Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM12030704 CQ raa W a 1 14 IN G�O.,�. District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 3, 2007 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners David Sullivan and John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: several ways were suggested to restructure County departments and cut programs to cut costs; the County needs to change its policy regarding the disposal of surplus computer equipment; applicants submitting landuse permits aren't treated equally by staff; the property owner in the Irondale /Port Hadlock UGA who wants to expand an existing mini - storage business is willing to sign a "no- protest" agreement for the sewer district; it is not appropriate for County staff to be rude to citizens; the Board was thanked for not raising taxes when I- 747 was overturned; the County may want to purchase the Port Townsend Post Office building for offices or affordable housing; and a citizen thanked the Board for working with other agencies, stakeholders and nations such as the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers /Warrants Dated November 26, 2007 Totaling $549,542.02 2. Letter of Support to Washington State Housing Finance Commission to Utilize Low Income Housing Tax Credits for Acquiring and Rehabilitating the Garden Court Apartments; G -Mat Holdings, LLC COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. County Administrator John Fischbach reported on the following items: • He doesn't have any items for the County Administrator Briefing at 1:30 p.m. today except the appointment at 2 p.m. with Katherine Baril and John Gardner, Vice President of Economic Development for Washington State University who will have an update on economic development in Jefferson County. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 lies 4 STN xut�< • Approval of Notice of Adoption re: 2008 Budget. The County Administrator presented a draft notice of adoption regarding the 2008 Budget which would be published in the newspaper on December 5, and 12, 2007 and provide notice to the public that the Board is scheduled to consider adoption of the 2008 Budget on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers. He added that it is not a hearing notice. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the notice of adoption as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. • Central Services Director Allen Sartin reviewed the line item changes in the proposed 2008 Budget that the Board made in the Special Meeting on December 1, 2007. The revisionss will be forwarded to the Auditor to be incorporated in the final budget. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he does not want cuts to the onsite sewage program that would increase the time for permit processing. • Jefferson County received a grant for $261,000 from the Homeless Grant Assistance Program. OlyCAP will oversee the program. • Approval of RESOL UTION re: Hearing Notice for Fourth Quarter Appropriations and Extensions: Allen Sartin presented a draft resolution/hearing notice for the fourth quarter supplemental budget appropriations /extensions for various County funds. The hearing is scheduled for Monday, December 17, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers and the resolution will be published in the newspaper on December 5 and 12, 2007. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 107 -07, the hearing notice on the proposed supplemental budget appropriations /extensions for various County funds. HEARING re: Sale of Surplus Property and Publish Bid Notice: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Allen Sartin reported that the items on page 1 of the list of surplus items will be transferred to the City of Port Townsend and JeffCom. The items on pages 2 through 8 will be auctioned. He asked if the Board wants to withdraw any items from the list? Commissioner Austin asked to remove the camera on page 2 and he suggested that the wording on action #1 of the resolution be clarified to say that excess equipment will be taken to the Transfer Station for recycling if other public agencies are not interested and there are no bidders. The Chair opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Tom Thiersch, stated that the County's policy to destroy the disk drives of surplus computers is willful destruction of property and it is unnecessary. He has offered several times to volunteer to erase the hard drives using a Department of Defense approved program. Last year Mike Belenski paid $25 for the surplus computers and gave most of them to a third party who put in new hard drives and distributed them to people who could use them to e -mail their families. He requested that the County not destroy the usability of the equipment. Auditor Donna Eldridge, questioned A on page 1 of the resolution which read, "The Central Services Director shall notify the County Auditor of items that were noted as "transferred" to Jeffcom and record them as disposed in the Central Services fixed asset records. She asked how Jeffcom will track the items? Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 4r e tNi Ott The Central Services Director replied that Jeffcom will track them using the process they use for their other assets. The County Administrator stated that Jeffcom is a quasi- independent agency. Allen Sartin explained that Jeffcom is developing their own network system and once it is in place, they will be responsible for their own equipment. He noted that all the items have been depreciated out. Donna Eldridge asked that the items be added to the fixed asset list to be tracked even if they have no value. Mike Belenski, stated that when he was awarded the bid on the surplus computers last year, there were no keyboards, power cords, or mice and the plate where the hard drive was attached on a laptop was removed when the hard drive was removed. The State Surplus Center sells power cords for $1 and keyboards and mice for $2. Kids at elementary schools destroy mice and keyboards and a lot of times that is all they need. He thinks that people don't bid on surplus items because the County makes it so unattractive and it is important for a person to see what they are bidding on. He asked what Commissioner Austin intends to do with the camera that was deleted from the list? He agrees with Tom Thiersch, that the hard drives shouldn't be destroyed. When he was awarded the bid last year, he asked for certificates of destruction of the hard drives but never got any. Hearing no further comments for or against the surplus property sale, Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing. Chairman Johnson asked Allen Sartin why the power cords, keyboards, and mice aren't included? Allen Sartin answered that in most cases they are reused, but if they are no longer functionally useful, they are thrown in the trash. He has a new computer this year and is still using the keyboard he had four years ago. Commissioner Sullivan asked about the cost efficiency of staff time taken destroying the hard drives? Allen Sartin stated that it is a balance between labor and space. He added that there may be confidential data on the computers and it may not be advisable for volunteers to erase the hard drives. Chairman Johnson noted that after the beginning of the year, the Board is going to schedule a meeting to review the current depreciation policy for computers and vehicles. Commissioner Austin stated that he thinks that there is a good chance that one of the schools could find a use for the camera. Allen Sartin added that this is the first year that the schools have contacted the County about the surplus equipment. Unfortunately, it was after the hearing was advertised. He told them that if the items didn't sell, they could come in and take what they wanted. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 108 -07 in the matter of findings and determination to declare certain personal property as surplus and authorize disposal with the exception of the camera. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Grant Close Out; South Seven Senior Housing Project, Olympic Community Action Programs (OIyCAP): Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 4R ifi< rH. Tim Hockett, Executive Director of Olympic Community Action Programs, explained that every three years OlyCAP does a community needs assessment. The number one issue in the last assessment was affordable housing, especially for seniors on fixed incomes. The South Seven Senior Village project was developed through a partnership with the Community United Methodist Church in Chimacum. The Church owned some property they weren't using and they met with OlyCAP to discuss how it could be used to benefit the community. OlyCAP made a proposal to HUD, the federal agency that funded a large portion of the project. The value of the property was used to leverage funding for the project. Currently there are 15 units in the Village that were occupied within one month. If the sewer system is constructed, they can build a total of 70 units on the site. OlyCAP also approached the County to sponsor a State Community Block Grant for infrastructure improvements on the project. The final report on the project is before the Board. They believe that they have satisfied the CDBG requirements. Chairman Johnson opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the grant closeout for the South Seven Senior Village project, the Chair closed the public hearing. No further action was required by the Board. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application 2008 Public Service Grant, and Close Out of the 2007 Public Service Grant; Olympic Community Action Programs (OIyCAP): Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Tim Hockett stated that OlyCAP is an umbrella agency that provides a number of human services that include Head Start, Meals on Wheels, energy assistance in winter and shelter for the homeless. They serve both Clallam and Jefferson Counties and Jefferson County is the sponsoring county. The County has always been very supportive of their programs. They contract with the State and Federal government, get funding from the UGN and contract with the County to operate some of the community centers. Community Development Block Grant service dollars help to leverage other funding. Their administrative costs are under 10 %. He gave an overview of many of their services to date this year. • They provide emergency shelter and transitional housing in Port Townsend. They have provided more than 7,700 bed nights for emergency shelter this year. • Forty homes have been improved through winterization or repair. • They provided mortgage or rental assistance to 300 people. • They have a transportation program that helps people get to work. There is a van pool from Forks to Kalaloch • They have 256 families enrolled in the Head Start program. Many of these families are very high need families. • They have an energy assistance program. • Access to healthcare. • The food bank system • They recently received a grant for $261,000 from the Homeless Grant Assistance Program. • They will be receiving an award from the State on their Dental Clinic program. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 They have a strategic plan that discusses advocacy programs and partnerships for the coming year. They will do another community needs assessment in 2009. Chairman Johnson opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Hearing no comment for or against the closeout of the 2007 services grant or the application for the 2008 services grant, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Austin moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 109 -07, in the matter of certification of compliance for the CDBG public services grant from CTED for $145,865 and authorizing the County Administrator to act as Chief Administrative Official and authorized representative in all official matters in connection with the application. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Al Scalf, Director of Community Development and Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner re: Mini Storage Workshop: Al Scalf explained that the owner of an existing mini - storage in Port Hadlock at the intersection of Irondale Road and Rhody Drive has submitted a proposal to expand the mini- storage. The current zoning is general crossroads under Rural Village Center/Rural Commercial. Under this zoning, they meet the bulk and dimension requirements and could apply for the expansion. However, there is an interim ordinance in place in the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA that places a moratorium on mini - storages. If the UGA designation was in place, the area in question would be considered legal/non- conforming for mini - storages. The non/conforming designation would only allow an additional 3,999 square feet. There is approximately 18,000 square feet of building currently in place. The proposal is to add 20,000 square feet. Commissioner Sullivan noted that other people have come forward to ask about mini - storages during this time period. Al Scalf replied that there are a number of citizens concerned about uses and zoning. Assistant Planner Joel Peterson gave the Board several alternatives: • Maintain the status quo and keep the interim ordinance in place. • To remove Section 4 from the interim ordinance and allow buildout of the mini- storage under the general crossroads zoning and require that a "no- protest" agreement be signed. The agreement would require hook -up to the sewer system within a year. • To remove Section 4 and add language that mini - storage applications would be processed under conditional use permit criteria. The Board agreed that this issue should be put back on the agenda in the next few weeks. The Board met in Executive Session from 1 1:15 a.m. to Noon with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County Administrator, Director of Community Development, Planning Manager, and Assistant Planner regarding actual litigation (RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i). Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 V Declaration of Emergency: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 110 -07 declaring an emergency in Jefferson County beginning on December 3, 2007 due to the heavy rain, rapid snow melt, damaging high winds, high tides and extreme surf and river flooding. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING NOTICE re: Continuation of Hearing, 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application; Master Planned Resort at Black Point in Brinnon: The Board discussed their concerns that some citizens will not be able to attend the public hearing scheduled this evening due to road closures because of the storm. It was suggested that the hearing be continued to another day. Al Scalf reminded the Board that they need to take action on the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the second meeting in December which is next Monday. There was a discussion about staff putting together a resolution for the Board to sign that would allow extra time for them to deliberate and make their decision on all ten amendments. Commissioner Sullivan moved to continue the public hearing scheduled for this evening to Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom and that the deadline for written public comments on the amendments be extended to noon on Friday, December 7. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Chairman also signed a NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE of the December 3 public hearing to be posted on the bulletin board outside the Superior Courtroom. Katherine Baril and John Gardner, Vice President of WSUfor Economic Development re: Update on Economic Development in Jefferson County: Katherine Baril, Director of WSU /Extension, introduced John Gardner and Bill Weiss, Chair of Team Jefferson. Several other members of Team Jefferson were also present. Katherine Baril explained that WSU Extension was designated the Associated Development Organization (ADO) for Jefferson County earlier this year. Their task is to increase economic development throughout the County. They had a meeting this morning with the founder of Mobilisa, a local company that is ranked the 39`' fastest growing technology company in America. This successful business reflects what Team Jefferson envisions for the community. In order to do this, they plan to focus on positive stories, energize entrepreneurship, attract 18 -35 year olds who want to live and work here, and encourage community reinvestment. John Gardner explained that Washington State University is a "land grant" university with 100 locations throughout Washington communities. It is a higher education institution that works with governments and other learning institutions. This is the first time an Extension Office has taken on the designation of ADO for a county and he thinks that it will be a good fit. He believes in an "open door" policy and encouraged the Board to contact him with questions or concerns about economic development. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 t � to rNl i The Board agreed that one of their main concerns is attracting young people to the County to raise their families because there aren't a lot of living wage jobs. The need for affordable housing is an issue that also needs to be addressed. Many people who move here for the quality of life are retirees over 50. John Gardner stated that there is a need to look at many different types of businesses instead of focusing on just a few. Bill Weiss noted that it is also important to retain businesses that are located here and encourage them to expand. The discussion continued about the future direction of economic development and areas where Team Jefferson will be focusing. HEARING re: 2007 Comp Plan Amendment Application Master Planned Resort at Black Point, Brinnon: Approximately twenty -five citizens were present in the Superior Courtroom when Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing and read the hearing procedures. MLA06 -87 Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner, explained that the applicant is Statesman Group of Companies of Calgary, Alberta. They are requesting a Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation on approximately 251 acres contained in 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor/Black Point area of Brinnon east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road. Currently the area is zoned rural residential, 1 unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5); 1 unit per 10 acres (RR 1:10) and 1 unit per 2.0 acres (RR 1:20.) The area of the Comprehensive Plan affected by the request is Chapter 3, specifically the section on the siting and development of MPRs and the section on land use goals and policies. According to the statute, counties may permit new MPRs in a setting of natural amenities with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed onsite indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, an MPR designation provides an opportunity to encourage economic development while taking advantage of the significant rural recreational resources and scenic amenities in the more remote areas of Jefferson County. However, the economic reasons for the siting of an MPR must also be carefully balanced against the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts from the development. A programatic level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a development agreement are required prior to project level applications and review. This requirement ensures that the community vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plan is realized if the MPR designation is approved by the Board. The Planning Commission's recommendation is to approve the Statesman proposal with conditions. The vote was 7 in favor and 2 opposed. The seven conditions are: 1) Ensure that the EIS is based on science and data pertinent to the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoff projections and potential impacts on Hood Canal. 2) Negotiate with the developer to provide needed support for the Brinnon School, Fire District, and Emergency Medical Services. 3) Require the developer to prioritze the sourcing of labor and construction materials from within Jefferson County. 4) Examine the possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 rye ..t 5) Consult with Tribes regarding cultural resources. 6) Ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on US Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. 7) Further, more detailed review is needed at the project level SEPA analysis to ensure that water quantity and quality issues are addressed. If the plan proves to be inadequate at the project level, the County Commissioners should consider altering the size of the MPR as a way to mitigate water quality and quantity impacts. There are also 3 additional conditions in the Planning Commission Minority Report. The staff recommendation is to approve the application with the following modifications. • To approve the Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the conditions that the single family residential zone at the south end of the project be replaced by dedicated open space. • That the Statesman proposal as depicted on pages 1 -4 of the FEIS be incorporated into the Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative. This area is 310 acres and would include the RV /campground properties, the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina complex and marina to the north and the Tudor and Jupiter properties west of Highway 101 and immediately south of the Black Point intersection. Overall population and traffic impacts would be increased under the Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative and would require more detailed review at the project level. Staff's rationale for recommending this alternative is that it provides the greatest opportunity to incorporate the community vision outlined in the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan. The Chair stated that the applicant will have 5 minutes to present their proposal, technical data and issues relating to any recommended conditions. A representative of the Statesman technical group asked if they could each have 3 minutes for testimony and then the applicant, Garth Mann would be given 5 minutes for his presentation? The Chair agreed to this process. Sandy Mackie, Olympia, stated that the FEIS is a detailed review of the environmental conditions of the project. In Chapter 5, the mitigating conditions show how they will protect Hood Canal and enhance public services. The County will maintain control over the project so that it will meet the community vision. Protecting Hood Canal is the number one issue. A series of reports are required including a stormwater report that discusses grading because all stormwater must be retained on site. The project must qualify for a Class A system to meet the requirements for sewer and water. Several reports are required including a wetland mitigation report, a stormwater mitigation report, and project level traffic reports. Statesman agrees with and accepts the Planning Commission's conditions. To protect public agencies, such as the school district and the fire district, the County is requiring memorandums of understanding detailing the impacts from the MPR. An agreement will be signed that shows how those impacts will be solved and funded before the project plat or binding site plan is approved. The staff recommendation for the MPR boundaries combines the Statesman proposal which consists of the property east of Highway 101 with the Brinnon Subarea Plan which includes the Jupiter and Tudor properties west of Highway 101. Statesman agrees with Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 this and the concept is sufficient at the planning level but additional transportation review will be required when the projects on the westside of the highway are reviewed. Size and scale are important. The density of the Canal Tracts development is about the same as their proposal which is under 4 units per acre. The height of the buildings will be less than the height of the trees. Along the south shore 200 feet of treed buffers will be preserved and the existing trees along Pleasant Harbor will be retained. Scott Bender, Kirkland, stated that he did the water resource work for the project which included the groundwater impact analysis. Statesman currently has 28, if not 40, acre feet of water rights. However, this is not enough to meet the goals of the project. They are in negotiations with Pleasant Tides and they are also going through the water right application process with the State. They are in the cost reimbursement process and they are at the top of the list. They are requesting 229 acre feet from surface water and ground water. They may have to rely on surface water only based on the negotiations with the State Department of Ecology. They will reuse the potable water for golf course irrigation. Right now they only need 121 acre feet. As they put in water saving devices and work with the Department of Health, they will reduce the water demand to 70 gallons per day per unit which reduces the water right demand. The impact on the aquifer from the resort should be minimal. They predict a 3% reduction in the amount of water that is currently infiltrating into the aquifer due to evaporation from the ponds. Once the rate of water per unit is reduced, they predict that more water will be injected into the aquifer than the current amount. The proposed resort provides a benefit to the water resources. The aquifer is very healthy and it is not at risk because of the 10 to 28 feet of fresh water head and the high water quality. The water storage for irrigation and potable water is enough to last 1 or 2 years. Dr. Roy Vessos, Vancouver B.C., stated that he has a Ph.D in environmental engineering, and specializes in water treatment. Statesman has taken a sustainable approach to water development, treating water as a valuable commodity. The figures used in their water conservation are backed by 3 studies done by the UFCPA. Flow restriction devices and low water use fixtures will reduce water usage. Rainwater harvesting will be done in kettle basins. Currently the rainwater runs into and through the aquifer and into Hood Canal. The water going into the kettles will be available to go into the aquifer over a longer period of time during the year. They aren't using the water reuse to act as aquifer regeneration or recharge. Instead the water reuse is for toilet flushing which is about 28% of the water consumption in the community. The water is then used to irrigate the golf course at agronomic demand. The water will be stored during the winter to be used during the summer months. The water will be treated to a Class A standard which has been used since 1992 in Washington State. Water reuse in Washington actually began in Walla Walla in 1927 with a Court- ordered irrigation application. Technologies have evolved since then that produce a very high quality of water and many small communities in the State use that water for aquifer recharge to protect shellfish and groundwater situations. They will only be using it for the agronomic demand of the plants. Joe Callahan, Port Orchard, stated that he works for GeoEngineers. He was in charge of the wetland delineation habitat assessment on the site and the initial background information that was collected. The main issue is the impact from the golf course which will be addressed through an Autobahn Certification for the course. The certification pertains to the environmental management of the course which includes maintaining wildlife corridors, water conservation on the site, managing chemicals, maintaining water Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 y as 4q ,9NIV�t�d quality and outreach and education. The golf course will be constructed around the existing habitat and some of the degraded habitat on the site will be re- planted and re- captured. There will be wildlife corridors through the golf course. Water quality and water retention are important. There is wetland at the base of one of the large kettles and there are 3 isolated wetlands that will be conserved on the site. The wetland delineation was approved by the Army Corp of Engineers. Stormwater will be recaptured and reused on the site. No untreated stormwater will reach Hood Canal. A minimum of chemicals and pesticides will be used on the site. Mike Read, Transportation Engineering NW, stated that they conducted the traffic and transportation analysis part of the project. They worked closely with Jefferson County staff and the State Department of Transportation to check on assumptions, and meet the standards and quality to improve the Black Point intersection. They collected data on Highway 101 during the highest traffic volumes of the year from mid- summer through the weekend before Labor Day. When they did the analysis of how many trips the development would generate, they assumed full time year round occupancy of the units and this will probably not be the case. There was a finding of no significant adverse traffic impacts. They concur with the recommendation that adding the properties west of Highway 101 would require additional traffic analysis at the project level to serve those properties. Access management and maintenance of intersection control through the Highway 101 corridor is the main issue. The Statesman alternative proposes all ingress at Black Point Road with additional turn lanes for left turns in and refuge for turn lanes out and a new right turn drop lane. All other access points, with the exception of one, would be closed. A northern egress point will allow for exiting traffic from the maritime village only. This is a very safe and efficient improvement to the existing access. Garth Mann, President and C.E.O. of the Statesman Group, stated that their goal is to make sure this project is an environmentally sound ecosystem structure for these developable lands. That is why they hired the companies that did the environmental review work. This project is an applied multiple conservation resort designed to enhance Jefferson County through forward thinking green development. The future consumer wants to be in a rural setting with a pristine atmosphere like the golf resort, the spa, the conference center and the maritime village. They are using natural habitat to interface with the transitions for the links design golf course. Rainwater harvesting can be used for storage and non - potable purposes such as irrigation and toilets. The retention of productive forested areas is important and they will carve out the golf course within the confines of the treed area. They will re- vegetate with arborous trees. Right now the community of Pleasant Tides is averaging between 300 -700 gallons of water per day per unit and Statesman's conservation plan will reduce it to 79 gallons per unit per day. A typical resident at the resort will spend $190 4275 per person which will stimulate the community's economy by $125 million in direct sales, $7 million in personal income and $12 million in value added. Existing conditions that need to be cleaned up on the site include structures that are dated and rotting, 6 septic fields, garbage and rusting metals. The site has been logged two or three times in the last century. They will replant areas that have been developed within 200 feet of the setback to the south of the canal that will become a longterm conservation easement. They propose minimal cuts and fills, but will be moving approximately 1.9 million cubic yards of soil. They will change the landscape of the kettles, while retaining them for storage of between 60 and 90 million gallons of water. The pervious area will be about the same as before the project started. They are building alpine town Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 v vF45 OG 4- {NI aGtC homes that will have underground parking to minimize the footprint and there will be several multi - purpose buildings. About 20% of the existing marina has disturbed area and needs to be cleaned up. Dennis Schultz, Port Townsend, stated that most of his comments were addressed in the presentation. He has researched the Statesman Group and they appear to be a good corporate citizen. The EIS shows that they want this development to be done the right way. They know what sells and keeping the natural environment is their big selling point. There has been a lot of comment about impacts on the County government and operations. This whole development will be new. The highway is the State's responsibility. All the buildings will be new and up to code so there shouldn't be much demand on the Fire Department. EMS services will probably not be necessary for most of the healthy and affluent people using the facilities and the employees. This will be a community where visitors come and play, leave their money, and don't make demands on the County for health and welfare services. The resort will provide jobs for residents in the south County and hopefully they will have benefits. Destitute and homeless people won't be living on minimum incomes in the area. There won't be meth labs or tree rustling in the development. There will be more kids enrolled in the school and the Brinnon School District needs increased enrollment if it is going to survive. He is very much in favor of the development and he thinks it is a win -win situation for the County. Lisa Johnston, Brinnon, submitted and read her testimony. (See permanent record.) Brenda McMillan, Port Townsend, submitted and read her testimony. (See permanent record.) Jim Hagan, Cape George, submitted and summarized his testimony. (See permanent record.) The Legislature amended the Growth Management Act to provide provision for Master Planned Resorts for economically depressed areas like Brinnon that experienced a loss of traditional natural resource industries. The MPR has been in the County's community planning processes for many years and is the result of careful planning. The proponent has presented a well thought out, modern, innovative proposal. He commended DCD and Long Range Planning staff for their work in identifying any adverse impacts. An MPR's location in a setting of significant natural amenities means that urban style growth can potentially impact environmental areas. Statesman has addressed all of those concerns. This is a non - project action. When it reaches the project action phase Statesman will need to get 18 County permits, 9 State permits, 1 Federal Section 404 and 10 Federal permits for work in the waters of the U.S. This resort cannot be built without compliance with regulating agencies. This is a landuse application. The income that this will provide to the County is going to benefit all residents. Right now the General Fund cannot support basic services. There were a lot of drastic budget cuts in the 2008 budget. The burden of basic services is going to fall on the taxpayers, many of whom already have problems paying their property taxes. This project will give taxpayers some relief. Connie Gallant, Quilcene, submitted and read her testimony. (See permanent record.) Paul Lorenzen, Brinnon, stated that he has been building his house in Brinnon for 5 years and has lived there for a year. He attended all the workshops on the Statesman Group's proposed facility. He has been very Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 45 �� 4 "t o rNl impressed with the presentations. They have researched what needs to be done and have detailed plans of how that