the site is occupied by second -growth closed -canopy coniferous forest, a habitat type that characteristically produces low quality and quantity elk forage. As the habitat changes due to the PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 5 of 13 construction of the golf course and the development of lawns and other open areas, the site will become more attractive to elk. Elk are opportunistic feeders, and are particularly fond of open areas with rich, abundant grass, particularly in the spring when the grassy areas are greening up." We went on to cite radio -tracking data dating to the year 2000 that showed that elk habitually occurred in the immediate vicinity of Black Point and that elk are likely to expand or alter their home range to exploit foraging habitat when it appears in previously unused areas. Since 2007 we have continued our monitoring and have been able to complete a more thorough analysis of the habitat changes and elk behavior changes that have occurred over the past 30 years west and south of Black point. The results of the analysis leave little doubt that elk will alter their range when new food sources appear on the landscape as a result of human activity. It is a well-established fact that removing the canopy of a mature coniferous forest results in greater quantity and quality of forage for elk on that site. The reason for this is that canopy removal vastly increases the amount of solar radiation reaching plants at ground level, resulting in more energy available for photosynthesis. Removal of the canopy trees also makes more water and nutrients available for the ground level plants. Both of these factors result in rapid and vigorous growth of nutrient -rich plants—grasses, forbs, and deciduous shrubs—within reach of the elk. A recent comprehensive region -wide study of elk nutrition (Cook et al. 2016) found that the abundance of elk forage in young forest stands 5 to 10 years following clearcut logging Figure 1) ranged from 3,000 to 4,500 kg/ha (1.3 to 2.0 tons per acre). By contrast, elk forage production in older forests with full canopies (20 to 50 years old—Figure 2) was found to be 100 to 300 kg/ha (only 89 to 267 pounds per acre). Furthermore, the abundance of the highest - quality, most -preferred plants was 7 to 10 times higher in the young clearcuts than it was in the 20 to 50 -year-old forest stands. Based on the landscape management actions described in the MPR plan and FEIS—removal of the forest canopy and establishment of grasses and deciduous shrubs—we are led to the conclusion that the amount of elk forage available would closely resemble the conditions found in young forest stands. Production of elk forage would likely be thousands of pounds per acre per year. The question then becomes, would that amount be sufficient to act as an attractant to elk, causing them to cross U.S. 101 and occupy the MPR site? Our research strongly suggests the answer is yes. The forage conditions in different aged forests cited by Cook et al. above explains why elk currently aren't found in the closed -canopy forests on Black Point. At present, there simply isn't enough food available to provide an incentive for elk to cross the highway at that location. We know, however, that when the habitat changes and abundant forage becomes available elk will alter their behavior and shift their home range to exploit the new food source. This is illustrated by our assessment of habitat conditions in the treaty area and our tracking of elk behavior through radio -telemetry. Monitoring of the behavior and home range of the Duckabush elk herd via telemetry dates back to the mid-1980s (Schroer 1986). The Point No Point Treaty Council began monitoring the Duckabush elk in 1995, and it continues to the present. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 6 of 13 Figure 1. A forest stand in the 5 to 10 -year age class. Abundant grasses and deciduous shrubs can provide 1 to 2 tons of elk forage per acre per vear (Cook et al. 2016). Figure 2. A forest stand in the 20 to 50 -year age class. The closed canopy prevents solar radiation from reaching the understory. Stands in this age class produce only a few hundred pounc PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 7 of 13 In the late 1990s the Duckabush elk herd occupied a home range extending west about five miles up the Duckabush River valley, north along the ridge east of Mount Jupiter, and south to a point about 0.5 miles north of McDonald creek (Figure 3). In that decade there was little or no incentive for the herd to shift its range farther south because most of the land there was in closed - canopy coniferous forest that did not provide sufficient forage to support a population of elk. The herd remained primarily in the Duckabush watershed, where riparian forest understories, small openings, and recent (less than 10 -year-old) clearcuts provided adequate forage. rtgure 3. Landscape conditions and the range of the Duckabusfi e elk herd in the late 1990s, Elk were not detected south of 0 ro $ e Mcpanald Greek, 2 4 oillga*, 40 e @.@ Point f e w tx v a. J9&115on-Ma&on county Une Triton Head a+r t,br..WEPoE Lln4.o4:X: tJap3iYRrNar 6penfisrntMpp asxmY utax ard 3N C+Sa rcammgkn. Between 2001 and 2009 the herd expanded its home range more than six miles in a southwesterly direction. This home range shift coincided with a rapid increase in logging on the Hood Canal State Forest, a large expanse of state-owned commercial timber land managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). From 1960 to 2000 DNR timber harvest in this area was limited to less than 245 acres per decade. Then, in 1999 DNR began an aggressive timber production effort, and logged 863 acres during the following decade. This resulted in hundreds of acres of high -productivity clearcuts where none had existed before Figure 4). By the 2010s decade the Duckabush elk herd had shifted its range to occupy areas south of McDonald Creek where elk previously had not been detected, including the Waketickeh watershed in Mason County (Figure 4). PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 8 of 13 We can conclude from these data that elk will travel long distances and alter their home range in response to habitat changes that provide new sources of abundant and high-quality forage. We can say with confidence that there is a high probability that elk will cross U.S. 101 to exploit the newly created forage on Black Point. If a six -mile expanse of forest and two major creek canyons (McDonald and Fulton Creeks) did not pose a barrier to elk dispersal, it is unlikely that highway 101 will be a barrier to the movement of hungry elk. To prevent elk from responding to the increase in forage resulting from golf course construction and crossing Highway 101 to occupy Black Point, the PNPTC has advocated for construction of an exclusion fence, particularly along the western border of the MPR site. As noted in our April 9, 2018 letter however, the RWMP does not contain an adequate description of the proposed exclusion fence. Consequently, Jefferson County does not have a legally binding commitment from the developer that an exclusion fence will meet the objective of deterring elk from entering Black Point. 