HomeMy WebLinkAbout118JEFFERSON 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; mailing address not available
Ms. Barbara Moore-Lewis
Brinnon Group
Re: Comments on the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) Draft Development
Regulations and Draft Development Agreement, Black Point, Brinnon, WA (“your
comments”)
Dear Ms. Moore-Lewis:
Thank you for your comments submitted on the above referenced subject. We received over three
hundred individual comments during the public comment period beginning February 7, 2018 and
concluding April 13, 2018. Relatively few of the written comments that we received provided
specific comments on the wording and content of the Pleasant Harbor development regulations or
on the Pleasant Harbor development agreement. Most of the public comments that we received
were either general statements in support of the MPR or general statements in objection to the
MPR.
We are providing this written response in part to acknowledge your submittals and in part to
provide replies to some items in your comment records as we believe are appropriate.
Your Comments:
For your information, you are associated with the following numbered comments from our
comment matrix that was attached to our report to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
(BoCC) dated May 21, 20181:
1 Posted on our web site at:
http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1828880&page=1&cr=1 .
2
Comment Record 49- an email from you with two attachments: “Destination Resort Impact
Study.” March 2009. www.fodorand associates.com; and a news release by Oregon Land Watch,
March 2009, www.centraloregonlandwatch.org
Comment Record 50- an email from you that forwards the entire record of Comment Record 49
plus an attached letter from the Brinnon Group.
Comment Record 59- an email from you with four attachments: two 2016 letters and two 2018
letters authored by Carol Morris to the BoCC.
Comment Record 60- an email from you with three attachments: a duplication of the 2009 resort
impact study contained in Comment Record 49 and 50; a December 2007 letter from R. Horner
to the BoCC commenting and requesting denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and a
July 2009 Memo from Gerald Steel, Waterworks Consultants, Bellingham, WA to Lyn Doremus
(affiliation not identified) commenting on water supply and groundwater impacts in the November
2008 draft supplemental environmental impact statement (2008 DSEIS).
Comment Record 78- an email from you with two attachments: a June 2010 review of an EIS
(not specifically identified as the draft or final supplemental EIS) and a discussion of the water
budget analysis (not peer reviewed); and a duplicate copy of the July 2009 Memo from Gerald
Steel, Waterworks Consultants, Bellingham, WA to Lyn Doremus (affiliation not identified)
commenting on water supply and groundwater impacts in the 2008 DSEIS provided in Comment
Record 60.
Comment Record 79- an email from you with two attachments: and undated item entitled
“Brinnon MPR Opposition Group Issue Summary, Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
FSEIS,” and a July 2016 letter from four members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission
to the BoCC regarding their experience with the Pleasant Harbor MPR process.
Comment Record 264: an email from you to Donn and Val Martinson copying the Jefferson
County BoCC regarding the identity of a member of the Planning Commissioner, clarifying to
recipients addressed in an earlier email about where to send comments during the comment period,
providing informational attachments and requesting donations to the Brinnon Group.
Our Additional Responses to Your Comments:
We believe your comments already have been addressed in the November 27, 2007 programmatic
Final Environmental Impact Statement (2007 FEIS), the January 28, 2008 with Ordinance 01-
0128-08, the December 9, 2015, a final project level SEIS (2015 FSEIS), the June 4, 2018, adopted
development regulations for the PHMPR (Development Regulations), the June 4, 2018, adopted
development agreement between Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort,
LLP (Development Agreement) and the May 21, 2018 staff report and attached matrix (Staff
3
Report). However, we provide the additional responses to the above listed comment records
below.
Response to Comment Record 49:
We acknowledge receipt of this 2009 work and have reviewed it in light of the subject public
hearing and comment period on the proposed development regulations and proposed development
agreement. Revisions to the development regulations and to the development agreement have been
made and reflect substantive consideration to the extensive public process, tribal consultations and
technical analyses completed over the Pleasant Harbor MPR project history.
In the history of Brinnon planning (starting with the planning that resulted in the 2002 Brinnon
Subarea Plan), Jefferson County has sought the input of all affected tribes and adhered to the
requirements of applicable state, federal and local laws. For the MPR, Jefferson County is the
official lead agency and we have relied on the preparation of three extensive environmental impact
statements (EISs) pursuant to SEPA:
First, for the Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002);
Second, for the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation of a Brinnon Master Planned
Resort in the 2007 FEIS; and,
Third, to analyze site and project-specific alternatives for developing the MPR in
preparation for adopting development regulations and a development agreement in the
2015 FSEIS.
The preparation of these three separate EISs utilized the rigorous, well -documented SEPA
processes that included seeking and receiving feedback and involvement from affected tribes, other
government agencies, and the public. The resort study and accompanying news release were
submitted during the public comment period for the 2015 FSEIS, were considered, and became
part of the record at that time.