can be accomplished and how they can deal with problems that arise. He is a semi - retired orthopedic surgeon. Brinnon offers very little medical care and there aren't a lot of emergency facilities. The Statesman Group has agreed to provide about 500 square feet of space for a facility. They are also supportive of trying to arrange a compensation package or providing living space for a paramedic or nurse practitioner. This would be a great contribution to the community. George Sickel, Brinnon, stated that he has been to all the presentations by Statesman and he took part in the Brinnon Subarea Plan meetings that began in 2000. The Subarea Plan was developed in a public process where Brinnon residents decided what was best for the future of their community. A Master Planned Resort was suggested in the process and it became part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Now they have an opportunity for a builder to come in and make the MPR happen. He thinks it would be one of the best things for the Brinnon community. The improvements to the marina haven't been discussed tonight. There is currently a lot of runoff going into the marina, the docks are falling apart, the gas dock sunk last year, the earth is sloughing away, the pylons are moving, and there are derelict boats across from the marina. Who is going to clean up this up if the Statesman project is not approved? He encouraged the Board to contact the government agencies in other jurisdictions where Statesman has built and ask them what they think. Sandy Mackie, clarified that Statesman will work with Pleasant Tides regarding water issues only if Pleasant Tides agrees. Hearing no further comments for or against the amendment the Chair recessed the public hearing on December 3, 2007 and noted that the hearing will be continued to Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 5 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom. Public comment will be accepted until noon on Friday, December 7, 2007. CONTINUATION OF HEARING re: 2007 Comp Plan Amendment Application Master Planned Resort at Black Point, Brinnon: Approximately forty -five citizens were present in the, Superior Courtroom when Chairman Johnson opened the continuation of the public hearing at 5 p.m. on Thursday, December 6, 2007. Karen Barrows presented a description of the proposed amendment and reviewed the recommendation and vote of the Planning Commission and the staff report. (See earlier in minutes.) The Chair opened the continued public testimony on MLA06 -87 Peter Bahls, Port Townsend, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.) Diane Coleman, Brinnon, read and submitted her testimony. (See permanent record.) Rita Butler, stated that she lives on Hoods Canal between Pleasant Harbor and the Dosewallips State Park. She is in favor of this proposal. She has been coming to Brinnon since she was a little girl. Her Dad and Sister lived on the water. Young people have to leave the community because there is no place for them to work. Some people are against the MPR because they don't want change. She thinks that the MPR would Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 A4 NaG� be good for the community. It will increase revenue and provide employment for young people. It will help the Brinnon School and the Fire Department. She can't see any reason why the Board shouldn't approve the amendment. Gene Thompson, Black Point Road in Brinnon, stated that he is very much in favor of the project. He has a construction background. He has seen pollution in Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish cleaned up. The Statesman proposal will clean up and protect the Brinnon area of Hood Canal. Nancy Thompson, Brinnon, stated that she lives on Black Point Road approximately a mile from the entrance to the proposed resort. She is in favor of the proposal because it would revitalize the area. There was a time when there were more businesses and activities for youths and teens in Brinnon. She is the Superintendent of the Brinnon School District where enrollment continues to decline. Parents of families who move into the area have to commute to work which means leaving for work at 6 a.m. and returning at 6 or 7 p.m. She thinks the project will bring in additional resources to the area that will benefit many people as long as Statesman does what they say they are going to do. If they can accomplish what is in their EIS, she endorses the project 100 %. Barbara Moore Lewis, Jupiter Loop in Brinnon, read and submitted her testimony. (See permanent record.) Joanie Hendricks, stated she has owned property on the Duckabush Road for 19 years and lived in Jefferson County for 26 years. After reading the draft and final EIS, she still believes that this site is unsuitable for an MPR due to its size, traffic problems, and lack of guaranteed water rights. She thinks that some of residents want the project bad enough to malign their neighbors while others plan on leaving if it is approved. She is concerned that DCD staff has recommended that the MPR boundaries be expanded. She suggested that the Board might want to get an objective, unbiased recommendation from outside the County. Planning Commission members have said that details of the project need to be left to the experts. She suggested that the Board base their decision on comments from outside agencies, individuals and Tribes who responded to the draft EIS. Statesman paid their experts to write the document. A luxury resort at Pleasant Harbor would ruin the rural character that visitors have enjoyed for over 100 years. She asked the Board not to let the project go forward. She thinks that other solutions to solve the County's economic problems can be found. The EIS said that the resident elk herd will not cross Highway 101 in the vicinity of the project. She thinks that if a golf course is built, the elk will come. Eleanor Sather, stated that she has lived in Brinnon for 27 years where she has always seen managed growth which is helpful for the community and all people. She has concerns about the project. She has researched the State economic indicators from 2005 -2007 and all categories have declined over the past 2 years. Statewide single family home permits have declined 1.6% and multifamily building permits have declined 16.9 %. Jefferson County's growth predictors have not been reached and she thinks that the County might allow a large development to go in at Black Point because it would increase revenues. She has read that the 2008 County budget has a deficit of $750,000 and she asked if the County is for sale? The MPR is a large urban development which, according to one Planning Commission member and the EIS, will not be seen from Highway 101: The proponents attempt to justify the development by saying that it will have more Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 economic benefits than environmental impacts. They say that the development will not change the rural character of Brinnon. They have fragmented the Brinnon community into various groups and that loss of sense of community is regrettable. It is difficult to determine what was revised from the draft EIS to the final EIS and she thinks a line -in, line -out format would have been better. One statement that has not been changed is that the Brinnon's rainfall is the same as Quilcene. They also indicate that Pleasant Tides has guaranteed water to the MPR and a letter from Pleasant Tides is on file and notes that is not the case. Barbara Brace, Brinnon, stated that she lives a mile from the proposed development. She has been in favor of the MPR from the beginning. She was concerned at one meeting when they said that Black Point would have to be divided for access and egress. She thinks that it is important for the community that the MPR be approved. She believes there will be enough water for Pleasant Tides, the 15 houses on Black Point, and the MPR. Carl Sheats, Brinnon, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.) KathBarth, Duckabush Road in Brinnon, stated that she lives in a very beautiful rural area. The elk come into her yard over a 10 foot fence to get into the garden. It is true that if you build a golf course, the elk will come. A neighbor has a horse ranch and he cleared trees and planted grass and he is out shooting at the elk all the time. The elk love grass. It is only a mile away from the proposed MPR and she is concerned about traffic and pollution issues and the increased population. The size of the project is outlandish. She worked at Port Ludlow 30 years ago when it was one building. She also worked at Discovery Bay which has only 56 units and she thinks those condominium units are an eyesore. During peak season, their septic system overflowed constantly and flowed into the bay. She thinks development is inevitable, but the magnitude is way out of line. Gloria Allingham, Brinnon, stated that she has lived in Brinnon for over 11 years. She is on the School Board and the Community Center Advisory Committee. She thinks that the Statesman project brings many positive benefits to Brinnon and Jefferson County. The amount of taxes will help the County with much needed finances for services and improving infrastructure. She was at a meeting with Garth Mann of the Statesman Group who offered to partner with the school and the community center to bring in new facilities. The project will provide jobs for young people as well as substantial paying full time jobs to County residents. If it meant sacrificing the environment for financial gain, the project would not be a fit for Brinnon. Statesman has done a fantastic job designing a "green resort." They are protecting Hood Canal and the area and plan to clean up the polluted marina. This is costly job which responsible authorities cannot afford to do. As a concerned School Board member, she decided to investigate Statesman. She called the Planning Department in Phoenix where Statesman has built a resort. The Planner in charge had high regard for the company and said they build fine communities. She also called the Planning Department in Issaquah where Statesman also has a development. Issaquah has very demanding standards and the Lead Planner said that the project more than met the requirements and is the first green built project in the city. Statesman is in the process of building six projects in the United States and five in Canada. They have won over 50 awards for design and quality in green communities. Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 Bob Allingham, Brinnon, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.) Jim Watson, Brinnon, stated that he is a third generation educator and a member of the Brinnon School Board speaking as a private individual. It is important that Brinnon retain the school. He doesn't want Brinnon to be a wide place in the road like Lilliwap or Eldon. Brinnon is a community of older people that need the energy, enthusiasm, and excitement of youth and older people can pass on what they've learned to the next generation. He thinks that there will be a culture clash if the MPR is approved. Brinnon has a non- cash economy where things move slowly and friendships are valued. The resort will be another world. He has confidence in Garth Mann and thinks he is a man of his word. It is important to keep the school and the doors will have to close if there aren't more kids. If the resort goes in, there will be 45 more students. They need 80 -100 students to have a viable elementary school. They have 45 students right now. They need a new school. They can't upgrade the current facility to meet needed electrical work because then they have to meet all the County codes and they can't afford it. They can't prepare for an emergency if a shooter came into the school. There are too many entry ways and exits and no emergency services. The Sheriff is at least 30 minutes away. A new school would cost $4 million but because of the low enrollment, the State will only give them $350,000. Many Brinnon residents have limited resources and can't afford an additional school bond. Some real headway could be made and there would be some permanence if they partnered with the Statesman Group. Bud Schindler, Black Point in Brinnon, stated that he is speaking as a private citizen and not as a Planning Commissioner. He summarized and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.) He also stated that he was involved in the creation of the Brinnon Subarea Plan. Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina in Brinnon, stated that he has owned and operated a recreational dive business at the marina for the past 6 years. He relies on the tourists that visit in order for his business to succeed. The marina is in dire need of improvements and the MPR would mean a lot of dramatic changes. Many of the docks aren't stable and the fuel dock and the fuel lines between the storage tank and pumps need replacement. The septic system is in severe need of improvement and the pump out facility for residents and visiting boaters is unreliable. The hillside is unsupported where it has been excavated for buildings and parking. They need reliable backup systems for power outages during storms. The septic systems aren't functional without power. There is inadequate drainage and the storms can cause flooding in the marina store. The current owners have done the best they can but it is time for a change. When tourists arrive on a boat they have probably traveled far and there is really not a lot to do. The maritime village would be an attraction to entice boaters from other areas. Many locals could create small businesses to provide additional attractions and activities for tourists. The improvements proposed by the Statesman Group would take care of the docks, upgrade the fuel dock and fuel storage yard to minimize the potential for fuel spills and improve the pump out stations. They plan to improve the septic system so that it won't be releasing nitrates which would be a big benefit to the environment. The proposed medical clinic at the marina village would also be a welcome benefit. He thinks the MPR is good for the environment and the community. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 4y.Pp1 NGF Wayne Schlaefli, Brinnon, stated that he purchased in the community in 1988 and moved there fulltime in 1993. He thinks that the technical issues can be worked out between Statesman and the Jefferson County team. The definition of rural character is not the same for everyone. Rural character in Brinnon means that there is no sheriff in town, a person has to drive 30 miles to buy groceries, there is no medical help unless a person wants to be airlifted to Seattle and there are no jobs unless a person wants to commute to Port Townsend or south. The Board has already heard about the marginal school facility with a very bleak future. There is a gas station that is consistently $.20 higher per gallon than any other placer and no place to go unless you want to travel 30 miles in either direction. There have been a lot of comments and letters about wanting to maintain the rural character and the status quo. There is no such thing as status quo and a person is either going forward or going backward. For the last 20 years he thinks Brinnon has gone south. It is time to move forward with a good firm and a good team analyzing what they propose and how they will meet the standards. It is time to do something positive for Brinnon and for Jefferson County and approve the project. John Adams, stated that he is the farm manager for the Dosewallips Clam Farm owned by Taylor Shellfish located on one mile of tidelands fronting the town of Brinnon. He is a resident expert on the intertidal zone there. If the Statesman Group's project is approved, they should be required to post an environmental bond to help mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Taylor Shellfish has some concerns regarding the proposed project as it exists. There is a few thousand feet of frontage on the Duckabush River delta and some significant water frontage in Pleasant Harbor. The Duckabush delta is a primary rearing ground for salmonids, particularly the Duckabush Steelhead Salmon species which are fairly critical right now and closed to fishing. The eelgrass in the area is critical to the salmon species and the prey species which support the salmon. It is also a rearing ground for juvenile: shrimp, juvenile Dungeness crab and clams and oysters. These are impacted through upland runoff. The EIS doesn't cover any potential impacts regarding this frontage, however it does a pretty good job of addressing impacts in Pleasant Harbor. It doesn't address the impacts to the estuary or to Hood Canal. Hood Canal is a sensitive area right now because of the anaerobic zone in the southern portion and the low flushing rate. More diligent staff work should be done by the authors of the EIS because it didn't address anything about the estuary or Hood Canal water quality. He noted that the Duckabush and Dosewallips are currently closed to shellfish harvesting for the next week due to septic contamination flowing into the area from runoff from this week's storm. John Dowd, Brinnon, stated that the community agreed that Black Point and Pleasant Harbor are best suited as an MPR in the Brinnon Subarea Plan. The minority of the people who don't want the resort are going against what the community agreed to in the Subarea Planning Group. He thinks that it would be good for the Statesman Group to come in and clean up the environmental mess that is currently there. There will be a better environment and the resort will be a boon to the local economy and Jefferson County. The MPR is also conducive with tourist -based economy which is what Brinnon wants. Delila Dowd, Brinnon, read and submitted her testimony. (See permanent record.) Norm McLeod, Port Townsend, stated that because he doesn't live south of Mount Walker he is not going to take a particular position. He encouraged the Board to do as much research on Statesman and their developments as possible prior to making a decision. This could take additional time. Any project has Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 4- e �NI°t0 pluses, minuses and unknowns. He suggested that the County put together a peer review process where the Board would sit down before the public and make conference calls to the County Commissioners or City Council Members in other areas where Statesman has already completed projects. They would be able to learn if Statesman is a good neighbor and community participant. The County needs to find out how Statesman dealt with issues that arose while the project was progressing and how they resolved them. How did they behave in other places? How were they perceived after they completed their projects? He suggested that the Board find this out in front of the public before the MPR is approved. Lynn Sterling, Quilcene, stated that she represents the Zelatched Point Property Owners Association in Coyle. They have 350 acres on Orca Cove directly across from Brinnon. They are oyster growers and are concerned about their oyster beds. She thinks there will be maintenance problems with the Black Point project because the proposal is based on income from occupancy. She owned a Bed & Breakfast in Port Townsend for 8 years and knows that occupancy only occurs 5 months out of the year. The cost estimates for the Statesman project would require that the resort have 100% occupancy all year. Port Townsend is a destination tourist attraction but the majority of the tourists visit during the 5 months of tourist season. She doesn't think "build it and they will come" will work in this case. John Christensen, Pleasant Harbor, stated that he recently moved to Brinnon and lives in the marina. He has looked at the brochure and he hopes a little more thought will go into the planning of the marina than went into the brochure. It doesn't seem like they have given a lot of thought to actually operating a marina and he hopes that is written into their plans. They are going to be trying to make a living with an operation that will have very low occupancy in the winter. He hopes that residents won't have increased taxes for police and fire protection in the summer when the tourists are there. Felicity Christensen, Pleasant Harbor Marina, stated that she has seen many threats to live aboard communities in Shilshole, Seattle and LaConnor. She endorses a project that will benefit the marina. She wants to see the environment protected. However, people who live on their yachts in the marina should be allowed to stay there and live in peace. Steve Peterson, Black Point Road in Brinnon, stated he is a neighbor of the potential development. The Board has received a great deal of written and oral testimony on the MPR. He asked them to listen carefully to the concerns regarding the magnitude of the development within a small community. As a potential neighbor of the development, his biggest concern is the impact that it will have on the aquifer and the water supply. He can't deal with saltwater intrusion. He would like to see some sort of guarantee, bond, or consequential issue if people who are relying on the same water supply as the development are impacted negatively. Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 4 ?nHNtit�' Byron Beeman, Canal Tracts in Brinnon, stated that he has lived there for seven years and is very much in favor of the MPR. There is no doctor service anywhere near, just a clinic with limited service in Quilcene. People have to go 30 miles to buy groceries or go to the dentist. He attended early meetings on the MPR where the Statesman Group discussed how they would deal with 90% of the negative issues that have been brought up. They are going to recycle their water. The resort will be an almost self - contained city in itself and Brinnon will benefit from the additional services and infrastructure. Rob Mitchell, Duckabush Road in Brinnon, stated that he doesn't think the Statesman proposal should be approved after reading the comments made by experts in their field. The FEIS probably wouldn't survive peer review which should be done. Sue Bond, Jupiter Loop Road in Brinnon, stated that she has been opposed to the MPR since she heard about it. She thinks that one way or another it will happen. She is trying to reach out to everyone in Brinnon and say, "let's try to bridge the gap." Maybe there are good points about it. She doesn't think that 5,500 cars a day going by her intersection as she is trying to get out on Highway 101 is one of them, but she will live with that. If this is going to be part of our community, we have a common interest. It needs to be monitored to make sure Statesman does what they say they are going to do to protect the environment. The project seems to be getting larger. How much can go on the 250 acres and have it still be viable? She would like to see the community come back together and try to do something to support the common good. Maybe it will bring jobs and other good things to the area, but it is also going to bring a lot of congestion and a lot of problems if it is approved as proposed. She has some real issues with the development on the west side of Highway 101 which will create more of a traffic nightmare and impact her quality of living. Everyone needs to work together to see if this can be a manageable size and still bring some good things to the community without overwhelming the residents. Hans Daubenberger, Habitat Biologist for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, stated that several biologists at the Tribe have reviewed the EIS. They don't think that it properly addresses the impact to the shellfish resource, the transportation impacts, and the fish and wildlife impacts. The wildlife biologist for the Point No Point Treaty Council has written a letter addressing the elk issue. He will also submit a letter before the comment deadline regarding the shellfish issue. Barbara Gauer' Duckabush River Road in Brinnon, stated that she is against the MPR and the affect that it will have on the community. They have owned their property since 1993 and have lived there since 1996. They appreciate the rural quality of life including the migrating elk herds. There are problems now in Sequim with overpopulation and big development. When that comes in, the rural quality is lost. When people move to Brinnon they know that it is a small, rural area with no high paying jobs. When she was working, she had to commute an hour each way, but was willing to do that for the quality of life. There are very few areas left like Jefferson County that are no longer malls and strip malls. She thinks three story condominiums and concrete walks will ruin the shellfish. There is a narrow restricted intake in the harbor and it doesn't flush good. They have had their boat there since the early 1980's. More people in this small area will impact the harbor and Hood Canal. All the money that they say will come into the community is not a sure thing. She's sure there will be litigation. When the hillsides are disturbed by heavy rains, there is Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 49 Ol '.CHIV4t increased runoff into the Canal. Engineering may look good on paper but it doesn't necessarily work. She thinks that the environment and the way of life in Brinnon is too important to sacrifice. If the school is such a big problem, close it and have the kids go to another school. Don't pander our resources for special interest groups. Kelly Berring_er, stated that he works in Brinnon, and his biggest concern is the shellfish. Since he has lived there he has seen the shrimp season go from three weeks a year to four days that are spread out for only four hours a day. He has seen the crab season shortened. The Dosewallips Beach is open later each year. With more people, there will be more contaminants and the seasons will get shorter and shorter. Michael Draper, stated that he lives right above the State dock on the highway. His biggest concern is the traffic. His Dad died on the highway because of the traffic a few months ago. He has met tourists from all over the world at the marina. He used to work for the Dosewallips State Park and tourists from around the country stay there. There are spotted owls, salmon in the river and people love the elk. If they put a golf course in, the elk will come. They cross the highway all the time. They are always in the State Park. They get hit by cars because there are too many people and there is too much traffic. It is a big project for such a small area. He doesn't think that Brinnon can handle it. Lisa Rudik, stated that she lives in the Lower Lazy C in Brinnon and she is 20 years old. She and her Mom moved back to the area from Seattle when she was 13 and she has lived in Brinnon since then. She has worked at the marina for three years. There are very few work opportunities for young people in the town. She enjoys the quiet of the area. It is important to bring jobs to the community because there are so many people that are unemployed. It is difficult to commute 80 miles a day to go to work. Consider the positive things that this would bring to people her age. Recently her Mom moved back to Seattle because she couldn't find employment in town. An important part of keeping a community alive is attracting young people. If the school has to close, it will reduce the number of young people with families coming to live in the community. When there are no young people, at some point there will be nothing left. Don Heron, Pleasant Tides at" Black Point in Brinnon, stated that this property has been for sale for several years and other developers have tried to put projects together on the site. If there are enough people who don't want development there, they can form a corporation and buy the property and let it stay the way it is. He approves of the project. Sandy Mackie, representing the Statesman Group, urged the support of the Board for the MPR. They accept the seven conditions in the Planning Commission's majority report. The State of Washington is into using a phased approach for development and the Comprehensive Plan is a vision of the future. When the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, there was discussion about a Master Planned Resort in Brinnon. In 2002, after a great deal of public input, the Brinnon Subarea Plan was approved which said that the Black Point area would be an appropriate area for the MPR. It is an area of significant natural resources and significant development. Not only is the marina located there, but the density on Black Point is at or above 4 units per acre. The original Statesman proposal was almost twice its current size and after discussions with the community and the County it was downsized to just under 4 units per acre. In growth management Page 19 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 A °'cNiotO� 4 units per acre is the minimum necessary to support a Class A recycled onsite sewer system. The Statesman Group is prepared to do this. He was concerned about the statement made by the Taylor Shellfish representative because they have been very conscientious about the shellfish and the water quality. There was a great deal of time and attention spent on protecting Hood Canal, water quality, and the fish. Instead of 25 houses overlooking the Duckabush there will be a 200 foot natural strip of trees and any clearings in that strip will be replanted. The stormwater management plan not only has to meet the "100 year storm plan" standard, but also must deal with "maximum probable events" so that there is no potential for discharge onto the Duckabush flats. In the EIS, everyone agreed that it is essential to protect that area. Currently, there is a significant lack of stormwater control with water from roads and parking areas flowing into Pleasant Harbor. There is also a septic tank that needs to be replaced. All of this will be replaced by sewer and modern storm drain systems. The stormwater plan will be at the design level and will show how all this will be achieved. The FEIS specifically requires that the stormwater plan is in place before any plats, substantial development, or binding site plan permits are granted. They have the same issue with public services and public facilities. There is a specific requirement for a memorandum of understanding with each of the public service providers to make sure what public facilities are necessary, how they will be paid for, and what Statesman will contribute to make sure that they not only paid for, but paid for concurrently. This eliminates a strain on public services. The Comprehensive Plan shows this urban activity at Black Point. Statesman wants to provide the best plan possible while preserving the views by maintaining buffers. The brochure shows a promenade all the way to the water, but on the plan there is actually a shoreline buffer which is required in the current regulations. Except for those areas that service the marina, the trees are being retained. There is a landslide problem next to Highway 101 that will actually be solved in the plan. Approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment requires about 20 -30% engineering. Before it goes forward, there are requirements for a golf course management plan and a marina management plan. This is a phased project that will insure that the conditions of the MPR are met. Hearing no more comments for or against the MPR, the Chair closed the public hearing. Written comments will be accepted until noon on Friday, December 7, 2007. Chairman Johnson stated that the Board has several questions of staff. Al Scalf said that staff will have the answers on December 10 when the Board begins deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Board reviewed their questions. • Is a "maximum probable event" similar to the storm this week addressed in the FEIS? • The rationale for including the Tudor and Jupiter properties in the MPR boundary and potential uses for those properties. • More information about on -going maintenance of the marina and the golf course, especially dealing with stormwater. • What if the proposal were permitted and the Statesman Group cannot complete the projector sells it? • What are the costs to the County for building inspection, legal, and enforcement monitoring activities? • If the FEIS isn't adequate, can the Board delay this without prejudice? How would the County go about doing this? • What are the Audubon International standards for golf courses? Page 20 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 3, 2007 9 • The FEIS is contradictory about the expanded use of the marina. • A culvert is supposed to be removed at the marina and there isn't much about it in the FEIS. • What are the impacts on the Mason County PUD? • What about the elk crossing Highway 101? • What about increased pressure on shellfish? • The FEIS states that the level of service away from the resort will not be significantly impacted. • What about parking for trails up the Dosewallips River Road and other roads? • What are the local components on the calculations for sales tax revenue? • If the service providers such as the fire department and the school can't come to an agreement on the Memorandum of Understanding, does that stop the project? Who is the arbitrator? • What about visual buffers for all the neighbors, not just those on Black Point Road? • More information about the proposed agreement with Pleasant Tides. • How does the golf course tie into the finances of the whole project? • What happens if the resort is sold after the project is done? • More information about urban developments in a rural settings. Staff recommended that the Board use the matrix of Growth Management indicators developed by the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney when they consider their vote on all the amendments. Al Scalf explained that when the Board deliberates and makes their decisions, they are required to enter findings about critical areas and infrastructure. The Chair stated that deliberations on the amendments are scheduled for December 10, 2007 at 5 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. M,EE �D � • a .. Kh � ^If � � 'i :9 • � M1.�,6.,jfsir �4 qq IT AT d , Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Johffson Chair 1 fF David . Su iv em Ar Jo ustm, Member Page 21 COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE Introduction: The public hearing is now open regarding the proposed 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment application for the Master Planned Resort at Black Point, Brinnon. This is a fact finding forum from which a decision must result. Both oral and written testimony is allowed. The Deputy Clerk of the Board will be recording what is said, therefore when you speak, begin by stating your name and address. Each person will be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes. When the green light is on it means proceed to speak; the yellow light will go on when the speaker has 30 seconds remaining; the red light illuminated means stop. Unruly behavior cannot be an element of the hearing. This is a legal process in which facts and opinions are presented to decision makers. Common courtesy is expected from all participants. All written and oral testimony generated since the submittal of the application and through the Planning Commission's public process are incorporated into the public record. Staff will give their report first. The applicant will have 5 minutes to make a presentation and then we will take public testimony. These are legislative proceedings. The decision will affect a specific party and we will consider all evidence for or against a proposal. Procedural due process is followed in order to ensure a fair hearing. The concern is that this hearing be fair in form and substance, as well as appearance. 