HomeMy WebLinkAbout117JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
June 26, 2018
Via email and Regular Mail
Dr. M. Garth Mann
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP
308913 US Hwy 101
Brinnon, WA 98320
Garth.Mann@statesman.com
Re: March 12, March 23, and April 13, 2018 Comments on the Draft Development Regulations,
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, Black Point, Brinnon, WA (collectively “your
comments”)
Dear Dr. Mann:
Thank you for your comments submitted on March 12, 2018 and for those of your counsel submitted on
March 23, 2018 and on April 13, 2018. Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD)
considered your comments in connection with its work of advising the Jefferson County Bo ard of
Commissioners (BoCC) during its deliberations on the draft development regulations and development
agreement.1
Comment 1:2
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at page 4:
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.
(Emphasis in original.)
1 Not all of your comments are discussed below. That does not mean that DCD agrees or disagrees with comments not
discussed below. DCD is responding to comments that it believes merit a specific response.
2 The numbering of comments in this letter is not meant to indicate there is a response to every comment. Rather comments
were numbered to distinguish the comments and responses in this letter from one another.
2
Response to Comment 1:
DCD agrees with this comment. Importantly, all relevant provisions of Title 18 JCC will apply to future
permits, including Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas), Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Management), and
Chapter 18.40 JCC (Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation).
Comment 2:
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at pages 4-5:
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 maintenance plans; and
Outlines the process that shall be followed if there are changes to the resort plan.
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.
Response to Comment 2:
DCD agrees with this comment.
Comment 3:
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at page 6:
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).
Response to Comment 3:
DCD agrees with this comment. Importantly, all relevant provisions state law and regulation, including
Chapter 173-219 WAC and Chapter 173-240 WAC will apply. Furthermore, RCW 90.48.080 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of
the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to
3
seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic matter that shall
cause or tend to cause pollution3 of such waters according to the determination of the
[Department of Ecology], as provided for in this chapter.
The purpose of Chapter 173-240 WAC is to implement RCW 90.48.110,4 which itself requires that:
all engineering reports, plans, and specifications for the construction of new sewerage
systems, sewage treatment or disposal plants or systems, or for improvements or extensions
to existing sewerage systems or sewage treatment or disposal plants, and the proposed
method of future operation and maintenance of said facility or facilities, shall be submitted
to and be approved by the department, before construction thereof may begin. No approval
shall be given until the department is satisfied that said plans and specifications and the
methods of operation and maintenance submitted are adequate to protect the quality of the
state's waters as provided for in this chapter.
RCW 90.48.110(1). Furthermore, relevant provisions of Title 18 JCC will apply to future permits,
including Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas), Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Management), and Chapter
18.40 JCC (Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation). Notably, JCC
18.25.320(2)(d) states: “Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any
ground water or surface water or to be discharged onto land. The release of oil, chemicals, genetically
modified organisms or hazardous materials onto land or into the water is prohibited.”
Furthermore, the 2015 FEIS, analyzed, addressed, and published mitigation measures addressing all
relevant environmental conditions consistent with and as required by state law, the breadth of which was
defined in official scoping processes and in the various special studies and reports. These findings were
included as the basis for the 30 conditions in Ordinance 01-0128-08, which itself required further
mitigation measures. All the 30 conditions listed in Ordinance 01-0128-08 have been addressed. All
important environmental concerns raised in comments in the 2014 DSEIS were adequately addressed in
the 2015 FSEIS and the requirements in the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comment 4:
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at pages 6-7:
ii. 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.
3 “Whenever the word ‘pollution’ is used in this chapter, it shall be construed to mean such contamination, or other alterat ion
of the physical, chemical or biological properties, of any waters of the state, including change in temperature, taste, color ,
turbidity, or odor of the waters, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance into any w aters
of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health,
safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to
livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life.” RCW 98.40.020.
4 WAC 173-240-010.
4
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 be implemented
as part of our Development Agreement with the County. (Development Agreement at
Section 9.2.3).
Response to Comment 4:
DCD agrees with this comment. All relevant provisions of Title 18 JCC will apply to future permits,
including Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas), Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Management), and Chapter
18.40 JCC (Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation). Notably, JCC 18.25.070
states: “All new development and redevelopment must conform to the standards and minimum
requirements set by the most current version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (SMM) and obtain a stormwater management permit if
required by subsection (5) of this section.” JCC 18.25.070(5) states:
All grading of 500 cubic yards or more (not exempted under subsection (5)(b) of this
section), land-disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or more, or creation of 2,000 square
feet or more of impervious surface shall be subject to a stormwater management permit.
Prior to issuance of a stormwater management permit, the applicant shall submit the
required stormwater management plans to the administrator for review and approval.
Therefore, after any approval of the development regulations and development agreement, a stormwater
management permit will be required, given the scope of the MPR.
Furthermore, the 2015 FEIS, analyzed, addressed, and published mitigation measures addressing all
relevant environmental conditions consistent with and as required by state law, the breadth of which was
defined in official scoping processes and in the various special studies and reports. These findings were
included as the basis for the 30 conditions in Ordinance 01-0128-08, which itself required further
mitigation measures. All the 30 conditions listed in Ordinance 01-0128-08 have been addressed. All
important environmental concerns raised in comments in the 2014 DSEIS were adequately addressed in
the 2015 FSEIS and the requirements in the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comment 5:
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at page 7:
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.