3. The RWMP does not adequately address the risk of vehicle collisions with elk The management strategy to reduce vehicle collisions—a matter of utmost importance to our tribes—is described in a single sentence. No further information is provided regarding the design PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 9 of 13 or specifications of the warning system, how it will be deployed and maintained, and how it will function. One might anticipate from the description of methods and from past discussions with Statesman that the intent is to deploy a highway warning light system similar to the one currently used on U.S. 101 near Sequim in Clallam County (Figure 5). If that is the case, then it should be explicitly stated in the "management strategies" section. The description of the action should state where the system will be located, how many signs will be installed, how they will interface with the elk movements, who will be responsible for capturing and collaring elk, who will replace collars when they wear out, and who will be responsible for maintenance of all the system components. These questions are important. When the Sequim warning system was deployed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in Sequim in 2001 the cost of installing the lights was $75,000 ($104,848 in 2017 dollars; Shelly Ament, WDFW Asst. District Biologist, personal communication, 2014). Since then WDFW and PNPTC have spent more than $10,000 to attach collars to elk. In addition there are ongoing maintenance costs, costs for power, and costs of repair. Figure 5. An elk crossing highway warning sign on U.S. 101 east of Sequim. Flashing lights are activated when a radio -collared elk annroaches within 095 miles nfthP hiohwav The perfunctory and apathetic description of the vehicle collisions reduction strategy leaves too many questions unanswered. Until a more definitive description of this management strategy is provided, our tribes do not consider the project developers to have met their obligation to develop a plan to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources and reduce the potential for vehicle collisions. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 10 of 13 4. The Revised Wildlife Management Plan does not adequately describe the conditions under which remedial management actions will be taken, and leaves too much discretion to one party to decide when such actions are necessary. The RWMP describes several conditional actions, but does not adequately describe the conditions under which the management action will be implemented. For example the RWMP states that "after the developer has determined that noise -deterrents, smell -deterrents and visual deterrents have proven ineffective, then the developer will install a fence ... to discourage [elk] presence." This leads to the question, how do we define "ineffective"? Our tribes regard this as a risky and inadequate provision because it provides no assurances that the necessary management action will ever be taken. It leaves the discretion of whether to implement a management action to a single stakeholder (Statesman), without oversight from affected parties like the County, State or Tribes. Better accountability must be built into such conditional provisions. 5. The plan does not provide assurances that lethal control will not be used when conflicts with wildlife occur. It appears that the author of the RWMP did not fully understand the reason why Ordinance 01- 0128-08 requires a focus on non -lethal management strategies. The RWMP uses the term "non- lethal" only twice, but both times it is in the context of merely quoting the Ordinance—the RWMP doesn't actually state that no lethal removal of animals will occur. No further discussion is provided, nor does the RWMP discuss what recourse might be taken if none of the strategies described therein fail to resolve wildlife conflicts. In our original 2007 comments on the FEIS, the PNPTC expressed the tribes' concerns about the potential conflicts that will occur if and when foraging elk damage high-value landscaping. Our fear is that this will lead to increased demands to control elk damage by lethal removal of animals from the population... We do not support, and cannot accept, lethal control to reduce property damage caused by elk." Thus the genesis of the non -lethal provision in the ordinance was the S'Klallam Tribes' insistence that animals must not be killed to protect fairways, greens, and other plantings. As currently written, the RWMP does not follow through and describe what will happen if hazing, fencing, etc. don't work. Consequently, the RWMP does not provide adequate assurances that animals won't be destroyed. The RWMP must contain an expressed, definitive, enforceable commitment that wild animals will not be killed when conflicts arise, except in cases where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety. General Comments: Overall the Revised Wildlife Management Plan is merely a superficial attempt to meet the minimal requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Its 18 pages contain mostly background information and site descriptions that appear to be cut and pasted from the 2012 Habitat Management Plan. There is little new information. The elk management strategies (of greatest importance to the S'Klallam Tribes) are poorly conceived, inadequately described, and will likely prove ineffective. Ultimately, there are only two elk management strategies proposed: aversive conditioning (hazing with scare tactics) and exclusion devices (fencing). Use of the PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 11 of 13 latter is conditional upon the developer unilaterally deciding whether the former has proven ineffective. Our experience with elk management leads us to conclude that both of the proposed elk management strategies will fail. Hazing is time consuming and it is effective only until the animals become habituated to the aversive conditioning techniques. Hazing was attempted two decades ago in an effort to drive the Sequim elk herd away from high-density housing areas and from high-value crop fields. Beginning in 1995 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW) employed four part-time staff and a dozen volunteers to haze elk, at a cost of $20,000 per year ($32,103 in 2017 dollars). That sum does not include the cost of the time WDFW biologists and administrators spent organizing and managing personnel—the full cost was much higher. WDFW terminated the project in 1997 due to the high cost and the ineffectiveness of the effort. In response to public pressure it started hazing again in the year 2000. By 2004 efforts to control the Sequim elk herd—which comprised only one percent of the regional elk population— were consuming 33% of WDFW's regional elk management budget (Jack Smith, WDFW Region 6 Wildlife Division Manager, personal communication 2007; Cullinan 2015). WDFW eventually concluded that the hazing program was futile, terminated it, and drastically increased the number of hunting permits to implement lethal control. Fencing has proven to be a reliable means of excluding elk from occupying areas where they are not desired. It is the only credible preventive measure available to minimize the risk that elk will cross U.S. 101 and take up residence on the MPR site. The hazing strategies described in the RWMP provide little or no assurance that elk will not occupy the site for long periods and damage landscaping. The need to build a fence is inevitable. We assert, based on decades of experience with elk behavior that fencing will be most effective if it is installed before elk have a chance to enter the site and feed on the MPR landscape. If the fence is built after the elk have become habituated to the nutrient -rich foraging areas on the MPR site, there is a greater risk that they will continue to cross U.S. 101 to seek ways to penetrate or circumvent the fence, thus exposing both the elk and motorists to a higher risk of collisions. Consequently, fencing must be constructed before or concurrent with clearing the forest and developing greens, fairways, and lawns. Unfortunately, the RWMP does not state a time frame for fence construction, and suggests that fencing will be done "only as a last resort." Elk are an important food and ceremonial resource for the S'Klallam Tribes. The Duckabush elk herd is one of the two most important herds to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. It is a vital economic and cultural resource. For three decades we have managed it with utmost care. This year, in response to concerns about population declines our tribes closed hunting of cow elk in the range of the Duckabush herd, and curtailed the hunting of bull elk. The S'Klallam Tribes cannot afford losses brought about by poor planning and a lack of commitment to wildlife stewardship by the MPR developers. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. Every hour that the elk spend in high human density areas inaccessible to tribal hunters is an hour that the tribe is denied its treaty right to hunt. The RWMP was developed without sufficient consultation with qualified local wildlife biologists. As a result, it was developed without state- of-the-art scientific information specific to local elk herds. Consequently, it contains inadequate and ineffective recommendations that pose substantial risks to wildlife and to S'Klallam treaty rights. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 12 of 13 Literature Cited: Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs 141: 1-61. Cook, J.G., R.C. Cook, R.W. Davis, and L.L. Irwin. 2016. Nutritional ecology of elk during summer and autumn in the Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs 195: 1-81. Cullinan, T. 2015. Adapting elk harvest in response to land use change—a 40 -year case study. p. 30 in Jones, P., E. Merrill, R. Corrigan, and M. Neufeld. 2015. Proceedings of the eleventh biennial western states and provinces elk and deer workshop. Alberta Environment & Sustainable Resource Development, Canmore, Alberta. Hobbs, N.T. and D.M. Swift. 1985. Estimates of habitat carrying capacity incorporating explicit nutritional constraints. J. Wildlife Management 49:814-822. Hutchins, N.R. 2006. Diet, nutrition, and reproductive success of Roosevelt elk in managed forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Humbolt State University, Arcata, California. 104 pp. Schroer, G.L. 1986. Seasonal movements and distribution of migratory Roosevelt elk in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 85 PP. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004. Olympic Elk Herd Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 52pp. PNPTC comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement Page 13 of 13 effbocc From: Deborah Pedersen <deborahgpedersen@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 5:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment on Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I attended the Planning Commission's hearing on this proposal in early 2016 and learned quite a bit about its long history. I also learned that there are deep divisions of opinion about it in the Brinnon area. I became aware today of the Planning Commission's April 4 letter to you. I was disappointed not to find any minutes of the recent Planning Commission meeting on the County's website but was able to obtain a copy of the letter. I find the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission to be very compelling. Among them, the most compelling is the concern about water quality and sewage treatment. Hood Canal is in delicate condition and must be protected to the utmost extent. The aquifer also requires protection. The letter's comments about the risks to the county and the local community of business failure are also very compelling. It must also be said that greater population and more traffic in the rural Brinnon area will create a need for more county services. Will the increase in property taxes fund the needed services? I do appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns and wish you well in evaluating all the comments and the concerns brought forward by the Planning Commission. I applaud the diligence of the Planning Commission and the DCD leading up to the point at which we find ourselves now. Deborah Pedersen Port Townsend occ From: dcovert@u.washington.edu Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 5:29 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment ; Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 My concerns are in regard to impacts of the MPR development on the environmental quality of Hood Canal, its shorelines and its adjacent uplands. Ongoing, long-term monitoring of water aquifers, water flows and quality should be required (and recieve strict oversight by county and state agencies) for Hood Canal and the uplands adjacent to the MPR. Specifically, I am concerned about the impacts of the MPR on the quality of surface and underground water on Black Point and of water in Hood Canal as they may impact resident and migrant fish and shellfish and other aquatic organisms. The overall water quality in Hood Canal has been degraded due to human activities and is sensitive to contamination and due to limited tidal exchange of its waters. What is needed is a comprehensive plan for the MPR and other sources of water pollution to notjust have zero further degradation but to improve water quality in the longer term. The Kettles are a unique geological feature that should be preserved in their entirety as a matter of maintaining the scenic beauty and geology of this coastline for MPR visitors, residents of Jefferson County and beyond. There is value to the MPR and to other visitors to preserving the features of Black Point, Hood Canal and adjacent uplands along Hood Canal in their rural to natural state for enjoyment by all. Sincerely, David Covert 102216th St. Port Townsend WA 98368 dcovert@u.washington.edu APING Prr From: Lis Houchen <LHouchen@nacds.org> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 5:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments Pleasant Harbor Resort Attachments: Lis Houchen.docx; ATT00001.txt Lis Houchen 24 Duckabush Road Brinnon, WA 98320 EMAILED TO: leffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us Dear Honorable Members of the Jefferson County Commission, I am writing in support of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Planned Resort (MPR). As a resident of the south Jefferson County, I am concerned about the lack of revenue available for emergency and other needed services. Due to what is perceived as a county -wide position of "no growth" we are left with a very limited tax base on which to draw. The proposed resort would bring in "controlled growth" and desperately needed additional revenue. In talking with local golf course owners I have learned that all golf courses are required to use pet, human and environmentally friendly additives to the ground to not interfere with local wildlife and most importantly our fragile aquafers. Additionally, new golf courses are designed with the existing environment, lay of the land, and wildlife taken into consideration, providing additional watering and nesting sites. I strongly encourage the Commissioners to support this project and help Jefferson County take a step forward toward a more financially healthy county. Sincerely, LfkYQuchon/ Lis Houchen Ihouchen@nacds.org 360.480.6990 From: Sent: To: Subject: j,K%, "4R'Pl AFr Celeste Dybeck <buckwheat@cablespeed.com> Monday, April 09, 2018 5:47 PM jeffbocc Black Point Resort At the Jefferson Landtrust breakfast on March 29, 2018, Our Jefferson County Commissioners were introduced and the speaker stated that our Commissioners also support Land Conservation. Thank you. I was thrilled to learn this fact. And it reassures faith that you will make the right choice when making the final decisions about the proposed Black Point Resort. My dream is that the resort will be done in way to preserve the Kettles and the Shoreline. A proper sewer system as opposed to a septic system that would contaminate our shell beds and fish. I'm not opposed to the resort. I'm opposed to destruction of the spiritual Kettles and contamination of the salt water. Just do the project right. Sincerely, Celeste Dybeck