1 We will start with the staff report. Chair: Turn to the Project Planner STAFF REPORT: (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 06 -87. Back to the Chair The applicant will have S minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 06 -87. Back to the Chair The public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan amendment is now closed. We will accept written testimony in our office until Friday, December 7, 2007 at noon. Deliberations and decisions regarding all the 2007 Comp Plan Amendment applications are scheduled for Monday, December 10, 2007 at S p.m. in the Superior Courtroom. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT K JEFFERSON COUNTY FACILITY USE REQUEST BY COUNTY STAFF FOR AFTER HOURS USE OF THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HOST IDENTIFICATION Name of Department: County Commissioners Name of Department Head: Phil Johnson Coordination Contact: Julie Matthes Telephone: Ex. 122 SCHEDULE Date of After Hours Use: December 6, 2007 Expected Starting Time: 5:00 p.m. Expected Ending Time: 8:00 a.m. LOCATION Specify room or areas to be used: Superior Court Room Identify the department that normally controls the requested space: Superior Court Note: scheduling of conference rooms is performed by the County Administrator's Office when use is during regular work hours; scheduling of conference rooms is performed by the Central Services when use is after or before regular work hours; use of another department's space requires approval by that department head (Central Services will send the confirmation to the requestor with a copy to the department whose space will be used). SERVICES NEEDED Securit : Yes Expected # of Participants: 50 Extra Cleaning. The "host" is expected to perform housekeeping of the area used. Describe additional need: Room Set- up/Take -down The "host" is expected to rearrange tables /chairs for set -up and to replace tables /chairs in the original configuration when done. Describe additional needs: Regular Agenda 5:00 pm JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners John Fischbach, County Administrator V. FROM: Al Scalf, Director, Department of Community Development (DCD' Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, DCD Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner, Long -Range Planning, DCD DATE: 3 December 2007 SUBJECT: Final staff recommendation and Planning Commission recommendations for MLA06 -87 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On November 26, 2007, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) held a public hearing on nine (9) of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications on the Final Docket. The tenth and final amendment application on the 2007 Final Docket is MLA06 -87 (carried over from 2006), which, if approved, will establish a Master Planned Resort (MPR) in the Black Point area of Brinnon in south Jefferson County. The BoCC is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this application on December 3, 2007. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on October 3, following the publication of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on September 5, and an associated public comment period that ended October 24. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposal on October 31 and November 14, and completed findings to support its recommendations on November 28. A. The following documents are attached: 1. Planning Commission Recommendations on MLA06 -87 2. Planning Commission Minority Report on MLA06 -87 The SEPA - Responsible Official at the Department of Community Development (DCD) issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) associated with this proposal on November 27, 2007. B. The following documents are incorporated by reference: 1. Original application 2. DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum (September 5). 3. SEPA FEIS Addendum issued November 27, 2007. The documents listed under B. above have been previously distributed to the BoCC as Planning Commission correspondence. Furthermore, these documents and additional information related to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle are available on this County webpage: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdeveloi)ment/2007cvcle.htm Planning Commission meeting minutes can be accessed from this County web portal: http: / /www.co.iefferson.wa.us/ Meeting &minutes /Meeting_s &Minutes.htm Regular Agenda 5:00 pm DCD staff will present the Planning Commission recommendations and department recommendation on MIA06 -87 at the scheduled public hearing on Monday, December 3. ANALYSIS /STRATEGIC GOALS /PROS and CONS: The BoCC is expected to take legislative action on all ten (10) proposals which comprise the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, including MLA06 -87, no later than Monday, December 10, the second regular BoCC meeting in December, per Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (2)(d). FISCAL IMPACT /COST - BENEFIT ANALYSIS: Staffmg resources have already been committed from the general fund in support of Long -Range Planning. Applicants have paid fees for this review process. Additional cost recovery for environmental review has been billed for the EIS on the proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR). DISCUSSION: First, staff recommended that the BoCC hold two (2) public hearings on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, as numerous proposals make up the whole of the Docket and the breadth, complexity, and gravity of the issues warrant careful consideration and full and "early and continuous"' public participation. One of these public hearings has already been held (November 26), and the other has been scheduled and noticed (December 3). Second, please find in this section the final DCD staff recommendation for the 2007 Final Docket application MLA06 -87. DCD presented analysis of individual proposals and of potential cumulative impacts of the whole of the 2007 Docket, together with preliminary recommendations for each proposal, in the staff report dated September 5. In general, analysis presented in the September 5 document and subsequent memoranda to the Planning Commission are referenced rather than repeated here. Additional comments are provided where appropriate to augment or highlight staff findings. Following is a brief description of MLA06 -87 followed by recommendations of the Planning Commission and DCD staff. SEPA REVIEW: Cumulative environmental review of nine (9) amendments was examined through an environmental analysis called an Integrated GMA/SEPA Staff Report issued on September 5. Additionally, a non - project EIS was performed on the proposed Brinnon MPR, and issued with existing environmental documents, as referenced earlier. This document and the FEIS fulfill the requirements for environmental review under WAC 197 -11 in consideration of cumulative impacts for the county -wide amendment cycle. An FEIS addendum on the cumulative impacts was issued on November 27, 2007. RECOMMENDATION: MLA06 -87; Statesman Group of Companies of Calgary requested approximately 251 acres contained within 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor/Black Point area of Brinnon, east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road; ' RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive plans— Ensure public participation. Regular Agenda 5:00 pm currently zoned RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20, be rezoned to a Master Planned Resort under the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.360). Planning Commission recommendation: Approve the Statesman proposal (see page 1 -4 of FEIS) with conditions. Vote 7 -2 -0 (7 in favor, 0 oppose, 0 abstain). Staff recommendation: Approve the application with modification. Staff Explanation: Approve the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan (BSAP) alternative on page 4 -12 of the FEIS, with the following modifications: • Reference pages 44 through 47 of the BSAP dated December 2002. • The single - family residential zone be deleted, and this area be dedicated open space. • The Statesman proposal be incorporated into the BSAP alternative (see page 1 -4 of the FEIS). REVIEWED BY: IZ:IID �k I John Fischbach, County Administrator Date �50r' �. 4��G2 O '� 'Sy�° JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend. WA 98368 (360) 379 -4450 Planning Commission Minority Report 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application: MLA06 -87 We, as a minority of the Planning Commission, believe that Statesman's plan as detailed in MLA06 -87 DEIS is inadequate. Still, we agree that Statesman's plans for the Master Planned Resort (MPR) be allowed, but only with the seven (7) conditions approved by the majority and, in addition, the three (3) conditions listed below: • That in keeping with an MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.15.135 (1), (2), (6), the greenbelts at the shoreline be retained and maintained as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views." • That in keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135 (6), the buildings be built and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with parklike greenbelts between the buildings. • In fostering the economy of South County by promoting tourism, that the housing units at the Marina Village be limited to rentals and time share; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the 65% to 35% ratio of rental & time - shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123 (2). Thus, we, the minority, recommend the following: That the Statesman's plan for the Master Plan Resort (MLA06 -87) be approved only if a total of ten (10) conditions be placed on approval, i.e., the seven (7) Planning Commission majori ty conditions found in the majority report, and the three (3) Planning Commission minority conditions specified above. As a minority of the vote taken on November 14, 2007, on MLA06 -87 (Brinnon Master Plan Resort) we, JD Gallant and Ashley Bullitt, hereby submit this Minority Report to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. Gallant, Planning Commissioner Date (Signing for and with the approval of Ashley Bullitt.) SON �, �t0 O�� �9SH�° JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379 -4450 Planning Commission Recommendations: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application: MLA06 -87 MLA06 -87; Statesman Group Master Planned Resort at Black Point in Brinnon. The Board of County Commissioners placed the Brinnon Area MPR site - specific Comprehensive Plan amendment on the 2007 Final Docket. This proposed MPR rezone of 256 acres on Black Point in Brinnon would create 890 units of permanent and transient housing, an 18 hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina and at the golf course. The Planning Commission appointed four members and one alternate to a committee to review the proposal, address issues and concerns and make a recommendation to the full Planning Commission. That committee voted to approve the proposal (3 -1) with conditions. The Planning Commission held one public hearing in Brinnon specifically on this proposal Approximately 30 people testified both in support and against the proposal. Additionally more that 300 written responses were received. Responses in favor of the proposal cited economic development, environmental stewardship of the proponent and quality of life as reasons for supporting the proposal. Responses against the proposal cited inaccurate rainfall data used in developing the water supply and water treatment plans, concerns about water supply, concerns about adjacent shellfish beds to the south of the proposed development, concerns about tribal cultural and historical resources, concerns about the potential for saltwater intrusion into the aquifer, concerns about effects on the rural nature of the community, concerns about induced traffic, concerns about the infrastructure needed to support the project and concerns about effects on the shoreline and water quality of Hood Canal. After extensive review of the criteria needed to make the decision and whether or not the proposal was consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission found that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and voted (7 -2) to recommend approval of the proposal with the following conditions: 1) ensuring that the EIS is based on science and data pertinent to the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoff projections and potential impacts on Hood Canal. 2) negotiating with the developer to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire district, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). 3) requiring the developer to prioritize the sourcing of labor and construction materials from within Jefferson County. 4) examining the possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage. 5) consulting with tribes regarding cultural resources. 6) ensuring that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. 7) Further, more detailed review is needed at the project level SEPA analysis to ensure that water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. If the plan proves to be inadequate at the project level, the county commissioners should consider altering the size as a way to mitigate water quality and water quantity impacts. Peter Downey, Chairman Jefferson County Planning Commission Date z8 -0,z �pp F-� V�60 i Cs . COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE Introduction: The public hearing is now open regarding the proposed 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment application for the Master Planned Resort at Black Point, Brinnon. This is a fact finding forum from which a decision must result. Both oral and written testimony is allowed. The Deputy Clerk of the Board will be recording what is said, therefore when you speak, begin by stating your name and address. Each person will be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes. When the green light is on it means proceed to speak; the yellow light will go on when the speaker has 30 seconds remaining; the red light illuminated means stop. Unruly behavior cannot be an element of the hearing. This is a legal process in which facts and opinions are presented to decision makers. Common courtesy is expected from all participants. All written and oral testimony generated since the submittal of the application and through the Planning Commission's public process are incorporated into the public record. Staff will give their report first. The applicant will have 5 minutes to make a presentation and then we will take public testimony. These are legislative proceedings. The decision will affect a specific party and we will consider all evidence for or against a proposal. Procedural due process is followed in order to ensure a fair hearing. The concern is that this hearing be fair in form and substance, as well as appearance. I We will start with the staff report. Chair: Turn to the Project Planner STAFFREPORT. (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 06 -87. Back to the Chair The applicant will have S minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 06 -87. Back to the Chair A, �, The public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan aure�dnt-m- is W~-elosed- C-O x i ue.i T-p -rJ-k U2S OAr/ N l Cam-' -pecMgek_ (0 1 A S pM N aTl�7'T/'7T !�L' ATTnTTT �TA.�TiA7T_ J 5 Uprc �oR. cO oaX (2 00A , QU (bLLc� U&kM.pNx v3k L,L g�-:- Tkpi ',-/(Do 702. A-cvaNr, fV& -T6 I\J I 2 d JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Monday, December 3, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 11 El ES I 5A InnviA ar,"221 ❑ ❑ '1 Y' i loci I ❑ ❑ W 7 � ;'�,U. csz.GU�!. U`�wLa� T J -v.��— ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑k 00 EJ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 11 ❑ 11 11 ❑ ❑1111 ❑❑❑ ❑11 11 ❑❑❑ xu JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Monday, December 3, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE D 11 11 -73-767 6 / ✓✓ LAG, „� L�� fvatlil l eL, L 2 w,,, KG, 4 (✓'bkll�,. 0 ❑ ❑ B ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ 13 ❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑ El El /W- O bt, : z' 1- .xv h/. , i,7, ❑ 1:1 El ❑ El El ❑ El El ❑ El El El El El n v JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE V(q-f a - 7 C4 ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Mir I /V C� �� �i(,l" L 1..CrDcn ne ��Ne�; � �✓ �3� JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE n P9 El D ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 rrM JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE -jok AJ �--c E] ❑ ❑ ❑ R ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 ) y rkt4dpt�,Vk- 1 MA, U JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 4 "4)v� STEJA�/V6 V�� 6�Avt El El 0 El F-1 9 ❑ ❑ El El El El D-❑ ❑ EKE] El X El El ❑ ❑ �1 ❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ 'Z)J�J-V�7 24^ e_Z-d -W�CL CIA L j o 4 l J g �1. 41 A V4 16 1 or✓ O ,�-' � �3 ► JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE r 3c,,? '7 1 3 L/,4 to i /v c r� 0 ❑ ❑ IT ❑ ❑ 13- ❑ ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑1111 0 11 0 00 ❑❑❑ 0110 ❑❑❑ 000 ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ 0 o 0110 ❑❑❑ nn z.- 3 A 3 , � 81 "O L ftcq k 10 In A# JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Black Point MPR DATE: Thursday, December 6, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 146 ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 'R' ❑ P-0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (�5u Elw d Iq e-r, -2oze 6acwj,�,, 51 3j j`►r��fe p, ` v� C<_ ml4,12,11114- r o Z4111 Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:04 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Black Point Resort 'x ------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Moore- Lewis[SMTP:MOORELEB @GMAIL.COM] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:00:17 AM To: Phil Johnson; John Austin; David Sullivan Subject: Black Point Resort Auto forwarded by a Rule I am very disturbed by the process that has occurred to get the Brinnon Master Planned Resort to you. I don't believe it passes "the smell test," "the front page test, "the could you look your grandmother in the eye and tell her this test," whatever you want to call it. I've worked for city, county, and state government for about 30 years. I know from my own experience that there are the technicalities and then there are these 3 "tests." And the tests are what counts with the public. There was at least one member of the Planning Commission sub group who has a clear conflict of interest. Increasing your income 5 fold is a clear conflict in any test. I work in medical research. We require disclosure of conflicts, which include speaking fees, shares in the corporation, options to buy shares, other income from the corporation and so on for not only the researcher, but for his or her family. If the researcher will make more than $10,000 year, we require disclosure. Sometimes, if the conflict is too great, we will not allow them to carry out some of the research duties. This same sort of scrutiny takes place at all levels of government, particularly if there are gifts such as junkets involved. We need written statements from all Planning Commission members, DCD staff, and you about any conflicts you may have. We need these to be public before these plans are approved. We need a process where the residents who will be affected have the same access as the corporation's lawyer. I don't want to be at another meeting where I am not allowed to speak, but the corporation's lawyer is allowed to. We need a process where I can find out about public meetings and they are close enough for me to reasonably attend. I drove 100 miles from where I work, south of Brinnon, to be at the last meeting. Notices of meetings have not been sent by computer or posted as promised by county staff. I urge you to slow down and take a careful look at the documents you have received and how those documents were "produced." I do not believe that they pass any of the "tests." To be blind to their defects harms me, harms my community, harms our trust of government, harms you. Thank you Barbara Moore Lewis, Member, Brinnon Group PO Box 303 Brinnon, WA 98320 D.c ;D Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:20 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Attachments: MPR 5.doc MPR 5.doc (24 KB) ------------------------------------------- From: Robert Mitchell[ SMTP :DUCKABUSHFARMQEMBARQMAIL.COMJ Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:05:48 PM To: John Austin Cc: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Auto forwarded by a Rule Please see attached. Thank you, Robert Mitchell Duckabush Rd. Brinnon 1 To: BOCC From: Robert Mitchell, Duckabush Rd, Brinnon, WA Date: November 20, 2007 Re: Black Point MPR The Black Point MPR depends on a Land Use Amendment. This decision is based in part, on: A.) A DEIS which, on the surface contains many details. However, many of it's conclusions are theoretical. B.) The Brinnon Sub Area Plan, conceived many years ago, and tailored to local needs which are now obsolete. I have read all of the public commentary in the file on the County web site. Please read the commentary in this list, in particular, the chapter on Sustainable Growth in Log # 190 from Tina Townsend. 20 Peter Bahls, Director and Senior Fish Biologist for NW Watershed Institute 28 Lynn Sterling, Zelatched Point Property Owners 150 Kirie Pedersen & Family 275 Donna Simmons, HCEC 260 Professional Environmental Planner (authorship unknown) 308 Richard & Debra Dinkelman, Forest Service Employee 323 Jodie Weed & Family 357 John Adams, Dosewallips Manager of Taylor Shellfish Farms 367 Deborah Seifert Of equal if not greater importance are the comments by professionals: 18 Jeff Davis, WDFW 35 Frank Merriwether, DOH 36 Matthew Tyler PW & Parks & Recreation 39 Denise Lehman, DOH 76 Greg Coates, Hatchery Manager of Coast Sea foods 178 Rick Miraz, DOE 276 WSPRC 281 DOE ( contains the contact persons specializing in each applicable field) 306 Alex Bradbury, WDFW 357 Taylor Fish Farms 381 Shorlines Specialist Of special note are the comments by Neil Harrington of the DOH #284. The decision to allow an MPR in Brinnon cannot be considered in a vacuum. This choice compounds all of the impacts from all of the different types of growth, along both sides of the Hood Canal and the entire Olympic Peninsula. This negative impact is greater than the projected revenue of this one MPR. The net worth of the Statesman Group is far greater than our County. The potential for short term profit in this development enables them to hire as many specialists as they need to swamp our beleaguered County Staff or, sue our County until they get to build whatever they want. I fear that relinquishing County control over this Land Use Amendment, while hoping that the DCD, State and Federal governing agencies will restrict the size of this MPR, will result in a development that will replace the "village of Brinnon" with a mini city that is virtually a UGA. It's obvious that tax revenue from growth in all sectors is not keeping up with the cost of County Infrastructure. The projected revenue from this MPR is but a drop in the bucket needed to put out the fire of future costs. The tax and low end employment revenue from this development will not come close to mitigating it's long term adverse impact on environment and rural culture. I hope with all my heart that the BOCC has the vision to see beyond a short term fix of our budget woes to protect our natural resources for future citizens. Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:00 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: brinnon development From: William and Roxianne Morris [SMTP:UPTHEDUCK @EMBARQMAIL.COM] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:57:18 PM To: Phil Johnson Subject: brinnon development Auto forwarded by a Rule Commissioner Johnson; Page 1 of 1 I have real concerns about the committee making the recommendation to go ahead with the planned development. They do not represent the interests of everyone in this small rural area. They represent a small portion of the community who have not lived here for the length of time that the ones opposing nor will they be here long after the proposed development has ruined this area. I have lived here for over 30 years. I plan to live here as long as I am able. The depth of this proposed development will change the character of this area forever. People who settle in Brinnon for a length of time choose to live for its rural nature. The conflict reminds me of when McDonald's came to Port Townsend and had to make changes to fit in. I strongly urge you to make those recommendations toward this project. The proposed development is full of false promises and does not fit environmentally with this area. It will not raise the money it says it will and could easily go bankrupt. Please reconsider the recommendation of the committee. It is a very biased opinion swayed to one side. Thank you for your time. William and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd. Brinnon, WA 98320 11/26/2007 6 e-i Page I of l Miranda Schryver From: Donn Martinson [donnvalm @msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Blackpoint I am a property owner on the tip of Oak Head. I'd like to know how the noise, and increase of night light, and boat traffic will impact the DNR tidelands on Oak Head and owners of property who enjoy the solitude, and lack of human activity? I can't support this until I know this. Thanks for your time. I have already looked awhile back at the general plan, and I do not want to wade through all this again. Can these specific questions be answered by you? THanks Mrs. Martinson 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 P e_ 3 Miranda Schryver From: Linda Mattos [Linda @hopti.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 11:35 AM To: Miranda Schryver Cc: 'Connie Gallant' Subject: MPR Dear County Commissioners: Please add these three conditions to any MPR approval: 1. In support of maintaining natural views: That Statesman will not destroy the current trees and foliage along the Marina Village shoreline. 2. In support of Jefferson County's tourism economy: That any condos or townhouses at the Marina Village will not include full -time residences. 3. In keeping with rural character: That Statesman reduce its current building plans at the Marina Village by at least 25 %. Thank you, Linda Mattos 141 Nelsons Landing Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County 11/26/2007 I� C-ID .� 1 r -� :D� Page 1 of 1 �- c . Miranda Schryver From: Stacy Conner [stacylconner @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 8:48 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: support My family and 1 want to let you know that we are very much in support of the Black Point Project in Brinnon! We are counting on you to vote YES on this project. Brinnon desperately need some economic growth and opportunity for its residents. Thank -You, Stacy Daily Duckabush Resident 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: R Swarts [ravensrest @olypen.com] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:30 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black point resort One more time: I totally oppose the construction of the Black Point Resort. Bob Swarts 11/26/2007 -C, t,-b, ) I - P-C, 3 Co - Co�l =I# NO w��c� is c� �c��,� -� a,cec� �s -U:�u� ocw L �-� � C) OA s P-aw �© Ike, V-V- *t d. mac , �� J'7 1-7 , z- 171111 IV,17 -7/7 1-7 Y r �' � � l �� r�� r- � �v' Y�� � �/ Y� lr' � l � c, �Y� l f 7 P/0 1-i 12�1 111iY4--,,-) e Y- ll%0 0 C, Y V C, 4-/ IV IC to / /`7 ICE-) U, P, u, /,� 2-" C- 4d) (-,2 /,7'/,-?/(( e CU 'l 7 & ,ry �Y Y�Ye. 12 Y� L �l <J"O /7 0Q � _ IF ge C �' 7--) t, z K 41Y tpe, Y-V C, Y `-y --��� � -Y YYz� �> y�� �- ` Y � � U/ 17 Yl Y� � � Y� �� �� Y� �� c% Yv� � -y- 1-2 YJ 1721 44 Y � � c� Y- 61c, I'D A? f C, r e /V/ C'/, C., 1-2 C-) =G-71 z' Al lr �lr � - ��� /-J 6 C . - ,(g,0. f ii - (, -6% Miranda Schryver From: Jane Griffith [griffith @adlerpsy.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:59 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor To the Commissioners: Page 1 of 1 We are in accord with the recommendations set forth in JD Gallant's proposal for the future of Pleasant Harbor. He has studied the plans carefully and arrived at valid conclusions for the preservation of the area as representative of the best of the Northwest. We agree with Gallant that a reduction in the size of the development is imperative, that rental properties are the most appropriate type of housing for the development, and that the shoreline and greenbelts should be preserved as he has outlined. Jane Griffith Robert L. Powers 675 Root St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 -4215 (360) 379 -9066 11/26/2007 C ` `d -C -k ' 1/- 4 • o7 Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: Beverly [beverlym @olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:29 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina Dear Commissioners, I visited the Marina this summer after a camping trip in the Olympics. The Marina was quaint and charming, I was pleasantly surprized. I hope the flavor of the marina and it's current community are being considered as decisions are being made. I ask that you support efforts to minimize the effect on the environment, keeping the natural environment intact and retaining some of the rural nature. Thanks you for your attention to our beautiful county, Happy Holidays. Sincerely, Beverly Michaelsen Port Townsend 11/26/2007 It --14 6°7 Page l of 1 Miranda Schryver From: Keith Lazelle [lazelle @waypt.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:34 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor Dear County Commissioners: We are extremely concerned about the master plan resort (MPR) in Brinnon and how this will effect the natural and rural beauty of south county. I urge you to please, please, please add these 3 conditions below to any MPR approval. 1. In support of maintaining natural views: That Statesman will not destroy the current trees and foliage along the Marina Village shoreline. 2. In support of Jefferson County's tourism economy: That any condos or townhouses at the Marina Village will not include full -time residences. 3. In keeping with rural character: That Statesman reduce its current building plans at the Marina Village by at least 25 %. Thank you, Jane Hall Keith Lazelle P.O. box 192 Quilcene, WA 11/26/2007 0. 0 -c.V - // a� e-7 P -c n Miranda Schryver From: DUANE KNOLL [knollbeach @embargmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:39 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Page 1 of 1 Although we are unable to attend the hearing December 3rd, we would like the Commissioners to know that we support this planned resort. Now is not the time to state the reasons why; however, the EIS Report was very comprehensive and complete. In addition, this MPR has the support of the Planning Commission. Your "YES" votes for this planned resort is a vote for the growth of Brinnon and Jefferson County. Duane Knoll Roxann Knoll 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 C. Miranda Schryver From: Cathendy [cathendy @olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:07 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor Please do your best to make new development at Pleasant Harbor possible. I believe the Statesman planners are reasonable people and will improve the area. Thank You Catheirne Hendy 374 Blue Mtn. Road, Chimacum WA Catherine Hendy Associate Broker, GRI John L. Scott, Port Ludlow 40 Teal Lake Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360- 301 -2565 11/26/2007 -0 - eg,.��,. Miranda Schryver From: insain one [i_am_insain1 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 3:45 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: No to the Brinnon Resort Hi my name is Sharon, a tax payer and I live in Quilcene and I do drive to Brinnon to help out a friend. I had my hopes that the Commissioner's would say so to this resort..I read than in Port Ludlow and on Marristone Isl. they are having water problems. Granted from also what I read in that report that there is "Plenty of water" Yeah I say and ducks fly east for the winter. Down the line is what concerns me the most. The Rich (the only ones who can afford them) won't care about the area, the people that have lived there all of their lives, and the some that are transplants who came here for that "Maybury Feel" let alone wanting to volunteer part of their "Precious time" to help out the food bank or a feed a the local senior center. Just run out here have a couple of weekends spend money like a drunken sailor on his first leave. Oh yes and my favorite pet peeve about this resort is how many more folks (local or visitor) that will have to die because of some rich person who only has a couple of days to enjoy doesn't know how it is to drive out here and kills more ?? Granted you may think about a "Round about" as some have thought about in Port Townsend. They don't work so well in Sequim, so I keep reading. And a traffic lite wouldn't help it a bit because of a blind curve before you get to that entrance. Sure these folks who would by in now will be getting it as a bargain but then again our economy is in the toilet and now is not the time for people to be "Tempted" to go deeper in the hole. I have been to the meeting and I have heard the sides on what will be good for this part of the world and I just don't feel now or here is the place for that "MEGA" resort...... What's next 5 more Starbucks, Wal -Mart and a Costco ? ? ?? KEEP IT SIMPLE KEEP IT SMALL WE DON'T NEED IT ALL!!!!!! Sharon Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http: / /mobile.yahoo.com/ sports;_ ylt= At9_gDKvtAbMuhlGlSQtBI7ntAcJ 1 Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: John W Mc Duff Uwmd @olypen.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:05 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black point We all know Black Point is going to be developed. If you were the current owner, with increase taxes, increase in land values and the for fathers no longer alive you would look at selling, I know I would. After reviewing the EIS many times I find it the best use of the area with the lest amount of foot print. The alternatives could look like Sequim valley. I was a general contractor for over 30 years and through experience have found that development by housing and property is not always the best use of available land. The economic boost to south county is positive and much needed. I ask that you recommend the master planned resort go forward. I am afraid that we might give Statesman Corporation the idea that we don't want development of this kind and we end up with a future development like the one that has been allowed at Sequim. I would really hate to see the Statesman pull out at this point. It is true Statesman could make allot more money else where with less difficulty. John W Mc Duff 11/26/2007 Miranda Schryver From: Richard Schweiger [r44s @tscnet.