Response to Comment Record 50:
Your cover email states at page 1:
“Here are my comments”
This is followed by a forward of the entire record contained in Comment Record 49, above plus
a one page comment letter from the Brinnon Group dated March 7, 2018 that
Supports the Hood Canal Environmental Council’s request to expand (sic) the comment
period,
4
Supports a mandatory review of the development’s financial results and business plan for
all phases,
Recommends county analysis of bonding “given the unique feature of this development”,
and of the revenue and costs ,
Cites the Oregon study cited in Comment Record 49,
Describes an experience with Forks, law enforcement and use of road funds, and
Asks if there will be an economic shortfall in South County given the project size and the
fragile location.
We disagree that additional time for public comment was necessary. The public comment period
was 60 days. However, the revised proposed development regulations and revised proposed
development agreement were made available to the public well before the public comment period
was established.
All the required elements for a master planned resort and its environmental impacts were
adequately addressed in the 2007 FEIS, Ordinance 01-0128-08, the 2015 FSEIS, the June 4, 2018,
adopted Development Regulations, the Development Agreement and the Staff Reports.
Response to Comment Record 59:
Your cover email states:
“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.”
You then list the following attachments:
a) Carol Morris 6/17/16 Letter to County Commissioners with Issues with Development
Regulations
b) Carol Morris 7/12/16 Response To Garth Mann
c) Carol Morris 1/16/18 Comments on Draft Development Agreement
d) Carol Morris 2/9/18 Comments on Draft Development Regulations
With respect to a) above, we offer the following response.
Your submittal of Carol Morris’ 06/17/2016 letter begins with a discussion of the BoCC decision
making process. The BoCC’s decision making process regarding the above referenced subject is
now completed.
The Carol Morris’ 06/17/2016 letter also comments on Pleasant Harbor MPR traffic and
concurrency, compliance with state law and county codes and contrasts legislative processes with
quasi-judicial processes. The BoCC’s decision making process regarding the above referenced
subject is now completed. Concurrency does not apply since the main arterial to and from Pleasant
5
Harbor MPR is State Highway 101. The project properly followed and will continue to comply
with all requirements under SEPA. The project properly followed and will continue to follow
requirements in county code.
With respect to b) above:
Your submittal of Carol Morris’ 7/12/2016 letter is not to Garth Mann but in actuality is a letter to
the BoCC referencing the Development Regulations for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
and opens with “This letter responds to the July 1, 2016 e-mail from Garth Mann of the Statesman
Group.” The referenced email is not included. This letter proceeds to discuss the standing of
groups individuals related to commenting and appealing decisions; repeats the observation of
traffic and concurrency discussed above, discusses the lack of a county stormwater ordinance,
clarifies understandings of a sub-area plan versus a comprehensive plan amendment, states that
the County does not have a critical areas ordinance and references model ordinances (not attached
to this record).
The County establishes public comment periods for many items such as SEPA reviews, certain
permit applications and follows state and local law in the acknowledgement of public and private
groups or individuals and their standing as interested parties. To clarify, the County does have a
critical areas ordinance and the County does have stormwater code that relies upon the Washington
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
With respect to c) and d) above:
Your submittal of Carol Morris’ 1/16/18 and 2/9/18 comment letters on the proposed Pleasant
Harbor MPR development agreement and development regulations are part of the record and are
not being responded to here in this letter.
Response to Comment Record 60:
We refer to responses provided above regarding duplication of items contained in this comment
record. As to the item commenting and requesting denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
to designate the former NaCo campground from rural residential to MPR, that decision was made
final when the BoCC approved Ordinance 01-0128-08 which subsequently succeeded through
several legal challenges.
Response to Comment Record 78:
We reviewed the project history and its record and found these items submitted during official
public comment and review periods for the published 2015 FSEIS; these items were included into
that record. Your comment does not point specifically to an item in the development regulations
or the development agreement, so we are at a loss trying to speculate what may or may not be
applied to these 2018 draft items for BoCC decision. We note with curiosity that the 2010 non-
6
peer-reviewed discussion paper on the former campground water budget analysis appears to be
based on calculations of 220 acres of undisturbed land with mature (mostly Douglas Fir) trees. As
you may be aware, the project site is currently developed with a series of paved and gravel
roadways; buildings and paved campsites.
Response to Comment Record 79:
Your comment containing an undated matrix was located in the record of comments on the 2015
FSEIS. This matrix nor any accompanying narrative does not point specifically to an item in the
development regulations or the development agreement that you believe warrants attention with
respect to an issue with the development regulations or the development agreement so we are at a
loss trying to speculate what may or may not be applied by your re-submittal of comments made
earlier to the 2015 FSEIS and/or what their import is to the 2018 draft items for BoCC decision.
As for submitting the Planning Commission July 2016 letter to the BoCC, we have addressed that
separately in the staff report published on the Pleasant Harbor MPR development regulations.
Response to Comment Record 264: We appreciate you sharing this email with the BoCC and
do not find how it points specifically to an item in the development regulations or the development
agreement. We acknowledge this for the record nonetheless.
Please note that not all of the content of your submittals or all of your comments or any of your
verbal testimony are discussed here. That does not mean that we agree or disagree with your
comments received during the BoCC’s official public comment period on the Pleasant Harbor
MPR development regulations or development agreement.
We appreciate your timely and thoughtful input 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.
Sincerely,
Patty Charnas
Patty Charnas, Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Cc: Board of County Commissioners
PAO- Civil