5
Response to Comment 5:
DCD agrees with this comment. The 2015 FEIS, analyzed, addressed, and published mitigation measures
addressing all relevant environmental conditions consistent with and as required by state law, the breadth
of which was defined in official scoping processes and in the various special studies and reports. These
findings were included as the basis for the 30 conditions in Ordinance 01 -0128-08, which itself required
further mitigation measures. All the 30 conditions listed in Ordinance 01-0128-08 have been addressed.
All important environmental concerns raised in comments in the 2014 DSEIS were adequately addressed
in the 2015 FSEIS and the requirements in the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comment 6:
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at page 7:
iv. Monitoring
In addition to these measures, a Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N to the
Development Agreement) requiring monthly testing and anal ysis has been prepared to
ensure that resort operations do not have a negative impact on water quality.
Response to Comment 6:
DCD agrees with this comment, particularly as the Water Quality Monitoring Plan was modified during
negotiations that followed the public hearing on April 9, 2018. The 2015 FEIS, analyzed, addressed, and
published mitigation measures addressing all relevant environmental conditions consistent with and as
required by state law, the breadth of which was defined in official scoping processes and in the various
special studies and reports. These findings were included as the basis for the 30 conditions in Ordinance
01-0128-08, which itself required further mitigation measures. All the 30 conditions listed in Ordinance
01-0128-08 have been addressed. All important environmental concerns raised in comments in the 2014
DSEIS were adequately addressed in the 2015 FSEIS and the requirements in the 30 conditions of
Ordinance 01-0128-08. In addition, in response to public comments, the Water Quality Monitoring Plan
was revised to provide a mechanism to require investigation and remediation of any chemicals and fecal
coliform that might be released from the MPR, after detection in the sentinel wells. This is responsive to
public comments regarding the need for a specific action plan in the event of a polluting activity
originating from the MPR.
Comment 7:
Your March 12, 2018 comments state at pages 7-8:
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:
….
6
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).
Additionally, the Water Right Permit (02-30436) 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).
(Emphasis in Original.)
Response to Comment 7:
DCD agrees with this comment. The 2015 FEIS, analyzed, addressed, and published mitigation measures
addressing all relevant environmental conditions consistent with and as required by state law, the breadth
of which was defined in official scoping processes and in the various special studies and reports. These
findings were included as the basis for the 30 conditions in Ordinance 01 -0128-08, which itself required
further mitigation measures. All the 30 conditions listed in Ordinance 01-0128-08 have been addressed.
All important environmental concerns raised in comments in the 2014 DSEIS were adequately addressed
in the 2015 FSEIS and the requirements in the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comment 8:
Your March 23, 2018 comments state at page 1:
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.
(Emphasis added.) Your March 23, 2018 comments then describe the requirements that must be
followed for the design and construction of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Chapter
173-240 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and for reclaimed water in Chapter 173-
219 WAC.
7
Response to Comment 8:
DCD agrees with this comment. Importantly, all relevant provisions state law and regulation, including
Chapter 173-219 WAC and Chapter 173-240 WAC will apply. Furthermore, RCW 90.48.080 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of
the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to
seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic matter that shall
cause or tend to cause pollution5 of such waters according to the determination of the
[Department of Ecology], as provided for in this chapter.
The purpose of Chapter 173-240 WAC is to implement RCW 90.48.110,6 which itself requires that:
all engineering reports, plans, and specifications for the construction of new sewerage
systems, sewage treatment or disposal plants or systems, or for improvements or extensions
to existing sewerage systems or sewage treatment or disposal plants, and the proposed
method of future operation and maintenance of said facility or facilities, shall be submitted
to and be approved by the department, before construction thereof may begin. No approval
shall be given until the department is satisfied that said plans and specifications and the
methods of operation and maintenance submitted are adequate to protect the quality of the
state's waters as provided for in this chapter.
RCW 90.48.110(1). Furthermore, relevant provisions of Title 18 JCC will apply to future permits,
including Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas), Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Management), and Chapter
18.40 JCC (Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation). Notably, JCC
18.25.320(2)(d) states: “Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any
ground water or surface water or to be discharged onto land. The release of oil, chemicals, genetically
modified organisms or hazardous materials onto land or into the water is prohibited.”
Comment 9:
Your April 13, 2018 comments state at page 7:
The local tribes, including the PGST, have been consulted since 1997 about an
MPR at Black Point (2). During the past ten years, PHMPR has made a concerted effort to
consult with the local tribes, including the PGST. A summary of those attempted
consultation efforts follows:
(A bulleted list of dates with a description is listed, but is not copied verbatim, here.)
Footnote (2): A list of communications with local tribes including the PGST dating back
to 1997 can be found at the County’s online file for the Brinnon MPR under “Tribal
Consultation.”
Response to Comment 9:
We will not comment on Statesman consultation activity with affected tribes. We agree with the footnote
that cites County tribal consultations. To be sure, Statesman did participate in many, although not all, of
5 See the definition of “pollution” from RCW 98.40.020, quoted in footnote 3, above.
6 WAC 173-240-010.
8
the tribal consultations. The County, likewise, did not necessarily participate in Statesman -initiated
consultations with tribes.
We appreciate your comment letters and appreciate this opportunity to respond to some of the comments
raised. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
As we have urged affected tribes, we strongly urge you to continue to discuss with affected tribes issues
they consider important through any future permitting phases.
Sincerely,
Patty Charnas
Patty Charnas, Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Cc: Board of County Commissioners