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:04 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black Point Hello I want to express my absolute opposition to the Black Point project. I would like my voice and opinion to be known and considered. Thank you Richard Schweiger Richard Schweiger PO Box 338 Brinnon, WA 98320 1 d- I I - u '7 Miranda Schryver From: Richard Thompson [rtanddt @embarqmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:02 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black Point Resort Page 1 of 1 We feel like there needs to be a drastic change here. There are too many drugs and people living off the government. Of course they do not want, more people, more traffic, more law. We do need the revenue and Statesman group has proven the water advantage and are willing to work with the fire dept and schools. They have been nothing less than careful and co- operative. They are successful in other areas so why not here!!!!!!! Richard and Dorothy Thompson 11/26/2007 iD� c J Miranda Schryver From: martha george [bravada451 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:24 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Brinnon Black Point Master Planned Resort Page 1 of 1 I am a resident of Brinnon and would like to express my desire for the approval of the MPR at Black Point in Brinnon, WA. Thank You Marlena Stinebaugh 240 Appaloosa Drive Brinnon, WA. 98320 Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 11/26/2007 a pop 3)/. &.', Miranda Schryver From: com passrose @express56.com Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:05 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Brinnon project We live on Black Point and do not support the project. The traffic is highly congested now and more people would dramically cause more problems and accidents here around Black Point and Pleasant Harbor. Our roads are not designed to facilitate more traffic especially during the summer months. We have several accidents a month as it is. My husband was born here in Brinnon and the roads have changed very little if not any since the late 50's or early 60's and the traffic has increased 100 times over. We would support the project if it was scaled back considerably. Also please consider the demographics of the people that live here. 60% are retired and on a fixed income. The project would eventually run out those retirees due to taxation. If you don't allow Wal Marts in Port Townsend please don't allow big corporate ventures into rural communities that are not prepared for it. Robin and Louis Lakenes 1 1'• (, � Miranda Schryver From: JOHN SALLY NUERENBERG [nuerenberg @msn.com] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:54 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: MPR at Black Point Greetings! Page 1 of 1 We are part -time residents of Jefferson County where we own a cottage in Triton Cove just south of Brinnon. Our official residence is in the Phoenix area of Arizona. As we know you are aware, the Phoenix area has seen phenomenal growth over many years. Even though the housing market has slowed, the retail and office construction is still trying to catch up. We know full well that you can't stop things from changing, and if developments are designed, built, and managed well they can be of benefit to the community. Having served on a planning commission for six years in Michigan, I know how people like to "close the door" to their community and not let anyone else in after they are comfortably settled. This is not reality and it is not good for a community. We support the Statesman development under current consideration. As has been outlined by many sources, it will benefit the peninsula in a multitude of ways. And if planned and constructed correctly, it will not provide adverse environmental or social consequences. We consider it a win for the development and a win for the community at large. Please vote to approve the Statesman development project on December 3. Thank you for your consideration. John (& Sally) Nuerenberg 11/26/2007 Glacier 17 �1 Page 1 of 1 Ct . , i � % -��O' p7 Miranda Schryver From: Andy Visser [andy @connectionseap.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 7:23 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Brinnon Resort Development To whom it may concern, I am unable to attend the hearing Monday Dec. 3 so wish to express my support for the development at Brinnon. I believe it is a gift of economic opportunity to future generations and will provide much needed stimulus to the local economy and county tax base. Having lived in Jefferson County for only 2.5 years, I think this project is an exceptional opportunity for this area. I encourage the commissioners to invest heavily in economic opportunity. It seems there appears a pattern of rhetoric about public good, speech about good intentions, but little action appears to have taken place when it comes to actual expansion of the economic or job base. Andy Visser, PO Box 575, Brinnon, WA 360- 796 -0108 Certified Employee Assistance Professional Connections Inc. Employee Assistance Program Phone: 800 - 779 -6125 www.connectionseap.com EAP supporting a healthy and productive community in the workplace! 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 A ICI- Miranda Schryver From: JW Olsen awolsen @windermere.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:54 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Master Plan Resort County Commissioners of Jefferson County Please vote YES on the Master Planned Resort zoning of the Black Point area by Statesman. We're quite sure this will be a great boost for the economy and the development of Brinnon and Jefferson County. Most Sincerely Rose Ann and Jim Olsen 512 Seal Rock Road Brinnon, WA 98320 J. "W. OLSEN, AB / ABR CGenerafJWanager 'Windermere / Hood Canaf P.O. Box 700 QuiCcene, 'Wa. 98376 Business. 36o- 765-3450 ToITFree: Boo -676 345o JCome: 36o -796 3ii2 CeQ 360 3oi -i2o5 Fax. 36o-765-3i22 E.%faiC- iwoCsenCa@windermere.com 'Web. http: / /hoodcanaozronerties.com 11/26/2007 01C : -D -� -7 P� Miranda Schryver From: John L. Pitts, DVM Ulpitts @olympus.net] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 6:26 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor Development The Board of County Commissioners, We support the following development at Marina Village on Pleasant Harbor in South County: Page 1 of 1 1. In support of maintaining natural views: That Statesman will not destroy the current trees and foliage along the Marina Village shoreline. 2. In support of Jefferson County's tourism economy: That any condos or townhouses at the Marina Village will not include full -time residences. 3. In keeping with rural character: That Statesman reduce its current building plans at the Marina Village by at least 25 %. John and Madelyn Pitts Quilcene, WA 11/27/2007 ` DGD I,1a7)011 PC- Miranda Schryver From: Gerald Boarino [glb @olypen.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 6:54 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Marina Villa in South County Dear Sirs: Page 1 of 1 I am opposed to the Marina Village Project as proposed in the southern part of Jefferson County. Not only will there be a negative impact on the environment with the alteration of the landscape and greater demands on water, but there is bound to be the inevitable problems created by pollution, greater volumes of traffic, etc. The whole "feel' of the Brinnon area will be radically changed. If you feel that the County needs another Ludlow, then you are not the supervisors for whom I voted! As to any economic impact for the better, I would assume that the few long term jobs generated would be at entry level wages and that these will remain pretty much flat. As to materials for this project and the labor needed for it, my experience has been that this is all contracted out to large corporations a la Bechtel and the like, with local business and labor all but ignored. In closing, 1 see the Marina Project as a project for, by, and of the rich. Thank you. Dr, Gerald Boarino 834 Pierce P.T., WA 98368 11/27/2007 Ce '.'DcD7 i I I of lo-I �C- J Miranda Schryver From: gloria allingham [galIingham @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:58 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black Point Resort Dear Commissioners, I have been a Brinnon resident for eleven years. I am active in the community by having the privilege to serve on both the School Board and on the advisory board for our Community Center. The Statesmans project for Brinnon brings many positive benefits to Brinnon and Jefferson County. First, the resort will bring a financial windfall to Jefferson County and Brinnon. The amount of taxes will help the county with much needed finances for services as well as improving infrastructure. Brinnon benefits financially as well. I was in a meeting with Mr. Garth Mann,CEO of Statesman who offered to partner with us to build a much needed new school and a new community center in Brinnon. The project will provide jobs for our young people and more importantly substantial paying full time jobs for Jefferson County residents. If we were sacrificing our environment only for financial gain this project would not be a fit for Brinnon. But conversely, Statesman has done a fantastic job designing a GREEN RESORT. Not only are they protecting the Hood Canal and natural beauty of the area they plan to clean up the poluted marina, which contibutes to the Hood Canal pollution. This is a costly job which the responsible authorities cannot afford to do. With regard to Statesman, as a concerned school board and community member, I called the Planning Dept. in Phoenix Arizona to get information about the Toscana Resort Statesman built in Desert Ridge. They have high regard for Mr. Mann and said Toscana was an outstanding, top quality resort. They said we were lucky to have Statesman build the resort if anyone were to build it. The resort is something that Brinnon and Jefferson County will be proud of. I urge you to approve the Black Point Resort. It is to all of our benefit. Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http: / /overview.mail.yahoo.com/ 1 Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: MoMoHand @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:09 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black Point Master Planned Resort To the Commission, Our family has a home on the Duckabush Road. We came here to live out our retirement years and to be able to live in the beauty of the Hood Canal and Olympic Peninsula. Globally, we believe in the continued healing of the Hood Canal and the environment of this pristine area. That is why we do not support the MPR. The plans are way too big for this area to absorb: traffic will increase, the decimation of the canal in the building of this resort will change the Canal, strain on infrastructure and water needs concern everyone. Yes, we read the DEIS and believe it to be slanted toward the Statesman Group plans. The DEIS belittles the impact of the MPR on the existing wildlife, threatened salmon runs, pollution : air, noise and water, cultural and historical concerns of Tribal peoples, but most of all, if this resort is built, the rural character of our wonderful area will be lost. We have seen this happen in smaller resort areas in Washington. Finally, it takes courage to stand down this Canadian Company with its megabucks, its takes courage to say no to huge developers and their plans to destroy the rural nature of a place and it takes courage to save our environment from development which is too big for this area. If we are mandated to save our planet, then we have to start locally, right here at Black Point. We will accept the "no action" plan and nothing larger. Thank You, Michael and DeeDee Ventura 2571 Duckabush Road 360- 796 -9959 Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. 11/27/2007 Page 1 of 1 Pc Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:52 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Black Point From: MoMoHand @aol.com[SMTP:MOMOHAND @AOL.COMj Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:39:43 PM To: Phil Johnson Subject: Black Point Auto forwarded by a Rule Mr. Johnson, As the Dec. 3 meeting looms..we want to again express our sorrrow that this plan for this resort has gotten this far. This MPR is way too big for this area.We do not believe all the claims of the DEIS, we see the favorable slant to the Statement Group. Our environmental issues have been addressed with technology that has been unproven. This technology requires the decimation of Black Point with drainage systems, recollection or water, digging and bastardizing the existing kettles,and just plain messing with the aquifir which supplies the area. We would support the no action plan in that it is manageable and not too large. Our greatest concern is to retain the wonderful rural nature of our community. Michael and DeeDee Ventura Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top monk wasters of 2007. 11/28/2007 Miranda Schryver From: Gary Stewart [garystewart@windermere.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:44 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: MPR @ Black point 11/28/08 Gentelmen; I wish to join you with my approval of the MPR at Black Point. Thank you for the position you have taken. Best Regarda; Gary Stewart 101 Kelly Rd.. Brinnon, WA. 98320 Phone: 360- 301 -9868 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1 PC Miranda Schryver From: Wayne Schlaefli [wayne @worldfront.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:45 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Pleasant Harbor Resort Would like to express the growing support for the MPR here in Brinnon. You gentlemen will have the opportunity to make a positive change in Jefferson County by allowing this Resot to go to the next phase. We have heard many lagitimate concerns with the initial Resort and acknowlegement and solutions presented to these problems by the Statesman Group. Change is always an unknow. We have to evaluate and proceed based on the facts we have ant the trust in the people involved. We have trust in all involved in this Resort to make it the best possible for Jefferson County, Brinnon residents and the enviroment and the developers. Let us have a viable economic project here in Brinnon. Wayne and Rosalie Schlaefli 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 1 11 1.?-3)6 � CC.' '_D�_'q Pc Miranda Schryver From: Richard Wagner [rcwag5 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:30 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black Point Project I am a home owner in Brinnon, WA. I am all for the Statesman project to proceed. I think the State of Washington, not just the town and people of Brinnon or the county are very fortunate the Statesman Group has picked this sight to develop. It will be great for the State and all the residents of the State of Washington. I know this will be a first class development to be proud to have in our State. Richard C. Wagner 450 Seamount Dr. Brinnon, WA. 98320 Get easy, one -click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepa &e. 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 1 PC 1t la *j Miranda Schryver From: gttyler @comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:36 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: MPR at Black Point As a current slipowner at Pleasant Harbor Marina, I want to encourage the County Commissioners to support the proposed development of the Pleasant Harbor Resort. While change is not always easy, I believe that this development will accomplish several things: 1) Bring much needed jobs into the area. 2) Bring much needed income in the form of taxes that will support the local infrastructure and schools. 3) Bring much needed upgrades to the Pleasant Harbor marina, saving it from becoming a further environmental problem for Hood Canal and the Brinnon area. The county does not have the funds to resolve some issues at Pleasant Harbor, nor to make infrastructure improvements that might attract other businesses. This development will spin off business development opportunities for the local population in the form of increased needs for expanded grocery, hardware, marine and other service- related industries. The local population would like to retain their current lifestyles and I understand that. However, the local population cannot support the schools and infrastructre with an aging population and low paying local jobs. Some changes will happen and this is an opportunity for a positive change. The very nature and limitations of the local area will hopefully keep the development at a reasonable and manageable size through permits and the planning commission. The beauty of the area will attract people willing to invest locally. My husband and I spend most of our weekends at Pleasant Harbor and rent a local storage unit. We use the grocery store, the post office, and the local restaurants. Unfortunately the deterioration at the marina concerns us and we don't want the environmental impacts to further continue. This is one way to resolve that. We love the area and believe the new company will try to blend the development into the very beauty that attracted them in the first place. I ask you to support the proposal. Sincerely, Tina Tyler 11/28/2007 00, DG PC Miranda S ryver From: pauljcyang @comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:03 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: MPR at Black Point Dear Sir, I am the property owner at 810 Rhododendron Lane, Brinnon, WA. 98320. I wish to inform you that my family and I are supportive of the proposed MPR at Black Point in Brinnon, WA. If you wish, you may reach me by phone at 425 - 503 -2106. Regards, Paul J. C. Yang Please note my new e -mail address: pauljcyang @comcast.net. 1 CC' ,-D C.' Page 1 of 1 P C- Miranda Miranda Schryver From: Sheila and Dick Moore [pigeonridge @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:33 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Black Point MPR Commissioners: We were very pleased with decision of the Planning Commission to overwhelmingly approve the adoption of the Plan amendment which would allow for the Black Point project to move forward. We strongly feel that this will be a very positive event for both the Brinnon community and the county as a whole. Our community is slowly fadding away and we feel the proposed resort will be a big step in revitalizing Brinnon and the surrounding area. With the county currently looking for additional revenue, it will also add a significant tax base. We also will see additional business and other opportunities spring from the resort and its facilities. We sincerely hope you will ALL support this opportunity for our community to grow and prosper. THANK YOU Richard and Sheila Moore, Brinnon Richard Moore piigeonrid e earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. 11/29/2007 Page 1 of 1 QC Miranda Schryver From: Dori Jones Yang [doriyang @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:16 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: please approve MPR for Statesman project To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners - I am a Brinnon property owner, with a house at 810 Rhododendron Lane in the Pleasant Tides area. Please vote to approve revising the Master Planned Resort zoning to allow the Statesman project to proceed. I strongly support this project because of the positive impact it will have on the local economy and the environmentally sensitive way the Statesman Group has planned it. Please vote YES on this project. Thank you. Dorothy Jones Yang 11/29/2007 Do THE STATESMAN GROUP November 28, 2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360- 385 -9100 RE: PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT To whom it may concern: 9300 E. Raintree Drive Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: (480) 248 -3300 Fax: (480) 248 -3700 www.statesmanusa.com Statesman Corporation was pleased to receive the affirmative recommendation of the Planning Commission for the proposed Master Planned Resort at Pleasant Harbor. We believe it is very important for the Board of County Commissioners to understand the significant steps Statesman is taking to protect the environment and to provide a quality development for the community within County guidelines. The attached materials (in color and on disk that can be viewed as a PowerPoint presentation) are designed to illustrate the proposed features of the resort. My attorney will be providing supplemental materials addressing the specific statutory criteria. I believe you will find the attached materials useful in understanding the project. Your support is requested. Sincerely, Dr. Garth Mann President and C.E.O. MGM /emm Enclosure cc: County Administrator (John Fischbach) Department of Community Development (Al Scalf) THE MANOR VILLAGE 09& LIFE I I 7IMA CENTERS Bella Vista "a beautiful view" m -- 'an x a M- -ah mem am= mom Ulm now � mi A L W O V ^O W V *�1 ', V aloft r r /_� Ifto LLJ O r♦ O O Qft yr � V W V rmwft r `) , O yr mem am= mom Ulm now � mi A L W O V ^O W V *�1 ', N C E i i • i i ir i U tU U U ctz �1 6 1 � E C D C 83 d d C F 1333 NI NOIIVA313 99 OANN .wniva uol.i —i3 U) U) a W CD W C� Q Z O cn Q 0 Z W W J C� 0 Q c� 3 O C� c O a� U Cll Cll Cll c� c O L M _- U O Cll m ..... rn m m T. c c _O > c_ CD CO Co (o C Cl- 0 o U U) U c0 C/) O m W Cl W Q Z T V OT lr / ry ^W LL ca m 0 .N O Q (1) C) a� ca L U) U C� c O Z c O L t� C� > CU c� C� L V) CB O U c cu a Q • 4 4 c� d d d n re Ja Ana L � � ♦••� O ca L m O � L CL cn �- O M -� r CD 0�a, > � M � L L t/� 0 4� CD s�cn FM c� mc 400 ■— m _ CL 0 LM V O v L O L �+ C •L � � L � a� Z ca •- cn cn 0 E L 0 0 N E a� cn a� E M L >1 • Q r1 FOR 0 L •IMMOM U .d+ a ■ - m � v — ■_ = O to O � V O s L 0 L. 4� t'CS v 4� 4� to E E O u 0 Ja AW a E MENEM L co � O c'a O 'O = N .> � O v NWOMEN •- t/� O 0 0 a a }i V � m O (J) L) 0 .N ._ �••r L v � � *00 HOMES ■_ MEMOS L O m s .0 .4 m O O a� C .y UWAIr. 17] • • • D we ww vw- U mo - A-W n 70 • • rwov.1) Glk4 V C� r7 b.A O O v &ml�lq Gni 4 4MEMA ri GCS Coil 4MONi G� G� C� �•r G�i 0 W�l � - 4 lb lb r L i "a m 0 M E V1 — ► E L, � 3 f�. •w. J f 0 t1 0 E 0 E 0 O_ = t V .C� 0 I� .� W O G1 •tA — N C t/1 Im 0 0.- Cn �•+ .> O > E _+ J 0 E > a 0 v _ _ V� - C� � � O Q L — o r 1` Mo A 0 N r W _ L Q 'EL CL — s � � N s O ca � O O '- _ = O L E 0. ■L •_ ( E -0 O O tU i O V� - C� � � O Q L — o r 1` Mo A 0 N r O O 0 POMO -4mom) rtoD Coo) ;,moo mi a V a H it m z � � � Q z � � � MI uw 13 �§g .7 0 OPO �o N X d 2 4 tF a MI, 17 �1 t �a Q `Q 0 O N Z W a W J W j X 0 m m Q k# 1 `? z Z Q Q w J CL II v • • • ice, �_ Q '�'-� � � � � � � O Jill con W H z 0 a x w w x H z z a • �h V •z .� .� •o 'x .� .a 'o .� • • • • • • • V z 0 x W 0 z J F- Z_ O a Y U }}. m - W. 4 .0k M, 9CJH awmrrf 16T w Y LU (7 iP C a a � V z 0 x 0 W 1 F� M�4 z �W F� d -y" ilillir`'r A% r JV �i 0 0 U OPO rTl 0 'b 0 S 05 A-W v •py •py N 0 0 i u fell •Py ini •�y F 0 b 0 L195 :�Ti 'N SPO �01 H 0 b 0 i lJ _,' •�y �01 w N 0 b 0 lvU OF* •py r■I F 0 0 u [PTO H I� 0� N �4 i� W W C7 d' a W E� d W x �� ��� �\ \�� .`�� I ��. ,� `�� \` '� \� '� 4 �'� •�� Z O E LLP LJ w rc z 0 Z4 .n 0 CC r4- M Mr m 06 _j- me L16J ine • • • • Q4 � W W N 3 w • xz � W > • a L N • _ U LA Q A Q O � W • 1/� � 7 Q 1 I •I � I � I I I • • ,a -,a i 1HDI3H V t • z ° o ' n a w f7 w • > --------------- � � ��VM3015 a 31VAIMd - W U • r Z e pp O Fx C) N SOX _ • L7 F Z <y o >� I • C'Q b as - • -- -------------- ------ ONIISIX3 0 N011VN Vd 35 I • lVBnlVN ---------------------- XlVM30—Is a • ------------------------ 2nend - 5 U Z • X - OOX `V dew ______________________________ • • • • L ct cn ct a ct a� 0 W N 0 W . rl O � o ct a a •o ct ct c� 0 o � N ct Ct c ;--4 ct ct O 0 H o aA 7 o ct bJJ cn � 4J N �0 0 o W ct U rx. w ..OR -� E ct � o � V o � � L � � h N -4-Z ° a' o U Ri CJ � o � � v 3 c � � o � c� ° 4 'Z � N 3 s a� O x c w 0 Lr 0. a� w •o e� c� a� 1 0 v cQ: W W •o 0 U CC3 V1 ct U ct O ct ct O � W � ct ct N CCt O ct � o W � O N ct ct N O N Q I U r� V ct �b.IJ O H O N Q� O o E � � O C b.A Q CO O ct O W •� ct N • Q.� U O c� I � O O 0 i 0 U .o a� w O .o i 0 V v G� U a� v a� x GA v L L RS 3 d V a� 3 b�A .O .o cj a� a� a� a� i a 3 a� U cj w ct CA ct �—i U C� Q 4J ct O V, U 4J W� ct c3 a� ct ct o � � o W � a� ct O N ct Q� ct O 4� Q N b�A c� ap 0 O N O � U O ct ct r E .bl) O ct 4.J N Q �O O o ct cr U -J U H O ct 0 �C c� A a� w y 0 c� w 0 0 cv L o ces o v � M Z o � O � � o � A " _ W ° o a N � . W � ° o � H c� ct ° w ct .� O O � 4 A ° � o c CI V 0 O 0 w O L 0 c w O a� an ._ i V] ct ct ct c O N ct o ct ct �--► u ct O � ct ct ;-4 ct ct ct [—� ct W � ° o � H c� ct ° w ct .� O O � 4 A ° � o c CI V 0 O 0 w O L 0 c w O a� an ._ i w d 1 IMF N c� *1 A c .o sx A W W w � W � H o Z �4 W I Z W O O Q' sx O w O dam" A d W R 4� G� � A.. 4� y O � O r�� CA ct ct U ct CCU ct c� 4--' O cr o a� H o � ct con ct b� ct 4-j ct ct ct ct C a ct ct �-+ b.A ct N � w d 1 IMF N c� *1 A c .o sx A W W w � W � H o Z �4 W I Z W O O Q' sx O w O dam" A d W R 4� G� � A.. 4� y O � O r�� I2 -.3 -v7 O,C*. IA'4101 To: The Board of � Jefferson Co� Y E D From: Lisa Johnston, Brinnon Resident Re: The Master Planned � bil B on Dear Sirs: My name i t" N QO WNW 4 year Brinnon resident. I am opposed to the Statesman Corporati written a letter to you previously stating some of the reasons why. I will nvlermMa ee os e reasons in this letter. I do however have some issues to address that have to do with this entire process and would like to refute some of the claims that proponents for the resort have made. Those of us who are opposed to the MPR in Brinnon have been called many names. Some include: "the vociferous minority", the "vocal minority", and "uninformed". In addition to these names our town has had slurs cast against it by two individuals on the Planning Commission. In open, public meetings these two individuals have referred to us as "inbreds "(by Bud Schindler) and "chemically dependant "(by Edel Sokol) . These two people are supposed to be representing our best interests. If they have such a poor opinion of our area, they should not be making decisions for us. They should be asked to step down and their votes on this matter should be negated. The two main areas that proponents are focusing on are the Brinnon School and economic growth. The Brinnon School enrollment is down, but so are many other schools in the county. There are many reasons for this, some of which are increased amounts of homeschooling families and people choosing private or other alternate education methods. The other area is economic growth. Yes, the resort would bring in more tax revenue, but the Brinnon residents would see very little of it. Also, the resort is self- contained and the businesses of Brinnon would not see much growth from it. Some of the people who want to see the MPR happen are using scare tactics to entice people into agreeing with them. One of these says that if we do not adopt this plan that Brinnon will die. Another is that if this plan is not implemented that the school will die. Both of these are false. People are complaining that there are no jobs in Brinnon. There are jobs to be had if people want to work. Some people move here and then complain about jobs and lack of shopping. If they want to live in a place that has lots of shopping or a large variety of jobs then move someplace else. Many of those who live here love the quiet, peaceful nature of the town and like the fact that there are no strip malls and tons of people. If people are going to move here they need to be happy with what is here and not jump in and try to change everything. Please do not be swayed by threats of economic or school collapse. Brinnon has been and continues to do just fine. I personally love it when new people move to town and find their niche. My husband sells real estate and we are both in favor of growth. But this would be an explosion of growth instead of the gradual process that it should be. Please don't allow the smooth talk and promises of riches to deprive our county of one of the few truly natural places left on the canal. Thank you for your consideration, 0& t9� Lisa Johnston, Brinnon resident PC- z THE STATE OF EMERGENCY TRANSPORT FOR ACUTE CARDIAC EVENTS low 041% THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO I3RINNON IN THE N R F'V---E D POPULATION GROWTH AND INCREASED ECONOMIC BE REALIZED WITH THE ADDITION OF STATESMAN BEYOND EMT AND DEFIBRILLATOR, NOW AVAILABILE, W&14 AL007 TRANSPORT OF A HEART ATTACK. SUSPECT ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT REQUIREMENTS CALLS FOR THE ADDITION OF: JEFFERSON COUNTY AN MATE ELECTROCARDIOGRAM AND ITS TEL M I S S I O N E R S TRANSMISSION TO THE NEAREST EMERGENCY ROOM M.D.FOR INSTRUCTIONS BASED ON CRITICAL EKG POSITIVE FINDINGS A NURSE PRACTITIONER OR,PARAMEDIC IS INSTRUCTED TO GIVE CLOT BUSTING MEDICATION AT ONCE EN ROUTE f TIME RECORDED] IS USUALLY AN HOUR OR MORE TO THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM 90 MINUTES LATER, A REPEAT Ei _WTROCARDIOCrRAM WOULD EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF THE CLOT BUSTING. THE IN HOSPITAL CLINICAL COURSE AND LABORATORY FTI+IDINGS WOULD THEN DETERMINE THE NEXT STEP TO PREVENT A RECUREtANCE. OR AN EXXTENTION OF THE STUNNED HEART THIS PROCESS ABOVE WOULD BE THE EQLWELE'NT OF OPTIMAL CAKE OTHERWISE GIVEN ON SITE IN THE HOSPITAL BY CLOTBUSTING OR OTHER VENUES THE TIME WINDOW, SO CRMCAL HERE, WILL BE FURTHER SHORTENED BY THE PATIENT OR FAMILY WITH A BIANNUAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR EARLY LAY PUBLIC RECOGNMON OF HEART ATTACK AND CPR CERTIFICATION AT COMMUNITY CENTERS OR A NEW STATESMAN SUPPORTER CLINIC, THIS CLINIC IS TO BE STAFFED FOR AN ACTIVE 12 HOUR SHIFT BY A NURSE PRACITTIONER. AN ON CALL PARAMEDIC, PROVIDED WITH FREE LIVING QUARTERS FOR HIS FAMILY BY STATESMAN WOULD COVER THE OTHER HALF DAY IN STANDBY.TWO SETS OF LIVING QUARTERS MAY BE NEEDED THIS PARAMEDIC WOULD NOT BE SALERIED HERE AS HE OR SITE WOULD WORK DAYS AS A PARAMEDIC IN A HIGH INTENSITY INNERCITYU TO KEEP Up WITH HIS 12 DEFIBRILLATION PER YEAR CREDENTIALS).. THE TOTAL COST OF THE UPGRADED TRANSPORATION COVERAGE FOR A POPULATION OF 5 TO IO THOUSAND PEOPLE COULD COME FROM PROFITS OVA PROPERLY RUN MEDISURG\ORTHO CLINICS. j 10 39Vd 8008VZ990Z 89 :11 L00Z /E0 /ZT g1di December , 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Reference: Brinnon Master Plan Resort Dear Commissioners: DEC, 0 3 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY The big question is not whether StatesmaraO L, 1BR&vill they do it right? If you allow the Statesman Group to go ahead with the MPR, all I ask is that you make specific conditions, then monitor to be sure they are following those conditions. These conditions must: • Protect the environment. • Prevent damage to the fragile aquifer. • Mandate that public services will not suffer from the influx of people. • Guard against increasing air and water pollution. • Be ever diligent in retaining the rural character of south county. I further recommend that you adopt, as a minimum, the conditions recommended in both the Planning Commission's Majority and Minority Reports. By adding your own stringent conditions to an approval, you will be lowering the risk of Statesman saying "O000ps ". Thank you, Connie Gallant PO Box 490 Quilcene WA 98376 PG I Jefferson Count"aj��d2q7County Commisssioners; 1 am writing' ion of Comprehensive Plan Amendmen W 9 oint MPR (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Res! ;QM n with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Department of Community Development. Designation of a Master Planned Resort at Black Point was precisely what the legislature had in mind when it amended GMA to offer economically depressed communities like Brinnon opportunities to prosper after the loss of traditional natural resource industries. All the pieces fit and Statesman Corp. has presented as modern and innovative a plan as will likely ever come along. If this proposal can't fly then we might as well tear out the section in the Comp Plan on MPR's and put it on the shelf to collect dust with other optimistic plans that attempted to provide GMA mandated "opportunities to both live and work in rural areas." (Like the attempt in 2003 to establish a Small Business Cottage Industry Overlay in Brinnon that died on appeal). Our County Comprehensive Plan is the compilation of numerous grass roots planning efforts drafted in living rooms across the county. The development of the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan included a vision for an MPR at Black Point similar to what Statesman is proposing. At this conceptual stage of the process Black Point/Pleasant Harbor is consistent with every standard by which MPR's are measured. By their nature MPR's present a paradox in that their location "in a setting of significant natural amenities" means substantial urban style growth will impact environmentally sensitive areas and small rural communities. The legislature certainly recognized this conflict and included checks and balances in 36.70A360 to ensure development is environmentally and economically appropriate. The county has outlined how "impacts may be avoided and necessary mitigation may be assured." Statesman has presented a resort proposal that incorporates contemporary low- impact building techniques, has set aside nearly 40% open space, is designed to be architecturally compatible with the natural setting, and addresses a list of other environmental Impacts item by item. Statesman has met all the criteria for approval of this non - project, MPR land -use designation. Concerns about project level actions are premature at this stage. At the project level, every stage of permitting will demand compliance with capital facilities, transportation, and critical area regulations. Eventual development permits involve 18 from the County, 9 from the State, and 1 Federal Section 404 and 10 other Federal permits for work in the waters of the U.S. This resort cannot ultimately be built without the oversight of and compliance with regulating agencies that opponents of the MPR have shown complete confidence in other arenas of environmental planning. The Commissioners are duty -bound to evaluate this application on the basis of exactly what it requests and nothing more. The statutory procedure that guides decision making for designation of an MPR land -use is precise and objective to ensure fairness and due process, and avoid the misuse of process and influence of misunderstanding, misinformation, and outright purposeful deception. The subject of impacts on rural character should be analyzed in the legal context of what constitutes "rural." By GMA standards rural is not a subjective interpretation but has a specific definition, described in RCW 36.70A030(14)(a -9). As MPR's have been recognized by the legislature as a mechanism for assisting depressed rural economies and by their design are located in significant natural settings, the argument that MPR's are not consistent with rural character defies legislative intent. This MPR amendment is the culmination of years of South County planning. GMA and Jefferson County have established procedures where urban style growth can co -exist with a significant natural setting. Jefferson County in general and Brinnon in particular certainly qualify as economically depressed. The County is in an affordability crisis, where average wage earners can't afford a home and government cannot balance its budget without drastic budget cuts to basic services. The affordability crisis is further heightened by the likelihood taxpayers will be required to carry an increased burden for supporting those public services. For all the talk about sustainability, Jefferson residents are dependent upon other counties for millions in goods and services that if captured locally, as an MPR would, could support the county general fund and reduce reliance on taxpayers. To turn away from this MPR amendment would disregard what is really happening to our social and economic infrastructure, without any demonstration adverse impacts cannot be mitigated. Jim Hagen 150 Maple Dr. Cape George Cc'. Q D �u,Cwt�SS��vtvr� ��c�� 3 �7. RECEIVED o�c o a toot �'%'`t kt `� � siv ���ry � ✓�ti2o�i��1 ct� �s .S�yhs old? COMMISSI NERS 7" _s w�.