Jamestown S'Klallam Elder Port Townsend Resident Sent from my iPad I effbocc p Or.1, From: annette ruzicka <annette.ruzicka@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Agreement Attachments: Ruzicka_Comments_PleasantHarborMPR_DevelopersAgreement.pdf Below please find Comments on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Agreement copied in text and attached as a pdf Thank you, Annette Ruzicka April 9, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, This letter is to register my concerns and opposition to the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort at Black Point, both as an environmental advocate and as an anthropologist/archaeologist with experience in the Pacific Northwest Coast Culture Region. The proposed development is environmentally unsound and unsafe for the Hood Canal. This location is not appropriate for a development of the size and density proposed. There are foreseeable negative impacts of an 890 unit development with attendant 9 -hole golf course on a small peninsula that serves as a freshwater source to the Hood Canal. While the Developer proposes that there will be no run-off, it is impossible to guarantee that fertilizers (organic, green, or otherwise) will not be introduced into the Hood Canal because of direct seepage into the groundwater, and thus into the Canal. Black Point is situated between the Duckabush and Dosewallips estuaries. Any pollutants or increased nutrients from the development and the golf course, as well as increased harvesting pressure, threaten the area's shellfish beds. The area shellfish beds are located within the Usual and Accustomed Territy of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and are treaty protected resources. At the time of this letter, the Washington State Department of Health's Shellfish Safety Information classifies the shellfish beds at the mouth of the Dosewallips as Closed Due to Pollution, the Pleasant Harbor Marina shellfish beds as Closed Due to Pollution, and the shellfish beds at the mouth of the Duckabush as Conditionally Approved with closures due to seasonal water quality conditions. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe have proposed a plan for Shellfish Mitigation that was not incorporated into the Development Agreement, indicating that the Developer and Jefferson County do not take seriously the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's treaty protected right to co -manage the resource. Lastly, the Development Agreement does not adequately protect the Black Point Kettles from destruction. The Black Point Kettles represent geologically unique and culturally -significant non-renewable resources. From an archaeological perspective, I believe they qualify for Traditional Cultural Property status on the National Register of Historic Places, a determination of which is in process with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The Development Agreement as proposed only protects the Kettles in the event that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe are able to gain this designation before the Developer applies for permits. These important cultural resources deserve protection regardless of state designation, or at minimum until a determination can be obtained. Thank you for your consideration. If the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort moves forward, I hope you will significantly decrease the number of possible units, implement the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's Shellfish Mitigation Plans, and protect and preserve the Black Point Kettles from destruction regardless of current National Register status. Sincerely, Annette Ruzicka, MA Anthropology with a specialization in Archaeology 2009 Queen Anne Place Port Townsend, WA 98368 April 9, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, This letter is to register my concerns and opposition to the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort at Black Point, both as an environmental advocate and as an anthropologist/archaeologist with experience in the Pacific Northwest Coast Culture Region. The proposed development is environmentally unsound and unsafe for the Hood Canal. This location is not appropriate for a development of the size and density proposed. There are foreseeable negative impacts of an 890 unit development with attendant 9 -hole golf course on a small peninsula that serves as a freshwater source to the Hood Canal. While the Developer proposes that there will be no run-off, it is impossible to guarantee that fertilizers (organic, green, or otherwise) will not be introduced into the Hood Canal because of direct seepage into the groundwater, and thus into the Canal. Black Point is situated between the Duckabush and Dosewallips estuaries. Any pollutants or increased nutrients from the development and the golf course, as well as increased harvesting pressure, threaten the area's shellfish beds. The area shellfish beds are located within the Usual and Accustomed Territy of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and are treaty protected resources. At the time of this letter, the Washington State Department of Health's Shellfish Safety Information classifies the shellfish beds at the mouth of the Dosewallips as Closed Due to Pollution, the Pleasant Harbor Marina shellfish beds as Closed Due to Pollution, and the shellfish beds at the mouth of the Duckabush as Conditionally Approved with closures due to seasonal water quality conditions. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe have proposed a plan for Shellfish Mitigation that was not incorporated into the Development Agreement, indicating that the Developer and Jefferson County do not take seriously the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's treaty protected right to co -manage the resource. Lastly, the Development Agreement does not adequately protect the Black Point Kettles from destruction. The Black Point Kettles represent geologically unique and culturally -significant non-renewable resources. From an archaeological perspective, I believe they qualify for Traditional Cultural Property status on the National Register of Historic Places, a determination of which is in process with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The Development Agreement as proposed only protects the Kettles in the event that the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe are able to gain this designation before the Developer applies for permits. These important cultural resources deserve protection regardless of state designation, or at minimum until a determination can be obtained. Thank you for your consideration. If the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort moves forward, I hope you will significantly decrease the number of possible units, implement the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's Shellfish Mitigation Plans, and protect and preserve the Black Point Kettles from destruction regardless of current National Register status. Sincerely, Annette Ruzicka, MA Anthropology with a specialization in Archaeology 2009 Queen Anne Place Port Townsend, WA 98368 OCC From: Sent: Hansi Hals <hhals@jamestowntribe.org> Monday, April 09, 2018 8:58 PM URI To: jeffbocc Subject: Just leaving the Public Hearing and posting these comments Attachments: Jamestown Tribe Pleasant Harbor MPR -comments April 9 2018.pdf Attached is a letter of comment from Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. Thank you, Hansi Hansi Hals Natural Resources Director Jamestown Sklallam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim WA 98382 360) 681-4601 Board of Commissioners Jefferson County 1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequlm, WA 98382 3601683-1149 FAX 360/681-4643 April 9, 2018 RE: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Commissioners, I am writing this letter of comment on behalf of Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort will have adverse environmental impacts. We remain unconvinced that mitigation will fully address these negative effects. We strongly encourage that Jefferson County retain the right to redress impacts identified during monitoring and Phase implementation. Phases of development should be contingent upon monitoring results. Nutrient loading from the golf course and wastewater must be shown to have no discernible effect in receiving waters. Pre -project monitoring should occur for at least one full year prior to development to establish a baseline across each season. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe incorporates by reference Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's comments related to stormwater, wastewater management, cultural resources and impacts to Tribal shellfish harvest. We also incorporate by reference Point No Point Treaty Council's comments related to wildlife management. Sincerely, j6 , 3fj, Hansi Hals Natural Resources Director Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 10:31 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: ALLERT - We Need To Make Them Listen NOW!!! From: bertl@cablespeed.com Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:30:34 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Subject: ALLERT - We Need To Make Them Listen NOW!!! MONDAY, APRIL 9 TH, 2018 AT 6:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE SUPERIOR COURTROOM 1820 Jefferson St, Port Townsend Pleasant Harbor Resort 140 Million Dollar Project That Will Bring Jobs, Opportunity and Beauty to Our County in a very environmentally friendly way! It's very important that you, your neighbors and friends attend the special hearing of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on Monday, April 9 at 6:00 pm. The hearing will be held in the Jefferson County Superior Courtroom at 1820 Jefferson St. in Port Townsend. Takea moment to share this email with your friends and ask them to attend Monday night's hearing too. It's important that we all help. While it is important that you attend, it is also important that you speak in support of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). We know that speaking in public is not an easy thing, but if you can raise your voice, using one of the topics below, it would make a powerful statement to the Board about how much you care about the place you call home. Simply choose the topic below that speaks most to you heart and add to it as you think right. If you prefer, we strongly encourage you to write your own personal statement in support of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Either way, we hope you can attend on Monday night and make a statement in support of the future of Jefferson County. 1) A vote for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is a vote for more and better social services for the people of Jefferson County. The tax revenue generated by this project will provide the funding necessary for grants to OlyCap and other social services organizations that provide needed resources to the county's homeless, elderly and others who need a helping hand. I ask that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight. 2) Your vote to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR today means attracting and retaining the best and brightest teachers in Jefferson County. Our school system is in dire need of increased funding and through the sales taxes and property taxes created by the Pleasant Harbor MPR, Jefferson County can ensure that education remains a top priority for the county and its lawmakers. I implore you to approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight. z 3) Residents across the county depend on a reliable police presence. But funding problems make it difficult for law enforcement to receive the proper tools they need to keep the citizens of Jefferson County secure. The Pleasant Harbor MPR can help provide desperately needed money for law enforcement and in the process, improve the safety and security of everyone who lives here. The sooner you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the better. 4) I'm asking that you approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR now because the money it will generate in new taxes will help improve the fire and EMS services we rely on to respond to emergencies. Nothing is more terrifying than a home fire or a terrible accident, and with the additional resources that could be provided for our first responders, it would provide greater peace of mind to all the people who call Jefferson County home. Please vote tonight in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. 5) Jefferson County's unemployed and under -employed people need your help. You can provide them the help they need by voting tonight in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This $140 million project will create nearly 2,000 new, good paying jobs that so many of our neighbors need. These are the jobs that so many people desperately need to continue raising their families in Jefferson County. 6) Last year, we were told that there is an affordable housing crisis in Jefferson County. You can help solve that crisis tonight by voting in favor of the Pleasant 3 Harbor MPR. The combined sales tax and real estate taxes generated by this $140 million project would provide tens of millions of dollars for the county treasury, allowing us to do more to help those in need of affordable housing. Please approve the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight. 7) The Pleasant Harbor MPR and its planning represent the gold standard in ecological sensitivity. We cherish our environment in Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor MPR represents how seriously we take preserving our environment. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight, you can show the community and the entire state that we can balance the needs of the environment with sound, responsible economic growth. 8) Jefferson County taxpayers showed everyone last November that they are already overburdened by high taxes when they voted 69% against the Proposition 1 property tax increase. By voting in favor of the Pleasant Harbor MPR tonight, the Board can demonstrate that they are listening to the people and understand the needs of the hard-working taxpayers of Jefferson County by expanding our tax base through this project. THIS IS NOT A PARTISIAN ISSUE BUT SHOULD SPEAK TO ALL OF US THAT WANT OPPORTUNITY AND A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILIES WHILE BEING SENSITIVE TO PRESERVING THE BEAUTY OF OUR AREA. 4 Written comments will be accepted through April 9, 2018 by mail to the BOCC at P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or to send email click link Here. If you cannot attend, please email or send a letter of support for Pleasant Harbor! You must get involved if we are to finally bring jobs and a healthy economy to Jefferson County. Email the Board of Co. Commissioners Here STAY CONNECTED: Jefferson County GOP, PO Box 704, Chimacum, WA 98325 SafeUnsubscribe"" bertl@cablespeed.com Forward this email I Update Profile ( About our service provider Sent by gop@broadstripe.net in collaboration with 5 Constant Contact , Try it free today RECEI V E D,, APR 1 12018 JEFFERSON N TY CC, 160ccjca ') ld(gDIG -D Patty Charnas From: Roger M. Foszcz <rvfoz@olypen.