�,i;� �(1ti�LD�i m� .�%t2'�n.� I'S 3 If; /U 7 cex c� - Cw�;,,� #0 wdj 4"t 0"� 0( laAeppf"'e-d 31 e-r,kt (t2a, CPU aIA c� �� Lr da-4j cicw4wt,�j ow­)z'� ah.2a vas 3� �r�z .�cz� fu 3cam`�,,� 'B,k tk4-0 4� Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson *nt: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:21 AM 0: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: MPR - letters Attachments: Itr to commissioners; MPR Itr to Commissioners Itr to MPR Itr to nissioners (3£nissioners (3� ------------------------------------------- From: J & D DOWD[SMTP:DALILA @OLYPEN.COM] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:17:18 AM To: John Austin Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: MPR - letters Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioners, Please read our letters of support (attached) for the Master Planned Resort at Pleasant Harbor. See you all at the hearing next Monday evening. John and Dalila Dowd Brinnon i • 1 Dear Gentlemen: What will it take to help our county commissioners understand the dire need to boost our economy through potential revenue provided by new businesses? Over the years, opportunities to improve our local economy have been denied due to careless decisions by our own county leaders; elected and/or appointed. You have appointed and directed the members of the planning commission to study the Master Planned Resort at Black Point in Brinnon. The planning commission has voted to recommend going forward with this plan; 7 to 2. Please show confidence in your planning commission's decision and support the majority of the Brinnon community who have studied and reviewed the MPR and have agreed that this would be good for our county. It would provide much needed jobs and tourist dollars, not to mention the tax revenue. Perhaps one day you'll be able to balance the county's budget without tapping into the banked reserve account! I am urging you to vote to support the Statesman's Master Planned Resort zoning request. It will be an environmentally friendly way to utilize the Black Point and Pleasant Harbor area, bringing much needed revenue to the community and the county, at large. The Brinnon community has had a difficult time making the transition from a timber and tourist town to relying primarily on tourism. Historically, Brinnon has had many resorts that have come and gone. We have even lost our direct access to the Olympic National Park. The Brinnon community agreed with the Brinnon Sub -Area planning committee that the Black Poinle and Pleasant Harbor area would be best suited as a Master Planned Resort. Again, I urge you to vote YES to improve our county's financial situation. I am appealing to you to make the right decision that will affect the lives of many in a positive way and reflect upon you in the end. Thank you. Dalila Dowd Brinnon • Dear Commissioners: 0 I would like to m express desire to see the Black Point and Pleasant Harbor area zoned P Y as a Master Planned Resort. The economy that built and once drove our community has all but dissolved. Brinnon is now a quiet retirement community relying on tourist dollars from outside the area to sustain it's few working aged citizens. The Brinnon tax base needs to be stimulated by the type of plan that the Statesman Corporation is proposing. The plan is for a quiet tourist oriented type of business like the one that the community expressed their approval of for the Black Point and Pleasant Harbor areas in the Brinnon sub -area plan. This is a perfect opportunity for the Brinnon Community and Jefferson County to benefit from revenue generated by a clean and quiet type of land use that is conducive to the tourist oriented mostly retirement part of the county. It would also provide some employment for a community and that desperately needs it. John Dowd Brinnon • • cc: r i 1/,V/07 Pc John Fischbach From: Russ and Elaine Mayhew [remtrees @hctc.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:52 PM To: John Fischbach Subject: Brinnon Resort Dear Sir, We would like to go on record as favoring the proposal for the "Brinnon Resort" plan. Page 1 of 1 We only recently read about the plan in our local newspaper, the Shelton -Mason County Journal, and therefore did not have a chance to attend any of the meetings or sign a petition in favor of it. We had no idea that anything like it was being planned for the Brinnon area. We reside at Hoodsport, Wa. but own 20 commercial lots at Brinnon. We believe the proposed project would definately boost the economy of the area and help all concerned. It would certainly "bring some life" to little Brinnon. Please add our names to the list of those favoring the Resort. Thank You. Russell & Elaine Mayhew 51 N. Union Dr. Hoodsport, Wa. 98548 e-mail ---- remtreesa- hctc.com 12/3/2007 c:c• \2l3 1L PG Miranda Schryver From: k2 - - - -- [kkennell @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:08 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Statesman's Development at Pleasant Harbor 1 Page 1 of 1 My family has owned property near Pleasant Harbor for three generations and I have several concerns that I want you to address about the approval of MPR. It would appear in their plans that there will be destruction of shoreline by bringing the Marina Village the the high -tide mark thereby destroying vegetation and compromising the delicate health of the Canal. It also seems that their plans call for logging many of the trees that maintain the surrounding environment and wildlife to instead preserve views. This doesn't seem part of the county's adopted "best practices" that the rest of us have been asked to adhere to. Keeping the Canal clean and alive is in the best interest of both the natural environment and those who hope to attract tourism based on the unique nature of this once pristine fjord that is choking from increased development in all three counties. As not to ruffle the feathers of the locals like my family, I would further urge you to reduce the coverage and scale of the buildings by at least 20% as a compromise as not totally lose the rural feel of the community, something that is going to be more rare and will certainly appeal to the tourists they hope to attract as the rest of the state gets more urban. Thank you for your consideration, K. Kennell Quilcene, WA 12/3/2007 CC-- OCA Page 1 of 1 Pc 3 Miranda Schryver From: Don Truesdel [tuesdel @embarqmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:45 AM To: Miranda Schryver Dear JeffCo, I want to voice my support for the MPR at Black Point. I have lived in Quilcene for 40 years, I have annual moorage at Pleasant Harbor Marina, My wife and I have a daughter in college, and a son that is a Junior in Quilcene. The Black Point Project can be nothing but good. For the people, Jobs, And revenue for the area. I have watched this area go from the booming 70's and early 80's of buisness and money flow, to vacant building's and people commuting for work because there is not much here. Thank you for Your Support. Don Truesdel 12/3/2007 C, C— '1 C11 '2 j31 w Miranda Schryver From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, gloria allingham [galIingham @yahoo.com] Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:27 PM Miranda Schryver Black Point Resort As one with extensive experience in planning large scale projects,(I developed a 10 year plan for Ford Motors" entire assembly plant system, expanding production and improving operations with site, facility and economiic considerations), I plead with you to approve the Black Point MPR with its manifold benefits and no unmitigable problems for both Brinnon and Jefferson County. The present site, the remains of two unsuccessful RV campgrounds is an unattractive desolation few in Brinnon ever visit. The MPR will make it a genuine holistic site. Few realize that the marina is now badly polluted, contributing pollution to the Hood Canal. The MPR construction budget includes 5 million dollars to clean up and rebuild the marina. Fish and Wildlife is satisfied with the MPR. Statesman has agreed to partner with the Brinnon School District and Brinnon Community Center to build a new badly needed integrated school, community center/ disaster center for Brinnon. Brinnon and Quilcene residents will be able to use the resorts facilities of which non is available now There will be 80 -125 workers with 50% having wages over to $50,000 per year from $50,000 and a few $100,000 plus a year. Annual Property Taxes will be $2,460,000 Annual Sales /Hotel Taxes will be 8,200,000 Annual Total Tax $10,060,000 Total County Revenue Input $43,200,000 In no way would I want to jeopardize our beautiful environment if the MPR wasn't a fine quality, "green built" resort. Statesman has built many including Issaquah's first green project, the Bentley House, and Statesman has won over 50 awards for their projects. Again I urge you to approve the MPR. It's a good fit for Brinnon and Jefferson County. Bob Allingham Bob Allingham Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http: / /overview.mail.yahoo.com/ 1 C,C.. `C ) \215 I crl PG Miranda Schryver From: Benjamin Greuel [bgreuel @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:39 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Master Plan Resort at Pleasent Harbor Hello Jefferson County Commissioners, I am writing you today to address some concerns I have over the proposed Master Plan Resort at Marina Village on Pleasant Harbor. I am not a resident of Jefferson County, but I do escape to its friendly confines frequently. One of the many reasons that take the ferry across the Sound to be on the Olympic Peninsula is because of the rural character that it provides. From the quaint village of Port Gamble to the pleasant small town feeling of Quilcene, the country character of Jefferson County is what attracts me to the area. Any development that threatens the rural character of this spectacular area I do not support. I am not opposed to the Statesmen development at Pleasant Harbor, but I do have three concerns that I would like addressed before the Master Plan Resort is approved. 1) In order to maintain natural views I would like the approved proposal to not destroy the trees along the shoreline adjacent to the proposal. 2) In support of the Jefferson County tourism economy, I would like to see that the approved proposal not support any full time "luxury residences" within the Master Plan Resort. 3) In order to keep with the rural character of Jefferson County, I would like to see the Statesmen reduce it total building plans at the Marina by at least 25 %. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Master Plan Resort at Marina Village. I hope you take my considerations into account when you make your final decision. Thank you for all your good work serving the people of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Benjamin Greuel 4315 6th Avenue NW Apt. A Seattle, WA 98107 1 Jefferson County Commissioners DEC 0 3 2007 County Courthouse Port Townsend JEFFERSON CO UNTY Regarding: Brinnon MPR COMMISSIONERS Greetings, I am writing to offer my comments on the Brinnon MPR which is proposed as a Comprehensive Plan amendment in this year's amendment cycle. When I first read the details of the Statesman Group's proposal for the Black Point and Pleasant Harbor properties, I must confess that 1 thought the project they proposed to be, in a word, outlandish. Rather than offer a development which would grace its location and the adjacent town of Brinnon, Statesman has proposed a project of such a mammoth scale that it would dominate both its own landscape and the south county community. While I have many specific concerns about this project, I will mention those few which seem the most critical. The resources of Hood Canal include the waters of the Canal itself as well as the fish and, in particular, the shellfish, on which the economy of the south county depends. You are well aware of the dire state of the estuary we call "Hood Canal ". The shoreline development already along Hood Canal has brought it to that condition. Any additional development must be weighed against the need not just to reverse the decline in the water quality of Hood Canal but to restore it to a healthy condition. To expand a marina to 290 slips, build a 10,000 square -foot set of commercial buildings, and construct over 1200 residential units is most definitely not prudent development at this time. While Statesman offers confident promises regarding their impact on Hood Canal, promises which I take to be sincere, a wise person must temper Statesman's sunny optimism with a realization of what is at risk. The consequence for the integrity of Brinnon and the rural character of the surrounding area. A superficial consideration of the impact of the proposed development on Brinnon would suggest a period of significant economic expansion. Indeed, some of the local businesses, though few in number, would prosper during the construction phase of the project. Not long after, however, it is most likely that Brinnon will wither as all new development and economic activity is concentrated around Black Point. Brinnon will be left to be a viewing platform for all the traffic travelling to and from the Statesman resort, or, alternately, a theme park celebrating the glory days of logging. If we assume that most people who live and own property in the south county do so willingly, out of appreciation for the area as it is, the development proposed by Statesman is an terribly rude imposition. Traffic impacts. US 101, SR 104, and Center Road all would become more congested due to the Statesman resort, especially in the peak summer vacation season. 1200 residential units, 290 moorage slips, and 18 holes of golf add up to a considerable increase in traffic along roads which are ill- equipped to handle their present traffic loads. Along with the increase in road traffic, there would be an accompanying increase in boat use of Hood Canal, mostly by small boats with inefficient and polluting two -cycle outboard engines. Thus, traffic impacts become water quality impacts. -When the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Statesman's application, they added several conditions which they believed would sufficiently mitigate the impacts of the resort. I find those conditions to be vague, weak, and difficult to impossible to enforce. I conclude that there is only one way to condition Statesman's proposal to adequately reduce its impact and that is to drastically reduce its scale. I am not opposed to a Master Planner Resort at Black Point. In the future, if the impacts of a smaller resort are minor, expansion may be warranted. If you choose to approve the MPR amendment for Black Point, I urge you to add conditions such as necessary to limit the initial development, that which could be permitted under the amendment, to no more than a quarter of the scale of Statesman's proposal. I realize that 4.5 holes of golf would not appeal to many golfers, so I do not suggest that the 25% limitation be applied to the golf course. But the 10,000 square feet of commercial development, the expansion of the marina, and, especially, the 1200 plus residential units all must be pared down to a scale which fits the south county and which will not threaten Hood Canal Si rely, Phil Andrus POB 261 Chimacum, WA 98325 t i- aJ03lo -7 P C-- 5 To: From: Date: Re: the Jefferson County Commissioners 360- 385 -9382 Andrea Mitchell, Brinnon, WA 796 -2060 December 3, 2007 Statesman MPR/BOCC meeting tonight RECEIVED DEC 0 3 7007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I'm enclosing a letter from Jean Johnston that she had hoped to read tonight. She is unable to attend and has asked me to get it into the right hands. We would like to ask that the meeting be moved to another day. We have experienced 10" of rain in 24 hours after over a foot of snow. Roads are barely passable of if not passable now. Power has been out for 12 hours overnight and is on and off now. We are still receiving heavy rain and attendance is a safety issue. Andrea Mitchell L -d 09OZ-96L-09�: Ilegol!UV qo�j dLO:ZL LO CO oeQ jean Johnson, 47 Wallace St. Stetscoom WA 98388 December 3, 2007 Board of County CO MOissiOn= PO Box 17.22 Port Townsea;l, WA 98368 Re.- Postpcme the Decision on the Brix�non MPR to the 2088 Docket Dear Chakaaan and Members: my tmas is jam JGlwzon- [awn the B � �� � for the Bzinnou Grove sad for the BrW".. am cozxrmenting tanigb Brinson MPR Opposiiian- Thank you for holding Otis hearing- ago working �Yg ago we tried to get the Platmitagpattment sand Plautaiag eos.5ion reconnuendatzons. t,opies wire sot available. We haven't this amc�udmwt. 'j'{tcle still these �mmers ations. I asir yo I slow d 0 p on on � Sion u� the 2008 Docket. too �Y unanswered qu=tiom I ash you to postpott We look to you, our Commissioners to do what's best for our cvAr►muuity. Now it brat for everyone itia. znozetYme beforaJ'otimakeY�tbtea wilt be bu Item tb dale and kjadIoG new hauses expected to be built in Ibis pr'c►Jec Project its too big for a decision to be made this UGA over the next 10 years. This is a huge year. We know that the amendment is for 251 acres and the EIS states tlx= are 890 houses. But there are tnmy provisions in the text Of the Comprehensive Plan that will Iaave to be amextded to make the text consistent with tha propowl. These text changes haven't been proposed awd they haven't had a public headng. Dofl't ac"Pt a bat£ baked proPosW' More work needs to be done on setting wbsn levels of service for fire, police, and other services. More work weeds to this location needs ove woxk daeeds to be done�on necessary saves cart. a�suY � biz#eriug the proposal frvru IIwy. 101. More work needs to be done an saving frECS on this sir. The design looks more litre a ovedn ilt housing dev�elop:rneat than a resort. We ask you to reject this amendment. This ==drnent Should not be approved this year by This Board. if yon do approve the amendment ztow, we vn appeal to the Crtc►wth Board. Vile ask you to make sure tbat no pmject petnr it or development agmcrnent can vest uutil the Cxovvth Board rules. Theuk you Jean JoXm'on Z -d 090Z-96L-09£ 11egojiw qo�j dLO :ZI LO CO oed i MPR Comment Letter: Miranda Schryver From: jim hagen Uchagen @donobi.net] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:26 PM` To: Miranda Schryver Cc: John Fischbach; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; #Long -Range Planning Subject: MLA06 -87 MPR Public Comment Letter Jefferson County Board of County Commisssioners; Pagel of 3 1 am writing in support of adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA06 -87; Black Point MPR (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort), consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Department of Community Development. Designation of a Master Planned Resort at Black Point was precisely what the legislature had in mind when it amended GMA to offer economically depressed communities like Brinnon opportunities to prosper after the loss of traditional natural resource industries. All the pieces fit and Statesman Corp. has presented as modern and innovative a plan as will likely ever come along. If this proposal can't fly then we might as well tear out the section in the Comp Plan on MPR's and put it on the shelf to collect dust with other optimistic plans that attempted to provide GMA mandated "opportunities to both live and work in rural areas." (Like the attempt in 2003 to establish a Small Business Cottage Industry Overlay in Brinnon that died on appeal). Our County Comprehensive Plan is the compilation of numerous grass roots planning efforts drafted in living rooms across the county. The development of the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan included a vision for an MPR at Black Point similar to what Statesman is proposing. At this conceptual stage of the process Black Point/Pleasant Harbor is consistent with every standard by which MPR's are measured. By their nature MPR's present a paradox in that their location i°in a setting of significant natural amenities" means substantial urban style growth will impact environmentally sensitive areas and small rural communities. The 12/3/2007 MPR Comment Letter: Page 2 of 3 legislature certainly recognized this conflict and included checks and balances in 36.70A360 to ensure development is environmentally and economically appropriate. The county has outlined how "impacts may be avoided and necessary mitigation may be assured." Statesman has presented a resort proposal that incorporates contemporary low- impact building techniques, has set aside nearly 40% open space, is designed to be architecturally compatible with the natural setting, and addresses a list of other environmental impacts item by item. Statesman has met all the criteria for approval of this non - project, MPR land -use designation. Concerns about project level actions are premature at this stage. At the project level, every stage of permitting will demand compliance with capital facilities, transportation, and critical area regulations. Eventual development permits involve 18 from the County, 9 from the State, and 1 Federal Section 404 and 10 other Federal permits for work in the waters of the U.S. This resort cannot ultimately be built without the oversight of and compliance with regulating agencies that opponents of the MPR have shown complete confidence in other arenas of environmental planning. The Commissioners are duty -bound to evaluate this application on the basis of exactly what it requests and nothing more. The statutory procedure that guides decision making for designation of an MPR land -use is precise and objective to ensure fairness and due process, and avoid the misuse of process and influence of misunderstanding, misinformation, and outright purposeful deception. The subject of impacts on rural character should be analyzed in the legal context of what constitutes "rural." By GMA standards rural is not a subjective interpretation but has a specific definition, described in RCW 36.70A030(14)(a -g). As MPR's have been recognized by the legislature as a mechanism for assisting depressed rural economies and by their design are located in significant natural settings, the argument that MPR's are not consistent with rural character defies legislative intent. This MPR amendment is the culmination of years of South County planning. GMA and Jefferson County have established procedures where urban style growth can co -exist with a significant natural setting. Jefferson County in general and Brinnon in particular certainly qualify as economically depressed. The County is in an affordability crisis, where average wage earners can't afford a home and government cannot balance its budget without drastic budget cuts to basic services. The affordability crisis is 12/3/2007 MPR Comment Letter: Page 3 of 3 further heightened by the likelihood taxpayers will be required to carry an increased burden for supporting those public services. For all the talk about sustainability, Jefferson residents are dependent upon other counties for millions in goods and services that if captured locally, as an MPR would, could support the county general fund and reduce reliance on taxpayers. To turn away from this MPR amendment would disregard what is really happening to our social and economic infrastructure, without justification for any equally corresponding negative loss in either rural or environmental character. Jim Hagen 150 Maple Dr. Cape George 12/3/2007 CC : p�� qla Miranda Schryver From: Kari Lopez [sylvestr @embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:45 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Blackpoint MPR EIS > December 3, 2007 > To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners - > This is to advise you that we are opposed to the Blackpoint MPR as > proposed by Statesman. The Final EIS addresses none of the pertinent > concerns that were raised by Brinnon residents in regard to the Draft > EIS. Specifically, some of these were in regard to water quality, > groundwater protection and saltwater intrusion, sanitation, > transportation, emergency services and their associated costs. It > appears that the Planning Commission and Department of Community > Development were in a big rush to move this project along for final > approval by the BOCC. We sincerely hope that the BOCC will take time > to evaluate how this project might negatively impact residents of > Brinnon. > Statesman has proposed that the Jefferson County departments and the > PUD assume ultimate responsibility and will bear the costs for these > issues. We are deeply concerned because the Jefferson County > departments that will be affected have neither the funding, expertise > nor experience to manage a project of this size and scope. To date, > Jefferson County departments have not required the existing marina > managers to implement and observe existing, requisite ordinances or > management programs regarding the many issues involved at the marina. > And we see no evidence that Statesman has demonstrated experience or > abilities for a project of this type under their existing properties > or those still under development. There is no language in the EIS to > address how emergency or catastrophic situations are to be handled and > anyone that has lived more than a few years in this area has seen many > extreme, natural conditions. > We request that this project not be moved along and no permits be > granted until all issues raised relating to the EIS are resolved. > Also, that Statesman be required to post bonds large enough to > remediate any environmental damages that the project may cause. Also, > that contracts be negotiated and be in place prior to permits being > issued to ensure that no Jefferson County departments or Jefferson > County taxpayers or Brinnon residents incur any costs for this > project, which should be borne by Statesman. The tax revenues that > this proposal is projected to produce are hyperbole and at this point > it remains to be seen whether they will ever be realized. > Sincerely, > Karola & Archie Lopez > 432 Overbrook Lane > Brinnon Wa 98320 1 cc�. ���a�yltYl Miranda Schryver From: terry cook [terry.cook @jsrl.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:41 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: New Pleasant Harbor Page 1 of 1 I'm for it ,I've have had a boat there for 5 years and like the quiet peaceful place but let's do it and make Brinnon a mark on the map. I think people will like the change once it's up and running and as for pollution you guy's who say it will pollute have you checked where your septic system drains into!! This will be an environmentally friendly place you can't build anything but that these days. GOOD LUCK! Terry Cook Project Superintendant J.S.Redpath Corporation Cell Phone 360- 431 -2988 Email terry.cook @jsri.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1170 - Release Date: 12/4/2007 10:52 AM 12/4/2007 DEC. 4. 2007 2: WM THE UPS STORE The UPS Store 2052 3377 Bethel RD SE, Ste 107 Port Orchard, WA 98366 360.895.3290 Tel 360.895.3282 Fax Mon. — Fri. 8:00am — 7:00pm Sat. 9;00am — 6:00pm FAX RECEIVED DEC 0 4 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO � 6nsoy) n` Company. Fax number a — 5� -36 2- Tel number Date -7, 'fatal pages 7 NO. 387 P. 1 O Itla cZe 4X r u Department Fax number TO number Date job number DEC. 4.2007 2.44PM THE UPS STORE MARLE+NE~ RAYL (360) 871 -1576 (360) 874n 1 872 marscreative&ahoo, cam Tuesday, December 5, 2007 Jefferson County Commissioner 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Dear Mr. Johnson, RECEIVED DEC 0 4 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NO. 387 P. 2 In response to the Black Point development in Brinnon, I am writing on behalf of my concerns for I and others may not be able to "voice" or concerns in person at the upcoming hearing, later this weep therefore we are putting forth our concerns and facts in writing that which is legally of equal or greater value of representation that Is legally binding in determination of public opinion and those that oppose the development and facts to be taking into consideration. The Golf Course is clearly a blue print for "corporate development" a blue print for track condos, chain corporations, enlarged gas stations from competitors that would put local grocery, gas, retailers out of business. Provided is a copy from Monday December 3 Kitsap Sun, please read this and know that many are in agreement with the facts that Barbara Moore -Lewis explains. There is already dishonest acts of hand - holding potentially with the Jefferson County Economic Development Counsel and possibly the Statesman. Group? An anonymous letter circulated the Jefferson County region stating that this is all good, promise of jobs, and a "family wage" but not committing to any clear dollar amounts or facts. Only a lawyer would know better than to; x) Not sign your name if your sending something through the U.S. Postal Service and your statements are not truthful or misleading. 2) If you can't sip your name to a letter that is sent in the mail then how can you be trusted? On the fallowing page is a list of concerns as to why I and many other residents through the Olympic Peninsula oppose this project and the direction that County Development Departments are going in. .-%A DEC. 4. 2007 2:44PM THE UPS STORE N0, 387 P. 3 The Statesman Group that includes companies based in Calgary, Alberta and through out Canada would ultimately reap the year -round profits in exchange for a few low-paying jobs. Family wage and wages have not been established, listed or defined. There is a reason why you would never see this proposal on Bainbridge Island., and Vashon Island, beosusc many development councils understand the long term erects and the cost given to the local communities with increased taxes, solid waste treatment and over all environmental pollution. We should not be quick to give way the last of our country's greatest resources and undervalue the American worker to every billion dollar corporation that wines and dines us. Here are some critical questions that should be addressed: 1. The demographics of Brinnon and surrounding area; how many people actually live in the area and who is actually employable? Their agge, disabilities ( ?), and employment experience. 2. The fact that short -tem excavating and clear cutting/logging jobs is not a feasible long- term employment solution and that many loggers have long since moved on. 3. Canadian companies stand to make millions on this and many other proposed projects from our resources in the Pacific Northwest, leaving "us" to pay for the environmental clean up 10 -1 S years from now. And if the economy continues to be challenged, or our country should incur a series of natural disasters it is doubtful this resort would be prosperous year -round and we can not get our natural resources back nor would "we" have a return on them (natural .resources). 4. .A foreign company and project of this magnitude could potentially put local American owned resorts, and shell fish fanners permanently out of business. 5. We know that we are co-dependent on clean water and air through out our region and the long term environmental impact #lom this would be devastating; on going pesticide use, land erosion, noise pollution, lighting pollution, traffic and unearthing pristine environments and future water sheds. 6. Has anyone confirmed the impact of the water and sewer treatment upon the canal and the rise in cost of these services that will be paid for by the people of the region and probably not the Canadian companies? 7. We know that when you log one -acre of land it affects 40 -acres (Washington State Education Department Ecology Class) has anyone done the math? One - million, two - hundred and forty - thousand acres affected. Thank you for time and consideration in this matter, your prompt response in this matter is much appreciated. Sincerely, arlene Rayl (360) 871 -15 76 muwreative@yahoo.com DEC. 4.2007 2:44PM THE UPS STORE NO,387 P. 4 Proposed Resort a Threat to Our Hood Canal M any people have moved to the Hood Canal area for the same reasons: a rural lifestyle and being close to the woods and forests where we hike, fish, hunt, and enjoy our quality of life. I art. concerned --- and I think we should all be con- cerned — about decisions be- ing made that will destroy our way of life. These deci- sions are being made by big business and government, ig- noring the wishes of the local residents. I am talking about the proposal for the over- sized California -style resort planned for Brinnon. The master plan being pushed through county govern- ment by a Canadian corpora- tion will be on Black Point. I live about a mile from where Statesman plans to build this monstrosity. There are many aspects of the plan that can damage fragile Hood. Canal: 1 There would be about 1,000 timeshare units, condos and houses built on Black Point. It is unclear how well the sewage and other waste will be kept out of the canal. To build a "marina village," the land will be bulldozed down to the shore. Old trees and scattered buildings will be replaced with timeshares and concrete. 1 There would be an 18 -hole golf course. The corporation assures opponents of the plan that pollutants used to main- tain this golf course will have no effect on the Canal, which surrounds Black Point on three sides. If you are concerned about this threat to Hood Canal and to our lifestyle, write to the newspapers and to the Jeffer- son County commissioners John Austin, David Sullivan, and Phil Johnson. You can go to the Jefferson County Web site to link to these names. Help me preserve the reasons we moved to where we live. Barbara Moore - ,Lewis Member Brinnon Group BRINNON DEC. 4. 2001 2:36PM GWA- i_U 606 THE UPS STORE MARLENE RAYL (360) 871 -1 676 (360) 874- 1872 ( marscreat iv ae hoo.corn Tuesday, December 5, 2007 Karen Burrows Jefferson County DCD, Long Range Planning 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Dear Karen, NO. 384 P. 2 253.5 -7., ED u RSON COUNTY OCD I understand that written concerns will still be accepted up to noon this Friday. Please accept these amended concerns and article. It is also being conveyed that if there is a low attendance at the meeting later this week than the Commissioners will consider low attendance as "little or no opposition" for the Black Point Development, That is legally untruthful, they must consider every written concern, petition, vote, declaration, phone call, and clear communications regarding .concerns of this project from citizens even ill "they" are not physically in front of them. In response to the Black Point development in Brinnon, I am writing on behalf of my concerns for I and others may not be able to -voice, or concerns in person at the upcoming wring later this week, therefore we are putting forth our concerns and facts in writing that which is legally of equal or greater value of representation that is legally blinding in determination of public opium and those that oppose the development and facts to be taking into consideration. The Golf Course is clearly a blue print for "corporate development" a blue print for tack condos, chain corporations, enlarged gas stations from competitors that would put local grocery, gas, retailers out of business. Provided is a copy from Monday December 3 Kitsap Sun, please read this and know that many are in agreement with the facts that Barbara. Moore -Lewis explains. Tyre is already dishonest acts of hand - holding potentially with the Jefl`erson County Pconomic Development Counsel and possibly the Statesman. group? An anonymous letter circulated the Jefferson County region stating that this is all good, promise of jobso and a "family wage„ but not committing to any clear dollar amounts or facts. 0* a Lawyer would know better than to; 1) Not sign your name if your sending something through the U.S. Postal Service and your statements are not truthful or misleading. 2) If you can't sign your name to a letter that h sent in the mail then how canyon be hosted? On the following page is a list of concerns as to why I and many other residerb through the Olympic Peninsula oppose this project and the direction that County Development Departme t s are going in. DEC. 4.2007 2:37PM THE UPS STORE NO. 384 P. 3 The Statesman Getup that includes companies based in Calgary, Alberta and through out Canada would ultimately reap the year -round profits in exchange for a few low paying jobs. Family wage and wages have not been established, listed or defined. There is a reason why you would never we this proposal on Bainbridge Island, and Vashon Island, because many development councils understand the long term effects and the cost given to the local communities with increased taxes, solid waste treatment and over all environmental pollution. We should not be quick to give way the last of our country's greatest resources and undervalue the American worker to every billion dollar corporation that wines and dines us. Here are some critical questions that should be addressed: 1. The demographics of Brinnon and surrounding area; how many people actually live in the area and who is actually employable? Their age, disabilities ( ?� and employment experience. 2. The hot that short-term excavating and clear cutting/logging jobs is not a feasible long- term employment solution and that many loggers have long since moved orL 3. Canadian companies stand to make millions on this and many other proposed projects ftm our resources in the Pacific Northwest, leaving "&' to pay for the environmental clean up 10 -15 years from now. And if the economy continues to be challenged, or our country should incur a series of natural disasters it is doubtful this resort would be prosperous year -round and we can not get our natural resources back nor would "we" have a return on them (natural resources), 4. A. foreign company and project of this magnitude could potentially put local American owned resorts, and shell fish farmers pbtmanently out of business. 5. We know that we are co- dependent on clean water and air through out our region and the long term environmental impact from this would be devastating, on going pesticide use, land erosion, noise Pollution, lighting pollution, traffic and unearthing pristine environments and future water sheds. 6. Has anyone confirmed the impact of the water and sewer treatment upon the canal and the rise in cost of these services that will be paid for by the people of the region and probably not the Canadian eompanies? 7. We know that when you log one -acre of land it affects 40 -acres (Washington State Education Depaz tmt Ecology Class) has anyone done the math? One - million, two - hundred and forty - thousand acres affected. Thank you for time and consideration in this matter, your prompt response in this matter is much appreciated. /7arklftyl , SEC al 4 nr.? Afflfhsh DEC. 4.2007 2:37PMMJHE UPS STORE NO. 384 P. 4 i V ASAW Proposed Resort a Threat to Hood any people have moved to the Mood Canal area for the same reasons: a rural lifestyle and being close to the woods and forests where we hike, fish, hunt, and enjoy our quality of life. I am concerned -- and I think we should all be con- cerned about decisions be- ing made that will destroy our way of life. These deci- sions are being made by big business and government, ig- noring the wishes of the local residents. I am talking about the proposal for the over- sized California -style resort planned for Brinnon. The master plan being pushed through county govern- ment by a Canadian corpora- tion will be on Black Point. I live about a mile from where Statesman plans to build this monstrosity. There are many aspects of the plan that can damage fragile Hood Canal: I There would be about 1,000 timeshare units, condos and houses built on Black Point. It is unclear how well the sewage and other waste will be kept out of the canal. To build a "marina village," the land will be bulldozed down to the shore. Old trees and scattered buildings will be replaced with timeshares and concrete. 1 There would be an 18 -hole golf course. The corporation assures opponents of the plan that pollutants used to main- tain this golf course will have no effect on the Canal, which surrounds Black Point on three sides. If you are concerned about this threat to Hood Canal and to our lifestyle, write to the newspapers and to the Jeffer- son. County commissioners John Austin, David Sullivan, and Phil Johnson. You can go to the Jefferson County Web site to link to these names. Help me preserve the reasons we moved to where we live. Barbara Moore -Lewis Member Brinnon Group $�zxNOx DEC. 4.2007 2:36PM THE UPS STORE The UPS Store 2052 3377 Bethel RD Srz, Ste 107 l -ort Orchard, WA 98366 360.895.3290 Tel 360.896.3282 Fax Mon. — Fri. 8 :00am — 7:00pm Sat. 9:00am — 6 :00pm NO, 384 P. 1 DEC 0 4 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY OCR TO . k�ren- Furra�05 Company oz &5M &,,f,nn� Fax number . lof '`y j Tel number Date Total Pages From A L1 Department ps. Fax number . Tel number 106 7L Date _ t ?.- �' 5''-07- Job number Mirand chryver From: Darlene Schanfald [darlenes @olympus.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:37 PM r To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Comment on proposed Brinnon resort development To the Jefferson County Commissioners: As a citizen of WA State with responsibility to protect the State's environment and public health, it is my responsibility to comment on the proposed Brinnon resort plan. I oppose this project for the following reasons: Rather than cleaning up and protecting Puget Sound, this project will add to the pollution and destruction of the Sound. Development around coastlines should be halted. Any building should be far back due to rising waters from global warming and potential tsunamis. Boat oils will pollute the Sound and Sound habitat. Storms, floods and rising waters will force these pollutants up onto land, way back into streams, and further along the shoreline. Developers will not pick up the costs, but the public and wildlife will. This project will destroy wildlife habitat. This is not how we should be dispensing the ever dwindling oil supply. What is the potable water situation? Is it sufficient for the long term for Brinnon residents? if so, is there sufficient potable water cover the thirst of those at the proposed development? This is a project to attract those with money. A resort of this type in the NW means it will be idle for much of the year, given the climate. Many people that can afford this style of life are snowbirds and will be in FL and elsewhere where it is warm. As all communities that have experienced this kind of development know, one of the results is to price out the current local residents via taxes and other rising costs. Developers should not be allowed to force life style changes on the residents. Bring in projects that the public needs; not these resort developments. Darlene Schanfald 481 Holgerson Rd Sequim WA 98382 1 C, u-jqb-1 p c.. Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:28 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Black Point MPR Attachments: Black Point- commisioner comment.doc From: Russell [SMTP:SDRUSSELL @EMBARQMAIL.COM] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:22:52 AM To: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Black Point MPR Auto forwarded by a Rule Please find my comments concerning the Black Point MPR in the attached file. Page 1 of 1 The developer's promises serve to deflect the conversation away from the very real problems by making real estate agents, the citizens of Brinnon, the Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, and the rest of Jefferson County believe they or their interests will somehow financially benefit (ka- ching). As with all developers, the only prosperity they are interested in is their own. Please don't let the dollar signs blind you to the real issues. At a time when the environmental stresses in Hood Canal are becoming more evident, it is inappropriate to consider development of such large proportion as Black Point's project. I urge you to disapprove the Black Point resort proposal. Thank you. Deborah Russell 12/5/2007 Deborah Russell 477 Sierra Trail Quilcene, WA 98376 (360) 765 -3721 sdrussell@embarqmail.com December 4, 2007 Jefferson County Commissioners John Austin Phil Johnson David Sullivan PO Box 1220 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Black Point Resort MLA06 -0087 Hood Canal has seen an alarming decline in health in recent years. We've all read about (and experienced first hand) the decreasing salmon, bottom fish, and crab populations. Shore bird populations are declining. Theories abound for the causes, but most point to shoreline development. I am very concerned that the Black Point Resort would layer additional stresses on an already struggling ecosystem. Potential environmental damage includes (but is certainly not limited to) such items as: Increased erosion and stormwater runoff could affect the intertidal and subtidal areas disrupting salmon and shellfish fisheries, forage fish spawning areas, and shore bird habitat. Large areas are proposed to be cleared then cut and filled which may destabilize slopes and increase landslide hazard and excess stormwater runoff on the resort property as well as adjoining properties. Eagles are found in the area and clearing large areas will decrease habitat for them and other animals. A facility of this size will add an enormous burden on the aquifer, even if water needs will be supplemented by catchment and recycling. Salt water intrusion is an increasing problem in the area. Increased drawdown will exacerbate the problem. Occupancy and therefore water usage would be highest during the summer months when little rain falls, further stressing the aquifer. Near shore septic systems have been sited as possible sources of excess nitrogen leading to plankton blooms, increased marine biotoxins, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Hood Canal has experienced an alarming increase in all these problems; indeed the beaches near Black Point have been closed several times due to pollution and biotoxin conditions. A system serving a very large facility like Black Point's would certainly add to these risks. Chemicals used on the golf course and landscaped areas will find their way to Hood Canal despite efforts to contain runoff. Increased boat traffic could bring in a host of destructive viruses, bacteria, and marine plants and animals. The club tunicate and the colonial tunicate have already damaged this area of Hood Canal. Brinnon experiences large storms lasting several days that could overwhelm even the best stormwater plan. The winds and rains of the last few days remind us that stormwater containment can and will be overwhelmed. I live directly across Dabob Bay from Black Point and measured over 12 inches of rain in less than 36 hours. The "hundred year storms" have been occurring with increasing frequency. Chemicals including cleaning products, caffeine, and hormones which affect fish, bird, amphibian, and other animal health may find their way to the water recycling and the septic systems. Mitigating environmental damage is never preferable to avoiding the damage. A development this large is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan to protect rural areas. Little by little, changes to the Comprehensive Plan are eroding the rural character of the county. In this case the change is enormous. The Planning Commission's recommendation for increased area adds insult to injury. The development proposes only 35% natural area which certainly does not allow open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation to predominate over the built environment. Keeping trees along the highway to hide the development does not preserve rural character. This development does not foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas. Golf, condos, conventions and meetings, and big restaurants are not part of a traditional rural -based lifestyle or economy. The Black Point Resort is not appropriately scaled to serve the needs of the local rural community and the traveling public, and is not in keeping with the historical growth pattern of the area. The entire population of Brinnon is less than 1000 people. A development adding almost 1100 housing units is completely out of scale. The EIS seems to use the housing density only in the immediate area (along the waterfront in Pleasant Harbor) to skew the average to be able to assert that their development does not significantly increase density. The population density in the 10 square mile Brinnon area is 0.13 erp sons per acre. Although my primary concerns are environmental and preserving the rural character; issues of economics, community, and oversight are also important. The jobs created will primarily be low paying and seasonal, which will perpetuate and likely exacerbate Brinnon's depressed economy. An outside company, particularly foreign owned, may not feel the obligation to forge supportive relationships with the community. Many individual property owners will not be full time residents and will likely see no need for connection to the community past the need for service - -- waiters, maids, grounds keepers, and the like. Increased monitoring and supervision requirements could overwhelm the already under- staffed county government. Depending on Black Point to self -report environmental damage and adhere to regulations is inadequate. The developer's promises serve to deflect the conversation away from the very real problems by making real estate agents, the citizens of Brinnon, the Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, and the rest of Jefferson County believe they or their interests will somehow financially benefit (ka- ching). As with all developers, the only prosperity they are interested in is their own. Please don't let the dollar signs blind you to the real issues. At a time when the environmental stresses in Hood Canal are becoming more evident, it is inappropriate to consider development of such large proportion as Black Point's proj ect. I urge you to disapprove the Black Point resort proposal. Thank you, Deborah Russell Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: Sheila and Dick Moore [pigeonridge @embargmaiI.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:11 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Brinnon MPR Commissioners: Since we cannot attend the public meeting tomorrow reguarding the Plan amendment, we wish to state our strong support for the Pleasant Harbor developement. Our community is experiencing a slow but steady decline and in our view the planned development offers a very positive step in bringing about needed change. We have studied the EIS covering the proposed developement and feel it is well thought out and comprehensive. In light of the ever increasing budget problems Jefferson county is encountering it seems a great way to increase the tax base both for the county and our small community. Without this we will continue to go backwards. Please approve the plan amendment to allow this important project to go forward. Thank you, Richard and Sheila Moore, Hiway 101 Brinnon 12/5/2007 (�C `, Page 1 of 1 1-4 51 01 PC- '3 Miranda Schryver From: ASM Inc [ starrettmansion @cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:37 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: MPR and stormwater My comments. Doing research on the web, I am finding out that using universities and graduate students to do watershed mapping is the most affordable way to go rather then hire full time staff. I suggest that this gets a closer look since we are broke. Although government is the worst polluter government keeps racking up regulations for private landowners. We have heard a lot about bad culverts, runoff from roads/highway etc. Next time you are in Edmonds and its raining look at the parking lot. The water runs right into the sound and we are regulating the small landowner to death who has little or NO impact. Is it any wonder citizens are upset? This last storm proves that government did not keep up with the infrastructure needed for the safety of citizens or a healthy environment. It also proves that Statesmen with their state of the art infrastructure such as stormwater management that surpasses anything in the County or City will be a responsible builder and protect the watershed unlike current landowners. Now if only government can clean up their act. Edel Sokol P.S. • 1 hear an ugly rumor out of the court house today that the MPR is possibly dead in the water. • 1 hope you three are NOT that irresponsible. • I hope that you did not take Gallant and his outrageous website into consideration. • I hope that you take the majority of the planning commission deliberation seriously. 12/5/2007 Page 1 of 1 QC Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:24 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Black Point Attachments: Black - Commisioners.doc From: Russell [SMTP:SDRUSSELL @EMBARQMAIL.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:18:13 AM To: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Black Point Auto forwarded by a Rule Commissioners: Attached are my comments regarding the Proposed Black Point MPR. Stan Russell 12/6/2007 N -. Stan Russell 477 Sierra Trail Quilcene, WA 98376 (360) 765 -3721 sdrussell @embargmail.com December 5, 2007 Jefferson County Commissioners John Austin Phil Johnson David Sullivan PO Box 1220 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort This is to submit comments regarding the proposed Golf Resort at Black Point. It is my understanding that this development would require major zoning ordinance revisions. A resort/convention center is not permitted under the existing codes, and is inappropriate for the area. The ordinances were established with clear objectives, particularly to preserve the rural character of this area. These codes should not be changed to accommodate such a massive development which is completely contrary to the intent of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The impact to the natural and social environment of the Brinnon area and Hood Canal would be adverse and irreversible. People choose to live around Brinnon because of its existing environment. This project would transform Brinnon from a rural community into a service community dominated by a massive resort development. By its nature, a golf resort/marina is an imposing, invasive, destructive, polluting development. If this project proceeds, the character of the community will be permanently transformed, to the detriment of the local community and Hood Canal. The benefits of this project would be enjoyed exclusively by the owners and developers of the Black Point resort. The long term negative effects including pollution (water, air, noise, visual), habitat loss, and congestion, will be suffered by those of us who value Jefferson County, Brinnon and Hood Canal. Regulatory/Compliance issues. When an applicant is processing an application, they profess willingness to do anything necessary to get what they want. If The Statesman Group's application is successful, the requirements and restrictions associated with this project could be inconvenient to the developer. Jefferson County simply does not have the staff to insure compliance of an operation of this magnitude and sensitivity. In fact, the County is currently overwhelmed by out -of- compliance complaints regarding small residential and commercial construction. Mitigation. The developer has asserted that environmental damage would be mitigated. Mitigation is the process by which environmental destruction is supposedly offset by promises of future activities of questionable merit. That uncertain trade -off would not be to advantage of Jefferson County, the State, or the environment. The Statesman Group is paying for the EIS. Consultants are hired to provide statements supporting those who pay their fees. Consultants can be found to advocate any position, regardless of merit. They will predictably conclude that a proposed project will have "negligible ", "minimal ", and /or "acceptable" environmental impact. However, an objective assessment could never conclude that a project of this scope will not have enormously adverse environmental impacts. The long term value of this relatively undisturbed area of Hood Canal is infinitely more important to our community than the balance sheet of a developer. Thank you, Stan Russell Ou Pc Miranda Schryver From: ASM Inc [ starrettmansion @cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:52 PM To: Miranda Schryver; #dcd; #Long -Range Planning Subject: Brinnon Area MPR Comments Attachments: comments About Brinnon MPR.doc Please consider the attached comments regarding the MPR during your deliberations. 12/6/2007 Page 1 of 1 Comments for the BOCC in Favor of the MPR South of Brinnon. December 5, 2007 You have proclaimed your support for and the need for economic development in Jefferson County. The MPR is an opportunity to walk the walk. This year's budget process has been particularly messy, including last minute Saturday meetings, because your needs have dramatically exceeded you ability to pay for them. Spending down reserves for operations is not sustainable. The Resort at Semi Ali Moo is a classic example of economic development and environmental responsibility. The resort has a large inn and conference center, Marina, boatyard with a travel lift, golf courses, condominiums, and a housing development. The area is low bank waterfront and there is one road in and out. The resort provides extensive employment opportunities and generates many thousands of tax dollars both directly and indirectly which goes a long ways to help Whatcom County balance its budget. The construction will generate thousands of dollars in sales tax revenues immediately, which will help relieve your current cash flow deficiency. The resort, as with every water and waterfront development, has gone through extensive local, state and federal permit processes including NEPA, SEPA, EIS, Corps of . Engineers, etc. As developed and as it continues to develop, the resort is environmentally responsible. Having personally been through several permitting processes for both in water and shoreline development, I can attest to the rigors of the environmental permitting process. Being irresponsible is simply not an option. Mitigate -- -Don't obliterate! Voters will look at their property tax bills and remember how you threw out an opportunity to generate taxes revenues through economic activity when they vote in the County Commissioner race in 2008. They will remember programs not funded or cut. They will remember that you are spending down reserves. They will remember that the Tri-Area sewer is held hostage to the lack of county revenues. Robert H. Sokol 1005 Quincy St Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385 -9002 CC = -DCD , Leslie Locke From: Miranda Schryver Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:45 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Statesmans Group development From: Roger & Vicki Foszcz [mailto:rvfoz @olypen.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:35 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Statesmans Group development Commissioners; Page 1 of 1 I have already commented on the proposed development at Black Point/ Pleasant Harbor, but feel compelled to do it again. Please do not take the approval recommendations of the county Department of Community Development or the county planning commissioners and allow this development to proceed. Think about the legacy you'll be leaving for posterity and don't let corporate greed or misdirected economics sway your decision. Plant trees. We need natural spaces not corporate developments for the good of the entire area. Respectfully, Roger M. Foszcz 910 W. 111th St. Port Angeles, WA 98363 360- 457 -8330 12/6/2007 CC: T)c 101m/6 -7 Pc Leslie Locke From: John Austin Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 1:37 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Golf Course Proposal From: Brian Downey [SMTP:TENBEARS14 @EXCITE.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 1:33:48 PM To: John Austin Subject: Golf Course Proposal Auto forwarded by a Rule Hello, Page 1 of 1 I am a Washington State native. I have seen what has happened to my state. I have worked building trails and campsites. I grew up in Olympia -- a developer's dream come true. The new golf course proposal is a very bad idea. This will have a terrible impact on the water quality of the canal and traffic. There are enough golf courses in the area already, so this must just be another part of a misguided effort to develop the Olympic Peninsula area. To any objective person this would be better described as destruction. Why can't the most westward part of the continent that lies farthest west in humanity's expansion from the cradle of civilization be allowed to develop differently? If someone needs a golf course or needs to make a buck why can't they choose some place east of Puget's Sound all the way to China? No doubt the dapper golfers in their white clothing would want to build nifty new houses up on the hills overlooking Hood's Canal. It will be like Los Angeles. And then the lizards will have to find a new place to destroy. No new golf course (unless it is a nice small Oly Pen style golf course, not a Texan size course). And allowing housing up on the hillsides is mentally deficient behavior, also. Thanks for all you do to help save my home state. Brian. (360) 830 -3506 Join Excite! - http. //www 9 c.ite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! 12/6/2007 co D J ® PORT GAMBLE SWLALLAM TRIBE ® 31912 Little Boston Road NE • Kingston, WA 98346 December 6, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED IDEC 0 7 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Comments regarding the Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon, WA (MLA06 -87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The S'Klallam Tribes and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe maintain a special interest in the Brinnon area as the Tribes depend on local fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources for their cultural and economic well- being. Tidelands harbor commercially- significant shellfish populations, and the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and their deltas serve as critical habitat for threatened salmon, and the entire area hosts a diversity of other important fish and wildlife populations valued by the Tribe and local residents. It is the Tribes position that the Final Environmental Impact Statement produced by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development does not accurately address concerns regarding shellfish resource impacts, transportation impacts, fish and wildlife impacts, nor impacts to the rural character of the Brinnon area. The FEIS document commonly asserts the notion that environmental impacts outside of the project's physical borders are somehow not necessarily connected to the MPR and are therefore given little or no weight in the text of this document. The narrow scope of this document is more suited towards a project specific action as opposed to a request for a comprehensive plan amendment. It is the Tribes request that the Board of County commissioners ask staff at DCD to revisit the environmental impacts associated with redesignation of lands within the Brinnon area from rural to urban (i.e. dramatically increasing the human population density) this fundamental question is lacking in the current FEIS. The tribe is particularly concerned about what effects urbanization will have on the following natural resources within the Brennan area. The Duckabush shellfish bed which is the most productive shellfish bed in east Jefferson County: approximately 95,000 pounds of allowable annual harvest (state and tribal share) (360) 297 -2646 (360) 478 -4583 (206) 464 -7281 (360) 297 -7097 Kingston Bremerton Seattle Fax ® PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Road NE • Kingston, WA 98346 The two Elk herds of approximately 100 animals each: (see letter from Point No Point Treaty Council, wildlife biologist) The presence of three listed salmon species (Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon, and Puget Sound Steelhead) as well as strong populations of Coho Salmon and Fall Chum Salmon. (The impacts that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment may have on these listed species should not be taken lightly.) The Geoduck Tract: number 22700: name Duckabush: Estimated Population 92,000 Finally the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe strongly contends (based on the lack of information provided in the FEIS) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment / MPR is fundamentally incompatible with the continued viability of the vast natural resources found within the project's vicinity. Attached are documents that support the Tribes Position. Attached documents included: Technical document assessing the impacts of urbanization on shellfish growing areas in the Puget Sound. Coastal Atlas Map showing the commercial shellfish closure caused by the Port Ludlow MPR in Jefferson County Coastal Atlas Map showing the Approved commercial shellfish beds around the proposed MPR and area closed by current development of Pleasant Harbor. Recent article describing the impacts of copper from automobiles on juvenile salmon Selected pages from the state of Washington 2002 Geoduck Atlas Thank you for your consideration. Sinc ely Hans Daubenberg Habitat Biologist 360- 297 -6289 (360) 297 -2646 (360) 478 -4583 (206) 464 -7281 (360) 297 -7097 Kingston Bremerton Seattle Fax lb-Sh .,Clru y—Vyem- Fr C* LT .:ZChios �- Ouetu ca Q8 tf Od AdVe- M I'll M I - nt F ' 01111111113 O""kk'k I r 0 U, I I F a 25 tlD E o �• �*, N o, N O O J ..-� N .P L'� w O c a c 2002 eaduck Atlas Aft, VH@ ;fjrG.-&W-;.,uckTf ro"PuT &.aund WDFW 587 Annual Report Number: FPA02-05 e CT Ch A W N — 0 0 0 0 0 0 �. w 'w "Or �.a.aaay G � O O OQ coi CD a G% n ^! p- A � � O C O 7C" ...r �- �o 00 � N .� O V C p X C •P. 'COD" F a W CD (n O O O O O CD I CD 0 C3 CD Cn O Q- o a o y O o O A a X ci CD CA F X CA N p OCA r. as CD a CC/) D oo d En n CD CA b CD N a r y� a a yl 0 y n O b Crl y N O O N V OJ p Cn Cn •P. A W W A (n O O O O O O O O O O O A a X C, X CD � N p j< CC/) D n d En n CD c < a o W 0 > g � ° < m a o n CD o CD a A co O (pT W N O (Wjl CD (DD N CD tD Cp N ni m ai ni cyi pyi A 0 0 0 a K k o.v o 3 N N i CT Ul CUn N Cn fxA „a„ N D O A COJt i ONO G n O C A O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O' .� b w ° . ° oo m ul S c°n a a ° gyp vn i O O aD m rn rn z rA o a o o V A o o o a t" =t - O c - a 0 c c O c O C/) 3 ra CD o�� o a °x ro cc CD co l<� ° ro �' ro d ro O ro 00 A CD CD CD CD y CD Q. O CAD C^ Cn CD a D3i �+ a -0 — ,� CD a o= a s a a a d° m y = a> > > -3 co 9 p —.O CD �< C co p N 7 -+ r i v co V C° = C^ N co �O CD rr oa n m .n•. p " is m a m p O 3 Q o a ° v a ` a CD n S p < s y r2 -n CL -n O < w .'1' co c -n -VD -n i CD n cr < 7 CD to 0 O a 0 D) °' No CD o fl p< d to CD ° D CD ch in o ;r o 0 co a -O n V' 0 C3 •c6 CD cc N fi p y O Q i O CD. N m y �t �_ . N < CD c Z Cp Z a ro N y C to a v' cD Ci7 p () 7 CD CD CO CD n y d O O Cd '.G G 8 y O y O � w co 7 a N. c O d ro 0 _a .a Cn O N 'O CJ7 a N O to S N (D CO co g y 'roG O p •O s O) C 0 = N 5. 1 ro CL a: a• ro 3 c a p u o cn m ro a � a w� V 7 s CC N N C = a ro O W U7 V' CD CO CL d �. Z S C" :* O CD N 07. V `< Cn O -p ro co CTC ---'1 CO CO 0 .•. O 7 ro co j y CD - O C.0 ...� N V lro/l y ro a ro t7 0 . a CO s 0 d m O c ro o c c - -- c Z 0 N to v (° N 7L N CD pr N. 0 Q T 0 ? o c° _ °o `G N 0 n CD V) 3 CQ ° CD a 7 C N s C W a CD CQ CD p to !A N• ° N O. G y .°i• O N a r y� a a yl 0 y n O b Crl y N O O N d 20500 20550 19400 Central Sound Region 19550 04900 d� �.._ . 04950 19600 , 19650 19700 I �n�Gn 20300 20400`; 20450 20700 P,"20250 20050 20100 Port Gamble Bay Figure 40. Vicinity Map. To be used as a visual aid only. Tracts may not be to exact proportion or scale N Q N cd W a w O H U U A O C7 w O a Q N C O U N C "C) tw at o �' m o >� w O O. L. > Q y0 vOi U O y C 0 In C6 0 a d a 0 0 b R �z��Xx w O 3 y 0 � U O to y ~ C b0 'b co � bU. 3Ur H iVi oavt�UVz N r-i V h b a� on A. z ° 0 a C •Q � m C) o o Q o ) O c m U u� o p vi y J d O C w U O) U 7 a) w C O M p � N C 'O fO) - .: M N N co ` O 'O 12 O 0 O -C O c d O 04 12 �O > a) = a) 7 N O M 0 r- J N aa ° n o r w E aci O N O N a) .N E n a°i 0 -1 `0 > � Y CU °= 0 � f2 3 aai m cu E �_ E a m Y 'o N 0 y LL a) LL@ a O O m !n ... J N C? b N O) O O ... O 0 O) tT LO c �+ O LL O _• N m o O N LL w w N ca `m ti p a�i >, O.0 "� R � Q O O O R j >� > O N .� -0 07 R N J ao CO T m = C pa0j CO T R j C ca R a) C U a'0 d o m a cA o 0 ; a) a 0 o >> CD = o a aa) w m d ooi ° 3¢ O U c rn � U m 0 � U C 3 R o •O 7+ C LO r a) a) N 0) a C y a) O y 0) N -0 O V- f30 LL Q m o) 3o ai m � LL of m `° p y E ° J c 3° N (n a CD z LL w LL LL 8 t o O a' � N Q� N > N N V a O o @ o 3 N c 0 E c f4 c N 0 0 ° co CD c o O C E .E a2 �O O U 0 Q1 a' '� a a CA O rn Y fn c RC O c> .O. o °' °� a°i E L y co o 0 m m a 0 m a�i rn° o E w 8 0 $ E ° E o 0 E L ° J C ° n v.. N N N 3 C a) o (n C N O O tm .0 N C 0 O 9 N N N m w1 N-0 ('7 C N N 3 7 'O. O a) 4. CO y O a a) C .0 T 0) a) R O E T d M a) L' N T CO a) N.@ co y y O Z O au Z .