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 8:00 AM To: Patty Charnas Subject: MPR ORD Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (ieffboccgco.jefferson.wa us) I oppose the current plan for development on Black Point for the following reasons: The MPR will damage or destroy the only aquifer on Black Point by o injecting water from sewage treatment back into the aquifer o destroying a kettle which is part of the aquifer recharge area o drawing down the unique aquifer, which can cause salt water intrusion in homeowner wells Taxpayers will pay for infrastructure and public services. The developer will not pay the costs of highway improvement and maintenance and/or public safety (police and fire). Research shows even when tax revenues begin, later in the construction phases, the revenues do not pay for infrastructure costs. Traffic will increase by up to 4100 car trips a day. This will not only create congested traffic, but will pollute Hood Canal with copper and zinc. It will increase the nitrogen problems and dead zones in the Canal. Four out of five jobs will be poverty level. This will depress wages and benefits in other local jobs. Environmental damage will include harm to water quality in Hood Canal, to the Duckabush shellfish beds, to wetlands, and to wildlife. The golf course will require excessive water and chemicals to maintain. Conditions set for the development require consultation with local Tribes, since this is their Usual and Customary Hunting and Fishing Grounds. The site is culturally significant to local Tribes. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is not satisfied with the consultation efforts that have taken place. Roger M. Foszcz 910 W. 11th St., Port Angeles, WA 98363 360-457-8330 e-. voce t S' Dc7 Board of County Commissioners; Planning Commisioners March 26, AW 12018 We are writing against the MPR development in Brinnon. We believe it to be a flawed process from the beginning in that the county had NO PLAN and listened to the developer's suggestions. It benefits the developer to great lengths and leaves local residents with a degradation of their rural neighborhood with little benefit to them. The county is seeking revenue but it will be at such a high cost that the overcrowded roads and burden on resources may end up costing them more. It will not necessarily be beneficial to Brinnon and could ultimately, cause the loss of the precious waters of Hood Canal. The MPR is given 890 units; 240 are homes, 216 condos or town homes, 154 hotel rooms plus the 100 low cost units for employees. There are an additional 317 units in the maritime village with 123 units in the golf course SO that is considerably more than 890. That is a lot of water usage in showers and toilets flushing. Wonder how that all will affect the one aquifer on Black Point? This does not sound like it maintains the rural qualities of Brinnon. The 2010 census of Brinnon population is 797. The population of the resort would add two to three the population of Brinnon. This would be during the late spring to summer months when camping, beach use and travel to Brinnon are at its height. Don't forget to factor in the RV slots. RV's are so much fun to be forced to drive behind. This adds more burden to roads and over harvesting of shellfish on beaches. This is an environmental disaster in the making when you add to the wastewater even if treated pharmaceuticals will find their way to the canal) dumped into the waters of Hood Canal. The pollution contaminants from cars, trucks and RV's will most certainly add to the declining health of the waterway. The over population burden on a small rural area will also affect travel on the two main roadways. One concern is the small narrow country road of the Duckabush that is the nearest gateway to hiking the Olympic Wilderness with several trails open for day hikes. This does not give local residence much reprieve from the overpopulation on their rural life. Our experience has been that most seem unable to read NO TRESPASSING or PRIVATE PROPERTY signs as they turn around in my driveway. Highway 101 wrecks close that road for hours and are more likely to turn the Black Point entrance into another Paradise Road wreck area where people make left turns onto a swiftly moving highway. This one though has more obstruction to see traffic clearly due to being at the top of a hill and corner. Another concern is the viablilty of a golf course. There are many many golf courses on the Peninsula from Hansville area, Port Ludlow, two in Port Townsend, Lake Cushman, Alderbrook, two in Sequim and several south in Shelton area. What would the draw be to come to Brinnon to make such a large venture successful? I have not found one resort with the capacity of the MPR; most fall within 200 rooms. (Little Creek 190, Alderbrook 93, Sequim Bay Lodge 54, Suquamish 186, Point No Point 85, 7 Cedars new Hotel will have 315). These have convention centers as well, golf course, and a casino. Is there a need for another golf course?? -I think not and certainly, not at the size of the MPR. I do not feel Brinnon needs to be the site of another Bayshore Motel or become a summer getaway like wintering in Yuma or Sequim. It leaves the full time Brinnon resident not having what Growth Management was to protect -a rural way of life. 890 units seems too large and with little to attract to be viable. Other major concerns have still not been fully addressed. The costs to taxpayers for road improvements and maintenance will add to county burdens and will not be offset by revenues generated. lobs are mostly minimum wage and seasonal with no guarantee that locals will get preferential hiring. Damage to the shellfish beds due to excessive water and chemical usage not to mention sewer drainage from the many showers and flushing toilets. Who will maintain the sewage project if they tie into the public one? Public services for fire and police will also be stretched. None of these are the panacea they are projecting to solve the issues of no employment in Brinnon. The MPR will probably increase our taxes! The impact on the environment is a huge concern. The over population will damage the precious waters of Hood Canal which are already fragile. The increased car traffic will greatly add to polluting the waters. The waste treatment does not remove phamaceuticals and would result in job losses in neighboring counties. The water usage on Black Point could destroy the only aquifer there. There is a habitat lost when the trees and area is changed dramatically. I do not feel that these losses are worth the revenue to the county. The unique feature of the kettles will be lost and should be saved. They represent a unique past of Brinnon not found in many areas. A lady once asked what we thought about the MPR and then shared her story of growing up on Port Ludlow Bay as a child visiting her family cabin by the bay. There were lots of shellfish and today, there are none. They vanished with over population and pollution of various kinds. That is my concern for Hood Canal waters which are fragile today. What will be left? I don't think you can undo this damage once it is too late. The resort will forever change the quiet rural qualities of Brinnon that attract people to move here. The MPR is not the job panacea it represents. Most of the jobs are seasonal and minimum wage. The MPR will pollute, deplete shellfish, overuse the Black Point aquifer, and change the quality of life of this very rural area. We know our life on the rural Duckabush road will be heavily impacted by the steady stream of travelers. The resort needs to have a smaller number of units to deflect the overpopulation demands on such a small area. Over 3000 people on such a small area will destroy its quiet rural solitude, water, and peaceful habitat. By significantly over populating Brinnon for five or six months does not seem to represent the goals of Growth Mangagement whose main goal was to maintain the rural quality of life in Brinnon. It won't be working then -will it? Think of it, over three thousand people in Brinnon and the two lane roads that we have and the detrimental effects of POLLUTION. Won't be fun for those who have lived here for many years seeking peace and solitude. It won't affect you, the commissioners or the people on the planning board but will dramatically, affect people who live on the Duckabush Rd and further south. IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK. It will forever change rural quiet Brinnon and not for the better. And if it fails or developer sells -what then? We strongly ask you to either reject the MRP proposal OR to reduce it's size to under 300 units and save the kettles. Growth Mangement isn't working for Brinnon locals. Is a fast food stop not far behind? Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon Wa 98320 C -O-" GOCCIC8 C: Idq BOCC PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 f ' , APR 112018 Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort 4-'., I f 1, Al G U U N I support the Pleasant Harbor Resort and want this to move forward to the permitting I phase. Sincerely, 4A\,)& cc I. bOCCICO ecu April 6, 2018 BOCC Jefferson County Courthouse 820 Jefferson St Port Townsend WA. 98368 Dear BOCC APR 112018 I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that I oppose the Proposed Resort in Brinnon. I feel that it would compromise the pristine beauty and peaceful serenity of the area. These are reasons people come to this area for vacation orjust a weekend getaway. I believe it would be detrimental to the shellfish population as well. The harbor already suffers some pollution from the existing marina. Sincerely Concerned Citizen ewc.)C ILI Dear Kate Dean, Kathleen Kier & David Sullivan: PP. Apri , 2018 Location, location, location is the first rule of real estate because location determines the value of the property. In the case of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort at Black Point, the location is severely lacking. The annual rainfall is 61 inches as compared to 19 in Port Townsend and 16.5 in Sequim. It can be very dark and rainy because of the proximity of the adjacent Olympic Mountains to the west. Because of the location of the plot of land on Black Point, there will be no water or mountain views that add value and enjoyment to the property and there is limited beach access. The surrounding area doesn't abound with restaurants, and other tourist attractions. Vacationers who stay in condos while on vacation as opposed to trailers, campers, tents and cabins, expect an array of dining, shopping and activity/entertainment options for which they will need to travel approximately an hour to Port Townsend, Sequim or Shelton. Today, people are not playing golf like they did 12 years ago and if they do and can afford it, they like to play highly rated 18 -hole golf courses. Less than an hour from Black Point there are four well-regarded 18 -hole golf courses including Alderbrook in Allen, Lake Cushman, Port Ludlow and 7 Cedars in Sequim where it will be more likely to be dry. Because of the poor location, I am concerned that the resort will fail and that it will become a liability for Jefferson County and the Brinnon community. To avoid such an event, the developer should be required to be bonded to cover the liability. Since the Hood Canal is already hypoxic in areas with fish kills and dead zones, water from runoff and waste treatment should be tested regularly by the resort and the Tribes. If the Tribes are unable fish and gather shellfish in the area, it will be a breach of their rights established by the Point No Point Treaty, so every precaution should be taken to maintain and hopefully improve the water quality of the Hood Canal. Kettles B and C, which the developer plans to fill to use for water treatment and water features on the golf course are unique geological features. They should be preserved not only because of their depth and size but also because the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Skokomish Tribes have indicated that they have cultural significance, similar to Tamanowas Rock in Chimacum. In the 170 years that settlers have been in the area, the land use policy has been to use the land and water without much regard for conservation or protection. Hopefully you have seen enough degradation to question the developer's plan. You have a duty to be stewards of the land and this is not a good use of land on Black Point. Gains are being made in habitat restoration, why would you want to approve a MPR that appears to be a plan that is bound to fail? Best Regards, Barbara Jo Blair 294 Sunset Boulevard Port Townsend, WA 98368 cc; ECEIVErFCCBOCC )pn PO Box 1220 APR 112018 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 CN U N TYU Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort nil'! I support the building of the resort in Brinnon. Please move forward with the permitting process as soon as possible. Sincerely, oc , BocC)c O jeffbocc From: Lonnie Millett <lonnie.millett@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 7:38 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Support for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort I wanted to register my support for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We have owned a home for the past 13 years on Pulali Point Road and have spent a lot of time in the area. I have reviewed the latest plans feel like the scaled back design would be a nice addition to the area with additional recreation and retail opportunities. We love the area and like the solitude but feel like this is a measured addition that will enhance and not detract from everything that we love about the area. Please vote to approve the plan. Lonnie Millett 374 Pulali Point Road Brinnon, WA cc, Bocc JCPr 17e 7 11' X_ jeffbocc From: Mike & Eloise Langenbach <langenbachme@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 8:59 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Pleasant Harbor LETTER: Silent majority not heard in support of Brinnon development The Pleasant Harbor Resort Plan is a must for the Brinnon area. The silent people have not been heard. I think there are way more people in Brinnon that are for the resort be built. This will make jobs, help fire services, help medical services, help transport systems, help recreation, bring in a tax resorce from outside the area and increase the economy. It will not destroy the environment, with sewer treatment, water management and keeping clean air. Michael Langenbach, Brinnon cc' BOCCICIq It, 1, r-Jjeffbocc From: Mike & Eloise Langenbach <Iangenbachme@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 9:21 AM To: jeff bocc Subject: MOR Brinnon needs Black Point Resort acebook i-wifter Email rint 3ave Fhe silent residents of Brinnon now want to be heard. The Black Point Resort is a must for the Brinnon eople. Fhe building process will provide jobs for anyone that is capable and willing to work, and jobs to maintain t esort. There will be better fire coverage and medical coverage that has never been. There will be sewer reatment to keep the waters and the beaches clean and to use on a golf course. There will be local recree or all the residents. There will be a tax base that will help the county in their needs. Fhe silent group wants to be heard. MICHAEL LANGENBACH- I cc, BOcdc 113I "Y41 jeffbocc From: William Dean <cmdwbd@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 1:31 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Brinnon MPR Development Agreement, Appendix M Conservation Easement currently states that 10 feet abutting State Highway 101 shall be included. That is a very narrow strip and highly subject to blowdown, including blowdown onto Hwy 101. It is suggested that the dimension be increased to at least 30 feet for adequate protection both visually and from blowdown. Yours truly, Bill Dean Port Ludlow Resident QC i. CC- C 1 D'c. From: bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:18 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MPR Attachments: MPR letter 3.docx Thank you for considering our input. Bill and