` ° m Z a`� Z O ti a� E c Z vi Z 0 to M = L r M (n Q y U) N co Q aa) (A CL (n •°o o ti N n S 'v8_z E. LO r (D LO co (o U U N rn N i i J. o > $ a a, ,W U co O O O O Cl) Chi o 0 0 0 0 0 O a a 0 C C �.. -z U, O Gn x It 0 Cl) N co co i� m 0 izi C m O C O a X v M U co ^ N N co ((O W as g, a D c N U (` t` CO N y y E N CD 7 O f0 O O N O CO ^O O O WW ch N C rn d rA R O R O O ,O E+ Z fE0 w Y J cii x U) i°- X in a° C °o L°n o° o° °o o° °> (° z m co r r r m r rn rn r am Q N C O U N C "C) tw at o �' m o >� w O O. L. > Q y0 vOi U O y C 0 In C6 0 a d a 0 0 b R �z��Xx w O 3 y 0 � U O to y ~ C b0 'b co � bU. 3Ur H iVi oavt�UVz N r-i V h b a� on A. Copper i. e, � ",_ 2 -0.7n 1.1, 3 L. 0 AM.mon other fish http:/ /extL,nsion.oregonstate,edu /ne%v o: 0 5 5p�5 P. 2}46 &st0ry 1-y... OSU HOME I FIND ANSWERS I FIND PEOPLE I COUNTY oFFICES I NEWS I SEARCH EXTENSION Extension Home Extension Service News About us OSU /NOAA study: Copper from autos, other sources Administration increases predation risk to salmon (03/16/2007) Campus Offices CORVALLIS, Ore. — Copper deposited on roads by the 4 -H Youth wearing of brake pads is transported in runoff to streams and Agriculture rivers, where it may play a key role in increasing predation of Family /Community threatened and endangered salmon throughout California and Forestry the Pacific Northwest. Sea Grant According to a study released this week in Environmental Science and Technology, levels of copper as low as 2 parts per billion have a direct impact on the sensory systems of Publications & juvenile coho salmon. Multimedia Catalog The skin of juvenile salmon is equipped with a special kind of warning system, said Nat Scholz, a researcher at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Fisheries Service. When a salmon is attacked by a predator, a chemical cue is released from the skin that signals danger to nearby fish. These fish smell the predation cue and take behavioral measures to avoid being eaten. Oregon State University researchers working with scientists from NOAA Fisheries, found that fish exposed to low, environmentally realistic levels of copper had an impaired sense of smell and were less responsive to the chemical alarm signal. At elevated concentrations of copper, these predator avoidance behaviors were largely abolished. Copper naturally occurs in aquatic environments at trace amounts as a background element. However, fluctuations due to run -off from storm events can increase the level of copper in the water from close to zero to more than 60 parts per billion in some instances, said Jason Sandahl, who co- authored the study while working as an OSU doctoral research assistant at the NOAA research laboratory. "There is a fine line between active copper uptake and copper toxicity," said Sandahl. "We see problems when copper is pulsed into the water, temporarily elevating the copper higher than the natural background level. The olfactory, or scent, neurons are not able to maintain the normal regulation of copper, and the neurons are either disrupted or killed." Salmon are known to avoid environmental gradients of copper, such as those created by point- source discharges. However, copper in stormwater is a diffuse form of non -point source pollution, and it is unlikely that juvenile fish could 1 of 3 12/12/2001 9:48 AM Copper D. e �; 12, 2 0 0�7or 1�1 NA 3 0 AM1mon, other fish http:/ /extension,oregonstate,edu/ne�N ...� 51,S,p ?SP' „3446 &stoTyTy... reduce their exposure through avoidance behaviors, said the researchers. As a result of automobile braking and exhaust, higher levels of copper contamination have been observed in streams close to roads and highways. Building materials and certain pesticide formulations are also important sources of copper in western landscapes, said Scholz. Recent monitoring of northern California streams following storm events found dissolved copper levels averaging 15.8 parts per billion per liter of water. Salmon exposed to copper at concentrations well below this average showed significant impairment to both their sensory physiology and predator avoidance behavior, said Sandahi, whose work on the study was funded in part by a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant to OSU. The work was also supported by NOAA's national Coastal Storms Program. Since the duration of storm events that cause elevated levels of copper in streams can be relatively short, investigators exposed juvenile coho salmon to copper for only a few hours. In earlier studies they found the onset of copper neurotoxicity to salmon olfactory systems occurs within a matter of minutes. Loss of sensory function is likely reversible, but may take hours or days of the fish being in clean water, said the researchers. If copper exposures are high enough to cause the death of olfactory sensory neurons, it will take several weeks to months for the fish to regenerate new neurons and recover. The levels of copper contaminant used in the study were at or below current federal regulatory guidelines for heavy metals, said Jeff Jenkins, an environmental toxicologist in OSU's College of Agricultural Sciences. "It's just like they were poisoned," said Jenkins. "Of all the chemicals we have looked at, this effect was clearly happening at levels well below the current copper standards for water quality. It raises the question of whether the current standards are as protective as we thought." The current study is an example of how contaminants can disrupt the chemical ecology of aquatic organisms. In the case of salmon, a sublethal loss of sensory function may increase predation mortality in urbanizing watersheds. The influence of copper on predator -prey interactions is the focus of ongoing research, with the eventual aim of linking individual survival to the productivity of wild salmon populations, said Scholz. Though the study was conducted on juvenile salmon, the results are applicable to fish species in urban watersheds worldwide, said the researchers. Dissolved copper has been shown to affect the olfactory systems of Chinook salmon, 2 of 3 12/12/2007 9:48 AM Dec. 12. 2007 11:31AM CopperAA%.p f'. ..." —,.Imon, other rl%h e s http://extension.oregonstate,edu/ne%N .2:..0 511,51p7SP ', —4446astoTyTy- rainbow trout, brown trout, fathead minnow, Colorado pikerninnow and tilapla. By: Aimee Brown Source: Jeffrey Jenkins, Nathaniel Scholz : I . ......... : ............. ....... . .... . . ...... ... ............ Email this story Printer-friendly version News & Garden Archives Copyright (D 1995-2007 Oregon State University. Disclaimer. XAh%Krn=ci-air 3 of 3 12/12/2007 9-48 AM Assessing the Impacts of Urbanization on Shellfish Growing Areas in Puget Sound Final Report Prepared by Marina Alberti and Marcie Bidwell Urban Ecology Research Lab University of Washington Produced for the Puget Sound Action Team with funding from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF FIGURES .................................................................................... ............................... 4 LISTOF TABLES ...................................................................................... ............................... 5 LISTOF ACRONYMS .............................................................................. ............................... 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................... ............................... 7 EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........................................................................ ............................... 9 L RESEARCH SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ........................................... ............................... 11 1.1 Research Objectives ........................................................................ ............................... 11 1.2 Research Hypotheses ....................................................................... ............................... 12 1.3 Urban Ecology Approach ................................................................ ............................... 13 II. STUDY METHODS .............................................................................. ............................... 13 2.1 Study Area and Scales of Analysis ................................................ ............................... 14 Site Selection and Criteria ............................................................. ............................... 14 BasinDelineation ........................................................................... ............................... 15 LocalScale Analysis ...................................................................... ............................... 16 2.2 Data Sources and Variables ............................................................ ............................... 17 LandCover Classification ............................................................. ............................... 17 2.3 Landscape and Land Use Metrics ................................................... ............................... 19 LandUse Intensity ......................................................................... ............................... 19 Landscape Composition and Configuration .................................. ............................... 20 2.4 Water Quality Metrics ..................................................................... ............................... 20 WaterQuality Data ........................................................................ ............................... 21 2.5 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................... ............................... 22 III. FINDINGS ............................................................................................ ............................... 23 3.1 Basin Characterization ..................................................................... ............................... 23 3.2 Land Use Intensity ........................................................................... ............................... 24 3.3 Landscape Composition .................................................................. ............................... 24 3.4 Landscape Configuration ................................................................. ............................... 25 3.5 Local Metrics ................................................................................... ............................... 26 3.6 Regression Results ........................................................................... ............................... 26 IV. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... ............................... 27 V. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... ............................... 29 REFERENCES........................................................................................... ............................... 31 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ....................................................................... ............................... 34 K3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study of Urbanization Impacts on Shellfish Growing Areas within Puget Sound Figure 2. Distribution of 18 Study Sites within Puget Sound Figure 3. Comparison of Landscape Patterns for Two Puget Sound Basins Figure 4. Examples of DOH Water Quality Monitoring Stations Figure 5. Watershed Delineation and Characterization Figure 6. Example of Cost Distance Grid Calculation Process Figure 7. Scales of Analysis: Basin and Local 500 Meter Shoreline Zone Figure 8. UERL 1991& 1999 Land Cover Change Classification Figure 9. UERL 2002 Land Cover Classification Figure 10. Example of Water Quality Stations per Basin per Year for 15 Selected Basins Figure 11. Population Density for 32 Candidate Watershed Basins Figure 12. 2002 Land Cover Distribution for 32 Candidate Watershed Basins Figure 13.2002 Land Cover Distribution for 500 Meter Shoreline Zone Figure 14. Percentage Impervious Surface for 2002 Land Cover for 32 Candidate Basins Figure 15. 2002 Land Use Distribution for 26 Basins Figure 16. Land Cover Change 1991 -1999 for 15 Selected Basins Figure 17.2000 Road Density and Lengths by Basin Figure 18.2000 Road Density and Lengths for 500 Meter Shoreline Zone Figure 19. Percent Forest Cover and Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean for 2002 Land Cover Figure 20. Aggregation Index of Forest and Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Size and Percent Impervious Area for 18 Study Sites Table 2. Summary of Data Sources Table 3. Complete List of Land Use and Landscape Metrics Table 4. Landscape Metrics Definitions and Equations Table 5. Definitions of Land Cover Classes Table 6. Definitions of Land Use Classes Table 7. Definitions of Selected U.S. Census TIGER Road Classes Table 8. Water Quality Metrics Table 9. 2002 Land Cover Classification: Percentages by Class for 18 Study Sites Table 10. Land Use Codes: Percentages by Class for 18 Study Sites Table 11. 2000 Road Density: Total Road Density and TIGER Road Lengths Table 12. Population Density from 2000 U. S. Census Block Groups Table 13. Forest Landscape Metrics Table 14. Paved Urban Landscape Metrics Table 15. Mixed Urban Landscape Metrics Table 16. Fecal Coliform Descriptive Statistics —All Data from 1998 -2002 Table 17. Fecal Coliform Descriptive Statistics — Seasonal Data from 1998 -2002 Table 18. Significant Correlations Between Landscape Variables and Fecal Coliform 18 Basins (Cross- sectional data set) Table 19. Significant Correlations Between Landscape Variables and Fecal Coliform 12 Basins (Longitudinal data set) Table 20. Significant Models using Cross - sectional Sample Basins in Puget Sound (18) Table 21: Significant Models using Longitudinal Land Cover Subset (12) 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS Al Aggregation Index DEM Digital Elevation Model GIS Geographical Information System MPS Mean Patch Size NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program PLANDJ Percent Land Adjacency PRISM Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model, University of Washington PSAT Puget Sound Action Team r Pearson product- moment correlation coefficient RZ R Squared correlation coefficient of determination SRSS Systematic Random Sampling Survey TIA Total Impervious Area TIGER Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing UERL Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington USGS United States Geologic Survey VIF Value Inflation Factor WAGDA Washington Geographic Data Alliance WDOH Washington Department of Health 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Stuart Glasoe, Shellfish Program Lead for the Puget Sound Action Team, for his important input and assistance with this project. We also wish to extend our appreciation to the following people for their contributions, collaboration, and review of this project: ■ Rebecca Coburn, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington; ■ Stefan Coe, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington; ■ Tim Determan, Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington State Department of Health; ■ Jeff Hepenstall, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington; ■ Miles Logsdon, Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model, School of Oceanography, University of Washington; ■ Don Melvin, Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington State Department of Health; ■ Jan Newton, Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology; School of Oceanography, University of Washington; ■ Planners and associates of Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, and Clallam counties; ■ Camille Russell, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington; ■ Daniele Spirendelli, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington; ■ Robert Woolrich, Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington State Department of Health. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study explored the relationship between landscape patterns and nearshore water quality in shellfish growing areas of Puget Sound. We developed an empirical analysis of 32 basins selected to represent a gradient of urban land use /land cover patterns. Using bacterial contamination as an indicator of nearshore conditions, we developed a cross - sectional analysis across the 32 basins to assess what landscape factors best explain water quality conditions in Puget Sound's shellfish growing areas. Our hypothesis was that variations in land cover composition, landscape configuration, land use intensity, and connectivity explain most of the variation in nearshore water quality conditions. The study is based on a landscape analysis approach. By combining remotely sensed data with land use and demographic data, we applied a set of landscape metrics developed in landscape ecology to quantify human settlement patterns, both in its composition and configuration of built elements and land uses on the landscape. Two scales of analysis were applied to assess influence of variables at the basin and local scale. A selection of variables was considered, including human population density, road density, percent land use, amount of impervious cover, aggregation of paved land, and amount and fragmentation of forest cover. Remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) have proven to be powerful landscape analysis tools, but the interpretation and analysis of the relationships between urban landscapes and nearshore environments present unique challenges, most notably gaps in important data sets and the complications inherent in sharing scientific data across disciplines and political boundaries. The study shows that measurable differences in nearshore water quality can be detected across Puget Sound in watersheds with different amounts and fragmentation of forest cover at the basin scale (18 Puget Sound sites). Among the most urbanized basins (12 Puget Sound sites) the difference in water quality is associated with the amount and aggregation of impervious surface. While the amount of impervious area in the basins provides an effective measure of human impacts on nearshore water quality, variables measuring its spatial configuration (i.e., aggregation of paved land) and connectivity (i.e., total length of roads) show that the relationship between urbanization and water quality is not a linear one. Land use and wastewater infrastructure are suspected to influence the impact of increasing human population on coastal environments. In order to explore this relationship further, additional data is required to research the interactions. The existing data that describe land use and infrastructure variables were limited and need to be improved to test hypotheses on the role that these factors play in mediating effects of urbanization on nearshore environments. 10 I. RESEARCH SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The health of the Puget Sound estuary is vital to many economic, cultural, and recreational activities. Its waters provide habitat and feeding grounds for fish and shellfish, prized icons of the Pacific Northwest. While much of Puget Sound is still healthy, rapid landscape change associated with population growth and urbanization within nearshore environments and adjacent watersheds is degrading water quality, resulting in increased closures of fishing, recreation activities, and shellfish harvesting (PSAT, 2002). A steady loss of habitat, decline in some fish and wildlife populations, and closures of shellfish beds are signs that the Puget Sound is threatened. These trends are likely to continue over the next several decades with increasing population growth and conversion of forested land to suburban development (Vitousek et al. 1997). Puget Sound's population increased by 17% between 1991 and 2002 to 4 million people and is expected to exceed five million by 2020 (Glasoe and Christy, 2004). 1.1 Research Objectives Effects of land cover change on aquatic ecosystems have been extensively studied (e.g., Omernick 1987, Roth et al. 1996, May et al. 1997, Paul and Mayer 2001). These studies link increases in degradation of water quality with increases in human population density and amount of impervious cover (e.g., roofs, roads, parking lots). Human population growth and land cover change in coastal areas increase the sources of anthropogenic- induced pollution, microbial pathogens and potential risks of human exposure to contaminants. Urbanization is one of the key drivers of land transformation and causes the most persistent change through vegetation clearing, compacting soil, artificially draining surface water, and covering the land surface with impervious cover. Impervious surface is a well- documented indicator of the consequences land development has on the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Although many previous studies have addressed the relationship between watershed urbanization and the associated biotic conditions in streams (Karr and Schlosser 1978, Arnold and Gibbons 1996, Booth et al. 2002) and coastal areas (Fulton et al. 1993), few have investigated how the patterns of urbanization and forest cover control hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological processes in human - dominated watersheds. We do not know, for example, how clustered versus dispersed urban patterns affect nearshore ecological conditions. 11 Two main objectives informed this study: ■ To study, test and quantify the relationship between urban development and its impacts on shellfish growing areas in Puget Sound using appropriate environmental indicators of nearshore conditions. Measures of urban development included landscape patterns (composition and configuration) and land use intensity. Bacterial contamination served as the primary environmental indicator and measure of shoreline conditions for shellfish harvesting. ■ Within the limits set by the available data, to develop an empirical analysis to assess nearshore water quality conditions under specific build out scenarios. This analytical approach was used to identify critical landscape conditions required to preserve water quality in shellfish growing areas under increasing development pressure. 1.2 Research Hypotheses We built on previous research studying the impact of land use on nearshore environments (Griffin et al. 1999, Holland et al. 2004, Lipp et al. 2001a, Lipp et al. 2001b, Mallin et al. 2001, White et al. 2000White et al. 2000) to generate and test formal hypotheses on the relationships between landscape patterns and shellfish growing areas conditions in the Puget Sound region. We focused on two questions: ■ How do variables affecting shellfish growing areas vary on an urban gradient? ■ What pattern metrics best predict water quality in nearshore environments that meet shellfish harvesting standards? We hypothesized that the stressors of nearshore environments across Puget Sound bays can be described along distinct patterns of land use and land cover at multiple spatial scales. Specifically we defined two hypotheses: 12 1. Nearshore conditions can be differentiated across a gradient of dispersed versus clustered impervious surfaces and/or forest patches within a drainage basin. 2. The predictive ability of models that relate landscape pattern to nearshore conditions can be improved by including the type and intensity of land use. 1.3 Urban Ecology Approach Our project applies an urban ecology approach to the study of human - environment dynamics (Pickett et al. 2001, Grimm et all. 2001, Alberti et al. 2003). Urban ecology seeks to understand how human and biophysical processes interact over time and space. The spatial relationships of elements within the landscape serve as a fundamental focus of analysis. To simulate and assess the impact of alternative development scenarios on shellfish growing areas, our project analyzes the interactions between landscape patterns (land use and land cover) and ecological conditions in the growing areas (bacterial contamination). We apply metrics of landscape patterns that we hypothesize to be linked to ecological processes in urbanizing landscapes. We build upon existing established scientific understanding of the relationships between hydrologic, geomorphic, and biological conditions, and new empirical findings developed to assess the effects of spatial and temporal patterns of human activities on aquatic ecosystems. The analysis is based upon the assessment of these effects within the landscape context using geographical information system technology and remotely- sensed data. II. STUDY METHODS We addressed the dimensions of our research questions across space and time as cross - sectional and longitudinal analyses, respectively. Cross - sectional analyses compare different watersheds to each other at one point in time. Longitudinal analyses compare how different watersheds change over time. First we identified, characterized, and quantified landscape patterns in selected areas using a set of landscape metrics. We delineated the drainage area of the coastal area using United States Geological Survey (USGS) 10 -m or 30 -m Digital Elevation Model for the Puget Sound 13 region. We selected study sites using three levels of criteria. We summarized bacterial contamination levels at each site using several statistical metrics. We used historical land use and land cover data to represent landscape characteristics. We measured landscape patterns using selected spatial metrics of landscape composition and configuration that we previously found to be relevant to ecological processes in urbanizing landscapes. We used a range of multivariate techniques to establish empirical relationships between metrics of landscape patterns and a series of stressors of nearshore ecosystems in selected bays. Finally, we looked for incremental predictive power by adding the variables describing land use patterns and intensity. Data limitations, in terms of both their availability and quality, have imposed a number of restrictions on the study design and implementation. While historical data for fecal coliform bacteria were available from 1988 through 2002, historical land cover data were not available for the entire Puget Sound region. Furthermore there were significant inconsistencies among the available fecal coliform data with respect to their historical length and breath across the different stations. This has impeded to conduct a fully longitudinal study and required to device a strategy to process the fecal coliform data as described below. 2.1 Study Area and Scales of Analysis Puget Sound is an estuary characterized by a series of underwater valleys and ridges fed by more than 10,000 streams and rivers. Puget Sound's watersheds are predominantly covered by forest, and timber harvest is the dominant land use activity. The mainstem rivers that drain this landscape extend from the rugged unpopulated crests of the Cascade Range and Olympic Mountains down to the rapidly urbanizing lowlands of Puget Sound. They display a 100+ year legacy dominated by forest practices and floodplain alteration, which in most cases has included channelizing, diking, draining, and filling. Many of the tributary streams and smaller sub - basins, however, are fully contained within the gentle topography of the Puget lowlands. Over the last century these lowlands have been subjected first to logging, then agriculture, and now increasingly to urban development. In a majority of these areas, suburban and urban development is now the dominant land use. 14 Site Selection In coordination with Washington Department of Health (DOH) and Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT), we selected 32 potential study sites based on the availability of accurate and comprehensive water quality data (Figure 1, Table 1). Of the original 32 candidate areas, 15 sites were used as a preliminary test case to select the most appropriate landscape metrics for the study objectives. The overall study was based primarily on a comparative or cross - sectional analysis representing different patterns of urban development in 11 counties, including lands owned by public, private, tribal, and military entities (Figure 2, Figure 3). Cross - sectional sites were selected to represent a gradient of urban land use /land cover composition, configuration, and intensity. A comparison across time, or longitudinal land cover analysis, was explored exclusively in Puget Sound sites where historical land cover data were available. Longitudinal sites were also selected to represent different degrees of urban growth and land cover change from 1991 and 1999 within the Puget Sound region. The longitudinal comparison did not include historical water quality data due to the lack of data for all 12 sites. After compiling and evaluating the available data, we selected study sites that satisfied the following list of criteria l. A complete list of candidate sites, cross - sectional sites and longitudinal land cover subset are provided in Figures 1 and 2. Criteria for Site Selection: Candidate sites: 32 sites distributed across Puget Sound • smaller watersheds (comparatively within the region) • relatively distinctive or homogeneous land use present within the drainage • ideally, enclosed embayment (preferred to open beaches which are more exposed to mixing and tidal current affects) Cross - sectional study: 18 sites of 32 candidate sites ■ historical water quality data for 1998 -2002 'The majority of the excluded candidate sites were disqualified due to the lack of available water quality data. Additionally, we eliminated: Portage Bay due to the influences of the large river system that was not captured within 1500 meters of the water quality stations; Drayton Harbor due to the confounding influence of agriculture within the basin. 15 • representative sample of development (from urban to rural) • geographic distribution to represent the Puget Sound region Longitudinal land cover subset: 12 sites of 18 study sites ■ historical land cover data for 1991, 1999 and 2002 Basin Delineation We delineated drainage basins for each shellfish growing area to determine the land area contributing to the water quality measurements collected withinthe 32 bays .2 DOH supplied the geographic coordinates for the marine water quality monitoring stations in each of the study areas. Figure 4 is an example of the monitoring station locations within Henderson Inlet. These locations defined the embayment area associated with each study site (Figure 5). The definition of a watershed is "an area in which water drains to a common outlet —a point —on a larger stream or body of water." The "lowest elevation collection points" are referred to as pour points. Traditional watershed delineation works from the pour point or "outlet" to determine the upstream area contributing to that point, and it assumes a singular direction of flow (i.e. downstream). In this study, the contributing area included not only streams, but also shoreline surface flow and ground water seeps. Tidal mixing and currents also factored into the water quality of each monitoring station, but data related to currents and tides, both important elements of water quality, were limited and were not available to be explored in depth. Flow direction and flow accumulation were calculated for the entire Puget Sound using geographic information system software (ArcView 3.2 and program extension HYDRO). The shoreline was isolated from the USGS's digital elevation model (DEM)3 for the Puget Sound area. Measuring from the water quality stations, the shoreline within each basin was clipped by a 1500 -meter cost distance 2 We make an important distinction that the boundaries of the study areas were determined to coincide with the water quality stations (1500 meters from any of the bay's stations). Therefore due to the limits of the water quality data, the study area may not include the entire bay or waterbody such as in the case of Port Townsend. Due to the location of the monitoring stations, Port Townsend is split into two sub - basins in this analysis. 3 A digital elevation model is a grid file where each cell contains an attribute relating to its elevation. This project used a 30 meter DEM supplied by the United States Geological Survey. 16 (Figure 6) 4. Within this distance, each shoreline pixel was converted to a pour point. Using the flow direction grid, the WATERSHED command in ARC/INFO GRID was used to complete the delineation process. Local Scale Analysis To assess the local influence of land cover and land use on nearshore environments, we delineated a buffers of 500 meters from the shoreline through the flow path, or following the topography as water would flow through the landscape (Figure 7). We used the flow direction grid to create a distance grid using Arc Info's FLOWLENGTH command 6. This grid assigned to each pixel the distance (in pixels) that surface runoff needs to travel to reach the shoreline. The 500 meter zone was then used to perform the same analysis of land use and land cover variables conducted at the basin scale. 2.2 Data Sources and Variables Several metrics were selected to measure landscape pattern (Tables 3 and 4). Sub -basin boundaries were determined by using a 30 -meter USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) available from Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model (PRISM). Historical land cover data for 1991 and 1999 for the central Puget Sound area were available at the Urban Ecology Research Lab (UERL) and were used to measure change in landscape composition and configuration over the eight -year period. For 2002, land cover was interpreted at the UERL from a combination of 4 Clipping is GIS software terminology for selecting cells from a grid and forming a separate analysis file for a particular purpose determined by the program user. A cost distance is a measure of distance between a source cell and a selected target cell. Instead of calculating distance as a straight linear distance, the cost distance is calculated by moving through cells provided as a source grid, in this case water pixels. 5 A buffer is used here as a zone of specified distance around a selected GIS feature chosen for a particular attribute of a layer of data. Buffering is a technique used in this study to create zones of analysis within a certain distance of the shoreline (for example 500 meters). 6 A flow direction grid is a mathematical calculation that assesses each cell's elevation in relation to its neighboring cell and then assigns the cell a weighted number. From this calculation, the GIS software can determine the direction of water flow across the landscape. 17 Landsat -TM and Landsat -EMT+ data as part of the PRISM project. Census Data for 1990 and 2000 were obtained from the Washington Geographic Data Alliance (WAGDA). DOH supplied shellfish growing area classifications, monitoring station locations, and water quality data (fecal coliform concentrations). The Puget Sound Regional Council provided transportation data using the U.S. Census TIGER classification system. Eleven counties contributed data describing land use, infrastructure (if existing), and tax assessor data (if available digitally). Additionally, information layers were provided by DOH to supplement missing county data such as the boundaries of national forest, tribal and military lands. Land Cover Classification This study utilized three land cover classification products for the analysis. The land cover products for 1991, 1999, and 2002 were interpreted at the UERL from Landsat Thematic Mapper images of the Puget Sound region. The 1991 and 1999 land cover classifications for the central Puget Sound area were developed for PSAT as part of a landscape change analysis of the Puget lowlands below 500 meters (Alberti et al. 2004). The 2002 land cover, which covers the entire Puget Sound region at all elevations, was produced for PRISM (Alberti et al. 2002). The 1991 and 1999 land cover data were previously derived from a single USGS Landsat Thematic Mapper TM 30 -meter resolution image for the central Puget Sound region (Figure 8). The raw Landsat data were preprocessed and corrected for atmosphere and topography. A hybrid classification method was applied to address the spectral heterogeneity of the urban region. This method combines a supervised classification approach with a spectral un- mixing approach. The classification procedure creates a seven -class land cover system, which discriminates between mixed urban and paved urban land cover characterized by different amounts of imperviousness within a 30 -meter pixel. Paved Urban is made up of greater than 75% of imperviousness while mixed urban includes between 15% and 75 % imperviousness. The remaining land cover classes are forest, grass (which includes shrub and crops), bare soil, clear -cut, and water. An accuracy assessment of the 1991 and 1999 images produced an overall accuracy of 91% and 88% respectively, leading to an overall accuracy of 85% for the land cover change analysis. 