Roxianne Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Dc 14 P Orr' Board of County Commissioners APR 1 2018 Planning Commissioners April 10, 2018 After listening to the people speak last night, many facts were left out or misrepresented. I do not think that the people voicing opinions for the MPR realize that it will very likely raise their taxes and not really do much for the poverty in Brinnon. They do not seem to realize who is paying for the Rec/Community Center that would be the local and state taxpayer. Or that there will likely be fees to use such a facility. Once again, not something someone living in poverty can afford. I do not think it is going to fix the poverty in Brinnon (actually, there have been much higher free and reduced lunches of 90% so 70% is a reduction -while teaching school Title 1 monies were based on free and reduced lunch and Brinnon and Quilcene were high). You, as our county commissioners, would be greatly remiss if you did not due diligence on the viability of such an MPR or if the developer has sufficient funds to build. If only one in ten said projects succeed that is not very good odds for our county. There are many questions about details pertaining to the MPR and not many specifics given. The devil is in the details. The commissioners will end up like "the emperor with no clothes" by going forward with the full scale of the developer demands and he isn't paying for the promises. Many acres will be "donated" thus will be off tax role. In 2016, the developer asked the county to "donate" 2 million dollars towards his project and the state taxpayer to front another 26.5 million at an 2% interest rate and to be paid back with hospitality tax monies. That is far down the line to recover such an "investment" and does not seem like an appropriate use of tax payer dollars when county and state are not fully funding necessities. Why should taxpayers fund a developer? People move to Brinnon as it has affordable housing and property taxes. The people who were speaking for the MPR came here to build their personal paradises from the city and now want the amenities they left behind. Others come for the cheaper rent, lower property taxes and living off the land. These people are visible at the school and food bank. The MPR will raise their rent and property taxes so where will they go?? They can't afford to shop at the Maritime Village stores. I guess they will be forced to move elsewhere so that is one way to reduce the poverty in Brinnon-move them out! Then you can redesignate this area for wealthy only. We have lived here for almost 40 years full time and will likely have to move as well. My property taxes have doubled and will soon triple. Please remember the lady who spoke with experience from the Issaquah MPR and moved to Brinnon. It is affordable now but not with a gigantic MPR for which the taxpayer is on the hook to pay for roads, EMS, schools, and the Community center benefiting his "buyers". The MPR will increase taxes not lower them and not provide family wage jobs. The promised Rec/community center is a bit of a cloud. The promised community rec center at his Pine Ridge development doesn't appear to be there. At least in looking at vacation rentals it shows no amenities. His resort in Arizona is condos only with golf course and shopping nearby with built in rec facilites not open to the public. Bonds need to be put up to insure promises are kept. It is curious if the success of this developer has been researched. He has built housing developments but this is an MPR of massive scale with cut and paste drawings and not many details. Success is a bit iffy when you consider failure is a much larger possibility. In conclusion, this MPR is not a fix for jobs in Brinnon. Poverty will remain and still be visible at the school and food bank. Four out of five jobs are seasonal and minimum wage. Traffic will be unbearable on a 2- lane road not designed for high traffic. The MPR rec center will costs the county to maintain -if it is built. The environment and waters of Hood Canal will be heavily impacted. Brinnon will lose its rural qualities and affordable Paradise will be lost. We do not feel that the size of this is viable. Please reduce its size to 300 units or return to the R5 or R 10 that is was it was designated by Growth Management. If something is too good to be true -it usually is and Brinnon residents will be on the losing side. Sincerely, Bill and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon„WA PS You might have to install emergency phones at the Inereorrem Cabin as people do really stupid stuff - like rolling trucks of backroads and end up at my house for help. Do 7 w/4 'fr32 0 A r tc, bDr-(- RFCOpDDC -D IC J iW4 BOCC PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 F WEDEA., E Milm JEI--PEHGC;N CUUNTY r""OFAMISSI,NERS Subject: I Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort I want you to know I support the building of the Master Planned Resort here in Brinnon. Sincerely, ra, 04,f5F4i Tl k °fi•:. BOCC PO Bok 1220 Port Tbwnsend, Washington 98368 APR 2 2010 Subject: i Support the Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Master Plannedliosort s ' <, It's about time to get going on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. We've waited for so many years and we're tired of all the lies being spread by the few who don't want it. Sincerely, ac' 0'-LIC64DCS 1) 1, 8 WEr, RD To: Jefferson Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Date: April 9, 2018 APR 12 2018 From: Bonnie McDaniel Formal Comments Against Pleasant Harbor MPR Proposed Development Regulations and Agreement Proper stewardship of the natural resources requires that the BOCC not approve the proposed development agreement and regulations. The natural resources of this area are its biggest asset. Not many places have them left. Conservation of them and sustainable practices are mandatory. Hood Canal is a fragile resource. Not only are salmon and shellfish at risk, but other marine life as well. Discharge and runoff into it due to site development and use put its viability at further risk. Protection of the aquifer at Black Point is also mandatory. The proposed MPR will damage or destroy it by injecting water from sewarge treatment into it. Seepage from it will go into into Hood Canal. Kettle destruction, which is in part of the acquifer recharge area, will cause salt water intrusion into the wells of others. The kettles are ancient land formations and should be preserved. That the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe has claimed they have spiritual significance is not supprising given the nature of them. I have attended a number of the Planning Commission meetings as to the proposed MPR,. The recent letter from them to the BOCC states that: Some members of the Planning Commission (PC) have strongly suggested that a small -footprint MPR that would highlight the kettle ponds (instead of filling them in and making golf course lakes), and that would draw a connection to the amazing Olympic National Park at its doorstep, would be much more enticing as an ecotourism draw than a golf course... They are spot on here — a formal study has found outdoor recreation to be an extremely powerful ecnomic force in our state and stressed the need to protect natural resources, as well as promote outdoor recreation. A small -imprint MPR would fit much better with the nature of the Brinnon community. The proposed development is much in excess of that conceptualized in the Brinnon sub -area plan. Protections of our natural resources are, however, paramount and even a small -footprint development may put them at risk and any risk is too much. I love this area. We lived in Lilliwaup when I was born, I came here often over the years, and I am retired in Quilcene. I trust you recognize your obligation to protect our natural resources.