18 For the 2002 land cover analysis, Landsat -TM and Landsat -EMT+ data were acquired for the summer and winter months of 2002 (Figure 9). The data from four images were geo- registered, inter - calibrated, and corrected for various effects of atmosphere and topography to ensure accuracy inland classification. We used a hybrid approach for land cover classification involving supervised classification and spectral unmixing in addition to a seasonal- change analysis for vegetation cover. The supervised classification was used to derive a base land cover image, which included the homogenous classes of paved (dense) urban, mixed urban, clear -cut forest, bare soil, and dry grass. Spectral unmixing was used to a) separate vegetation pixels from non - vegetation and water pixels to aid in the supervised classification process, and b) separate the classes composed of urban and vegetation components into more detailed sub - classes. This approach was useful in areas where landscape features were finer in resolution than the spatial resolution of the satellite instrument and resulting image. Examples of this phenomenon include highly mixed, urban features such as roofs, roads, lawn, trees, driveways and patios. While spectral unmixing of a Landsat pixel cannot reliably identify exact urban materials, it can provide relative proportions of vegetation and urban components, providing a good estimate (or proxy) for urban intensity. In this case, once we identified mixed urban pixels (dense urban and residential urban) using supervised classification, we applied a three - end - member mixing model from which proportions of urban impervious surfaces were derived. We then improved upon the vegetation classes derived from the supervised approach by using the spectral unmixing model and shade- fractions to differentiate between grass and forest cover. Finally, the seasonal change measured between winter and summer data sets was used to improve and disaggregate the vegetation classes. Three data layers were used to improve the accuracy of urban pixelsUsing these combined approaches, the final classification for 2002 includes twelve classes: paved urban ( >75% impervious); mixed urban (15 -75% impervious); grass /shrubs /crops, dry -grass or native grasslands, clear -cut forest, bare soil, forest ( combined deciduous and coniferous); snow, rock, or ice; wetlands; shoreline; steep slopes (unclassified) and water (Table 5). 19 2.3 Landscape and Land Use Metrics For this study, we applied an analysis approach developed within landscape ecology to quantify human settlement patterns in terms of intensity, composition and configuration of built elements and land uses upon the landscape. We selected several metrics, or measurements, of these patterns to compare to the water quality measurements available for each basin. Land Use Intensity Land use intensity metrics include population density, percent of land use and various metrics of transportation infrastructure. Population density for each census block or block section were calculated and then assigned to each of the basins by intersecting, a process of overlaying the census block group coverage with each basin coverage. The census block groups and boundary layers were first projected to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) to make them consistent with land cover and other spatial data. Water bodies were used as masks, which is the process of subtracting the area of the water body from the total area of the basin. Population data for census block groups were normalized using the area of the block group that fell within each basin's boundary to determine the total population in the basin. Land use patterns in basins were compiled and quantified by intersecting parcel data obtained from assessor offices to determine percentages of land use types in each basin. The assessor data represents current land uses in each basin, as compared to zoning which refers to potential future uses. Each county's coding system was calibrated to create a unified system of 13 basic land use codes (Table 6). Transportation infrastructure metrics were developed by intersecting the TIGER road layer with the basin layer to determine the total lengths of road segments within each basin. Road density was calculated by dividing the sum of road lengths by the basin area for four types of roads: local roads, major roads, four - wheel -drive roads, and logging roads (Table 7). 20 Landscape Composition and Configuration We applied several landscape metrics to measure landscape composition and configuration (Table 4). We measured landscape composition by the percent urban land as classified in the land cover map. The metrics summarizing the 1991 and 1999 land cover classification refer only to the watershed area below 500 meters due to the classification process. However, the PRISM 2002 land cover classification summarized the entire basin area. The area above that elevation was not included within the land cover classification. We quantified the percent impervious area by spectrally unmixing urban land cover pixels. We used FRAGSTATs software to estimate 7 land cover metrics (McGarigal, K. and B.J. Marks, 1995). Percent land (eland) is the sum of the area of all patches of the corresponding patch type divided by total basin area. To measure urban landscape configurations we applied three metrics: Mean Patch Size (MPS), the Aggregation Index (AI) and Percentage -of -Like- Adjacency Index ( PLADJ). Al equals the number of similarly classed neighboring pixels (or "like adjacencies ") involving the corresponding class, divided by the maximum possible number of like adjacencies of that class. The PLADJ index is determined as the sum of the number of like adjacencies for each patch type, divided by the total number of cell adjacencies in the landscape, multiplied by 100 (to convert to a percentage). Percentage values were converted prior to analysis using aresine- square roots. 2.4 Water Quality Metrics Shellfish growing areas are classified by DOH on the basis of comprehensive sanitary surveys involving water quality assessments, pollution source investigations and hydrographic and meteorological evaluations. The surveys and classification system follow the protocols and standards of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). Bacterial contamination, specifically fecal coliform bacteria, is used as the primary measure of water quality because it signals the presence of human or animal feces and, in turn, the possible presence of pathogenic organisms. Due to the historic availability of data, fecal coliform was chosen as the best available indicator at this time. We computed several metrics including geometric mean, 21 standard deviation, 90th percentile, variance of fecal coliform content and number of violations of the DOH standards (Table 8). Water Quality Data The data provided by DOH included all sampling measurements from the Puget Sound area from 1988 through 2002. The current DOH policy uses a systematic random sampling strategy (SRS) when sampling permanent stations (for details, refer to the Atlas of Fecal Coliform Pollution in Puget Sound: Year 2001, p. 5). However, there were significant differences in the historic length and breadth of data available for each station and each basin (Figure 10). These differences are attributed to changes in sampling schedules or policies, changes in sampling stations, and funding limitations over time. Shellfish growing areas are classified on the basis of 30 or more samples per station and a two - part water quality standard: (1) a geometric mean < 14 organisms per 100 ml and (2) a 901h percentile value < 43 organisms per 100 ml (DOH, 2002a). The water quality data set provided by DOH included fecal Coliform concentrations, sampling dates, geometric means, 90th percentiles, and the Fecal Coliform Pollution Index. For the purpose of our analysis, we used two approaches to process the fecal coliform data. First we standardized the raw data set to represent all sampling stations equally as described below. Second, we computed statistics with all data values and then compared the results of these two approaches. To standardize the data set, we isolated data during two periods, 1990 -1992 and 1998 -2002, to correspond with the land cover classifications. Stations without a minimum of 3 samples per season (3 wet - season samples and 3 dry- season samples per year, n =6 per year) were eliminated from the cross - sectional analysis, retaining 18 out of the original 32 study sites. Only seven growing areas had enough stations that qualified for water quality analysis in the time period of the 1990 -1992 land cover. Because of the small sample size a longitudinal water quality analysis was not feasible for the entire 1990 -2002 period. From each of the stations remaining in the 1998 -2002 analysis, a stratified random sample selected to include three 22 samples per year for each of the two hydrographic seasons (wet season November - March, dry season April- October). The median, geometric mean, standard deviation, 90th percentile, variance of fecal coliform content and number of violations of the DOH standard for each station were used as dependant variables in the multivariate regression models. This standardization procedure reduced our sample size to 18 sites across the Puget Sound for the cross - sectional analysis and 12 sites for the longitudinal land cover subset. To understand the impacts of seasonal differences in precipitation, we calculated fecal coliform metrics for both the wet and the dry season separately, and as a combined measure (wet and dry together). Environmental variables have been shown to have an important influence in explaining part of the variability in fecal coliform across different sites. These include salinity, water temperature, tidal stages, and rainfall (Weiskel et al. 1996, Lipp et al. 2001a, Lipp et al. 2001b, Mallin et al. 2001). However these data were not recorded consistently, were not included in the data set provided by DOH for all stations or measurements in our sample, and therefore were not used in this analysis. 2.5 Statistical Analyses Correlation and regression analyses were performed with SPSSTM, a statistical software package, to determine the relationship between measures of water quality (fecal coliform) and the selected landscape metrics. We used the Pearson product- moment correlation coefficient (r) to test for associations between land cover measures and fecal coliform. We also used simple regression and multiple regression to explore which factors best explain the variability in fecal coliform density across the bays. We developed a set of apriori models using intensity, composition, and configuration metrics at both the basin and local scales for comparison using an adjusted RZ. We estimated the value inflation factor (VIF) for each variable to assess collinearity between variables. High VIF values indicate that variables are nearly linear combinations of other variables present in the model, and if included in the model, can reduce the confidence in the parameter estimates for those variables and others (Kleinbaum et al. 1998). We did not include variables with VIF greater than 10 and p-value greater than 0.05. 23 III. FINDINGS Summary statistics of the key variables described in the following sections are presented in Tables 9 through 17. Significant correlations between landscape patterns and fecal coliform are presented in Tables 18 and 19 for the two groups of bays, the Puget Sound cross - sectional .sample (n =18) and the longitudinal land cover subset (n= 12). Results of the multi - regression models are presented in Tables 20 and 21. 3.1 Basin Characterization Most of the candidate drainage basins range in size from about 6 square kilometers in Port Blakely to about 310 square kilometers in Oakland Bay, except a few much larger basins including Samish Bay (378 km2), Dungeness Bay (528 km2), Budd Inlet (544 km2) and Nisqually Reach (2069 km2)7. Population density in the drainage basins ranges from about 3 people per km2 (Quilcene) to 600 people per km2 (Henderson Inlet), with most of the basins having densities less than 200 people per km2 (Figure 11). The basins represent a gradient of urbanization (Figures 12 and 13) ranging from 0.5% impervious area in Dabob Bay to 14% in Henderson Inlet (Figure 14)8. Conversely, percentforest area in the basins vary from 85% in Dabob Bay to 45% in Henderson Inlet. The cross - sectional basins also vary with respect to the degree of land uses within the basins (Figure 15), and for the longitudinal basins, the degree of land cover change that occurred in the eight -year time period for which we had longitudinal land cover data (Figure 16). The measures of road density vary between less developed basins such as Dungeness Bay (.63 km/km2) and Quilcene Bay (1 km /km2) and more developed basins such as East Sound North (4.31 km /km2) and Henderson Inlet (4.19 km /km2) (Figure 17 and 18). The variability in the level of development across these basins is also reflected in the landscape configuration metrics as measured by the Aggregation Index (AI) for the paved and mixed urban 7 The 12 basins within the longitudinal land cover subset range from 13.44 sq.km to 311 sq. km. The larger basins (Budd Inlet, Nisqually Reach, Dungeness Bay, and Samish Bay) are included within 18 study sites. For the land cover metrics, the amount of the larger basins under 500 meters varies, as 84 %, 58 %, 23 %, 89% respectfully. B Due to the UERL land cover classification process, land area above 500 meters was not classified. Metrics calculated from land cover, such as percent forest and impervious area, estimate only the area below 500 meters. The percent of the area in each basin below 500 meters is included in Table 1. 24 land cover which vary respectively between 15 to 64 (AI of paved urban) and between 27 and 68 (AI of mixed urban). 3.2 Land Use Intensity Cross - sectional sample: Water quality conditions in the 18 bays in Puget Sound were significantly correlated with population density particularly during the dry season (R = 0. 62, P < 0.01) and with road length (R = 0.49, P < 0.05) during the wet season. An assessment of land use data across the 18 cross - sectional bays indicated that the available data were not complete or accurate enough to be used for this analysis. We limited the land use analysis to the subset of Puget Sound sites included in the extent of the land cover classifications from 1991 and 1999. Longitudinal land cover subset: When limiting the analysis to the 12 bays in the longitudinal land cover subset, water quality as measured by the wet - season and combined geometric means of fecal coliform was most strongly correlated with population density (R = 0.72, P < 0.01). The metric of total kilometers of roads across the basins was also significantly correlated with fecal coliform density in the wet season (R =0.76, P < 0.01). Also, the data show significant correlations between percent of multi family, commercial and industrial land uses and fecal coliforms in the wet season. Human population density was highly associated with the amount of impervious cover using both 1991 (R = 0.89, P < 0.001) and 2002 (R = 0.92, P < 0.00 1), suggesting impervious cover is a good measure of the potential stress that population growth generate for aquatic ecosystems. Population growth was also associated with road density (R = 0.78, P < 0.001), which in turn affects water quality in nearshore environments. 25 3.3 Landscape Composition Cross- sectional sample: Several landscape composition metrics were correlated with water quality conditions as measured by the geometric mean of fecal coliform (Figures 19 -20). The best landscape composition predictors of fecal coliform density across all 18 study bays were percent forest (R= -0.67, P < 0.001) and percent impervious area (R =0.62 P <0.01). For the wet season, best land cover composition metrics was percent impervious (R = -0.56 P <0.01).and for dry season percent mixed urban (R =0.62 P <0.01). Longitudinal land cover subset: When limiting the set of basins to the longitudinal subset several land cover composition metrics were significantly correlated with fecal coliform. Percent impervious surface was significantly correlated with the geometric mean of combined wet and dry seasons fecal coliform measurements (R =0.62, P < 0.05). The geometric mean of fecal coliform measurements is also positively correlated with percent paved urban cover (R =0.68, P < 0.01), and mixed urban cover (R =0.70, P < 0.01), and negatively correlated with percent forest (R= -0.70, P < 0.01). While percent forest is also significantly negatively correlated with the geometric mean of the wet season fecal coliform measurements (R= -0.63, P < 0.05), percent urban and mixed urban cover are significantly correlated with the geometric mean of the dry season fecal coliform (respectively R =0.62, P < 0.05 and R =0.66, P < 0.05). 3.4 Landscape Configuration Cross - sectional sample: Relationships between landscape configuration variables and fecal coliform were significant but not as strong a correlation across all 18 bays. Significant negative correlations were found between the Aggregation Index of forest, as measured by the Aggregation Index and Percent Like Adjacencies, and the combined measurements of fecal coliform for the combined wet and dry season (R = -0.52 and R= -0.50, P < 0.05) and for the dry season alone (R = -0.65 and R= -0.65, P < 0.001). This indicates that more fragmented forest is correlated with higher densities of fecal coliform. In addition the Aggregation Index and Percent 26 Like Adjacencies of Mixed urban land cover was highly correlated with density fecal coliform for the combined wet and dry season (R = -0.52 and R= -0.50, P < 0.05) Longitudinal land cover subset: Stronger correlations were found between landscape configuration metrics and fecal coliform density for the longitudinal subset. In these sites, the landscape configuration metrics were significant for all land covers including forest, paved urban, and mixed urban. Fecal coliform measurements were negatively associated with aggregation of forest and positively associated with mixed urban cover as measured by the Aggregation Index (AI forest, R= -0.77, P < 0.01 and AI mixed urban R =0.77, P < 0.01) and Percent Like Adjacencies (forest, R= -0.75, P < 0.01 and mixed urban, R =0.77, P < 0.01). The fecal coliform measurements for the wet season were also positively correlated with the Aggregation Index of paved urban (R =0.65, P < 0.01) and Percent Like Adjacencies urban (R =0.66, P < 0.01). 3.5 Local Metrics The landscape metrics measured in the local analysis (500 meter zone from the shoreline through the flow path or following the topography) showed significant correlations with fecal coliform density for percent paved land and percent forest for the wet season (respectively R =0.63, P < 0.01 and R= -0.67, P < 0.01). Percent forest was correlated with fecal coliform also for the combined seasons (R =0.49 P < 0.05). Other landscape metrics such as local road density were not significantly correlated with fecal coliform in the 18 bays. The relationship between local variables and fecal coliform (for both land cover and road infrastructure) seem characterized by non - linear trends; but we could not confirm these results with the longitudinal basin land cover subset. 3.6 Regression Results A set of apriori models are presented in Tables 20 and 21. We used intensity, composition, configurations, and two scales (basin and local) of metrics to explain the variance in the 27 geometric mean of fecal coliform for the three fecal coliform data sets: wet season, dry season, and the combined seasons. We compared them using adjusted Rz. Cross - sectional sample: Percent forest explain 41 percent of the variance in the combined seasonal measures of fecal coliform and together with respectively road density and aggregation offorest cover explains almost half of the variance in measures of fecal coliform during the wet season. Percent paved also explain about 40 percent of the variance in fecal coliforms during the wet season. Population density, percent mixed urban cover, and aggregation of forest cover explain about 40 percent of the variance of fecal coliform in the dry season (Table 20). Longitudinal subset: Land cover configuration is the best predictor of the variance in fecal coliform (combined seasons) in the longitudinal subset. The aggregation of mixed urban land cover and the aggregation of forest cover (respectively W = .56, p< 0.01 and RZ = .55, p< 0.01 Table 21). Population density, percent forest cover, and percent impervious surface are all significant in the combined seasons. During the wet season, the best predictor of the variance in fecal coliform is total road length (W =.56, p< 0.01). During the dry season is the aggregation of forest cover (W =.40, p< 0.05). IV. DISCUSSION The findings indicate that the land cover composition and configuration within the basins draining to the shellfish growing areas are good predictors of fecal coliform density. In particular, percent forest at the basin scale is strongly correlated with the geometric mean of fecal coliform measured across the bays both in the cross sectional and longitudinal subsets. The study shows also that a measurable difference in water quality can be detected across the Puget Sound in bays with different amounts of forest fragmentation and degree of aggregation of the urban cover at the basin scale. The Al of forest cover and the Al of Mixed Urban cover explained more than half of the variability in the geometric mean of fecal coliform in the longitudinal subset. Fecal coliform density is also significantly correlated with percent paved and total impervious area. Among the most urbanized basins the difference in water quality is also 28 associated with aggregation of impervious surface. This is particularly relevant since population growth is highly correlated with both decline in forest cover and increase in impervious surface in the central Puget Sound region. Our results are consistent with previous findings from other studies where researchers have found a significant relationship between land cover and fecal coliforms (Weiskel et al. 1996; Mallin et al. 2001). While the amount of impervious cover in the basins provides a good measure of the human impact on the nearshore water quality, variables measuring its spatial configuration (i.e. aggregation of paved land) and connectivity (i.e. roads) show that the relationship between urbanization and water quality is not a linear one. Land use and wastewater infrastructure, among other factors, may also play an important role that influences the impact of increasing human population on coastal environments (Young and Thackston, 1999; Mallin et al. 2001). Other studies have shown that sites closer to areas with high densities of active septic tanks or more urbanized land uses tended to have higher fecal coliform densities (Lipp, 2001a; Lipp, 2002b; Kelsey et al. 2003). However, existing data to describe land use and infrastructure across the sampled sites need to be improved to test hypotheses on the role that these factors play in mediating the effects of urbanization on nearshore environments. The research could be further strengthened by the collection of water quality data tailored to the research objectives, such as consistent monitoring for historic records, rather than the requirements of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The seasonal models (dry and wet) show that different variables, and therefore processes, may explain the release of fecal coliform pollution to the nearshore waters. While we did not include any metereological variable (i.e. rainfall) in our models, different landscape metrics were significant for the combined, wet, and dry season measurements. In particular, while percent forest, impervious area, road density, and local land cover areas are important in explaining the wet season measurements, population density and mixed urban cover explain most of the variability across the sites for the dry season. The fact that land cover, specifically forest area and paved area, is a better predictor than population density for the wet season indicates that the effect of fecal input from surface runoff is suspected as perhaps one of the most important mechanism of fecal coliform pollution input to the estuary in urbanizing regions. 29 Together amount and aggregation of forest at the basin scale explain almost 50% of the variability in fecal coliforms in the wet season. Our analysis of the relationships between landscape metrics and fecal coliform within a 500 -meter shoreline zone did show a significant correlation between the land cover composition at the local scale and fecal coliform density across the bays measurement. Our regression analysis indicated that together the amount of forest at the basin scale and local road density at the 500 -meter local scale jointly explain fecal coliform density (W =0.45, p <0.01). However, since the basin and local variables were closely correlated, it is difficult to discriminate between these effects and assess their interactions through this study of the local interactions. However, the results do further reinforce the finding that forest cover and paved area are both strongly associated with fecal coliform densities. As we are unable to address the contribution of septic systems within the local zone, we suggest this as an area of further research. This study has also pointed to substantive gaps in the information required to develop a robust assessment of the factors and mechanisms that link urbanization to fecal coliform pollution in Puget Sound. First, the depth of the fecal coliform data provided by DOH is not consistent across the bays. Only 18 out of 32 sites selected for the study were retained after standardizing the procedure for producing a statistically valid data set. In addition, important environmental and meteorological data were not available for all of the sampled sites, which limited the interpretation and analysis of the variability across the selected basins. The data sources for tidal mixing, tidal stage, temperature and salinity were not accessible for the analysis of 32 bays within the limited resources and scope of this project. We also identified an important gap in the land use data across the eleven Puget Sound counties where the 32 sites are located. Although important progress has been made in compiling these data by the assessor offices of counties and cities, these data are still too incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate to be used in landscape analyses. However, the greatest gap is data on the wastewater infrastructure. Lack of data on the density and age of septic systems, wastewater systems, drainage networks and curb - gutter -pipe systems is the greatest limitation since it hinders our ability to assess the role that wastewater infrastructure plays in mediating the effect of urbanization. 30 V. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study indicate significant statistical relationships between landscape patterns and fecal coliform density in shellfish growing areas. Percent forest cover and its fragmentation are the best predictors of fecal coliform across the selected bays studied. The amount of impervious surface is also a good predictor of water quality conditions in the eighteen bay areas. The multi- regression analysis also indicates that possible interactions exist between the local (amount of impervious surface) and basin -scale (amount of forest) landscape composition in the dynamics of fecal coliform pollution. These findings suggest that stormwater runoff may be the leading mechanism of fecal coliform pollution and contamination of shellfish in coastal areas. Data limitations have constrained the possibility to assess the role that wastewater infrastructure plays in influencing the impact of landscape change in this study. Many counties do not have digital files or historic records of septic systems, drainage networks or outfalls. However, the findings show that land cover composition and configuration are reliable indicators of the aggregated impacts of urbanization in coastal areas. Increasing development of coastal areas in Puget Sound is likely to continue in the coming decades. However the pattern of development can be guided in ways that minimize its impact. Efforts to minimize the adverse effects of urbanization on shellfish growing areas should occur at multiple scales from the basin to the local scales and simultaneously aim at both minimizing the development of impervious surface and the clearing of forest cover. Furthermore in this study we have shown that the configuration of the land cover, not only its composition, may play an important role in the dynamic of fecal coliform pollution. Forest conservation and smart growth strategies should help limit the degree of alteration of both basin and local scale hydrological processes and consequent adverse effects on nearshore environmental conditions that sustain safe shellfish harvesting. 31 REFERENCES Alberti, M., Weeks, R., and S. Coe. 2004. Urban Land Cover Change Analysis in Central Puget Sound. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 70(9):1043 -1052. Alberti, M., Weeks, R., Russell, C., and S. Coe. 2002. Landcover Characterization and Processing Analysis for Puget Sound. Urban Ecology Research Laboratory, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. NSF Report. Arnold, C.L. and C.J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious Surface Coverage: Emergence of a Key Environmental Indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association. 62(2):243 -258. Booth, D.B., Hartley, D., and R. Jackson. 2002. Forest Cover, Impervious Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Stormwater Impacts. Journal ofAmerican Water Resources Association. 38(3):835 -845. Fulton, M.H., Scott, G.I., Fortner, A., Bidleman, TY, and B. Ngabe. 1993. The Effects of Urbanization on Small High Salinity Estuaries of the Southeastern United States. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 25(4):476 -484. Glasoe, S. and A. Christy. 2004. Literature Review and Analysis: Coastal Urbanization and Microbial Contamination of Shellfish Growing Areas. Puget Sound Action Team. Olympia, Washington. 27 pp. Griffen, D.W., Gibson III, C.J., Lipp, E.K., Riley, K., Paul III, J.H., and J.B. Rose. 1999. Detection of Viral Pathogens by Reverse Transcriptase PCR and of Microbial Indicators by Standard Methods in the Canals of the Florida Keys. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 65(9):4118 -4125. Holland, A.F., Sanger, D.M., Gawle, C.P., Lerberg, S.B., Santiago, M.S., Riekerk, G.H.M., Zimmerman, L. E., and G.I. Scott. 2004. Linkages Between Tidal Creek Ecosystems and the 32 Landscape and Demographic Attributes of their Watersheds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 298(2):151 -178. Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1978.Water Resources and the Land -Water Interface. Science (20):229 -234. Kelsey, H., Scott, G., Porter, D. E., Thompson, B., and L. Webster. 2003. Using Multiple Antibiotic Resistance and Land Use Characteristics to Determine Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacterial Pollution. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 81(1- 3):337 -348. Kleinbaum, D.G., L.L. Kupper, K.E. Muller, and A. Nizam. 1998. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. 3rd ed. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA. Lerberg, S.B., Holland, A.F., and D.M. Sanger. 2000. Responses of Tidal Creek Macrobenthic Communities to the Effects of Watershed Development. Estuaries. 23(6):838- 853. Lipp, E. K., Farrah, S.A., and J.B. Rose. 2001a. Assessment and Impact of Microbial Fecal Pollution and Human Enteric Pathogens in a Coastal Community. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 42(4): 286 -293. Lipp, E.K., Kurz, R., Vincent, R., Rodriques- Palacios, C., Farrah, S.R., and J.B. Rose. 2001b. The Effects of Seasonal Variability and Weather on Fecal Pollution and Enteric Pathogens in a Subtropical Estuary. Estuaries. 24(2):266 -276. Mallin, M.A., Ensign, S.H., McIver, M.R., Shank, G.C., and P.K. Fowler. 2001. Demographic, Landscape, and Meteorological Factors Controlling the Microbial Pollution of Coastal Waters. Hydrobiologia. 460:185 -193. 33 May, C.W., Horner, R.R., Karr, J.R., Mar, B.W., and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(4):483 -494. McGarigal, K. and B.J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service General. Tech. Rep. PNW -351. Omernick, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annual Assessment of American Geography. 77(1):118 -25. Paul, M.J. and J.L. Mayer. 2001. Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics. 32:333 -365. Puget Sound Action Team. 2002. Puget Sound's Update 2002. Puget Sound Action Team. Olympia, Washington. 140+ pp. Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D., and D.L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape Influences on Stream Biotic Integrity Assessed at Multiple Spatial Scales. Landscape Ecology 11(3):141 -156. Sanger, D.M., Holland, A.F., and G.I. Scott. 1999a. Tidal Creek and Salt Marsh Sediments in South Carolina Coastal Estuaries:I. Distribution of Trace Metals. Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 37:445 -457. Sanger, D.M., Holland, A.F., and G.I. Scott. 1999b. Tidal Creek and Salt Marsh Sediments in South Carolina Coastal Estuaries: II. Distribution of Organic Contaminants. Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 37:458 -471. Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. and J.M. Melillo. 1997b. Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems. Science. 277:494 -499. 34 Washington State Department of Health. 2001. Status and Trends in Fecal Coliform Pollution in Puget Sound Year 2000. Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington Department of Health. Olympia, Washington. 84 pp. March 2004. Washington State Department of Health. 2002a. Atlas of Fecal Coliform Pollution in Puget Sound: Year 2001. Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington Department of Health. Olympia, Washington. 67 pp. Washington State Department of Health. 2002b. Annual Inventory of Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas of Washington State. Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington Department of Health. Olympia, Washington. 34 pp. Washington State Department of Health. 2004.2003 Annual Growing Area Reports. Office of Food Safety and Shellfish Programs, Washington Department of Health. Olympia, Washington. Weiskel, P., Howes, B., and G. Heufelder. 1996. Coliform Contamination of a Coastal Embayment: Sources and Transport Pathways. Environmental Science and Technology. 30(6):1872 -1881. White, N.M., Line, D.D., Potts, J.D., Kirby- Smith, W., Doll, B., and W.F. Hunt. 2000. Jump Run Creek Shellfish Restoration Project. Journal of Shellfish Research. 19(1):473 -476. Young, K.D. and E.L. Thackston. 1999. Housing Density and Bacterial Loading in Urban Streams. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 125(12):1177 -1180. 35 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ArcView 3.2, ARC/INFO & Arc Map 8 ArcView 3.2, ARC /INFO and ArcMap 8 are geographical information system (GIS) software packages that were developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). A variety of applications and tools from these packages were used to process data for this analysis. Basin Commonly, a basin refers to an area of land that drains surface runoff to a common collection point or body of water. In this study, we used the basin contributing surface runoff to a bay as the associated landscape for our analysis. Buffer A buffer is a zone of specified distance around a selected landscape feature based upon a chosen attribute of a layer of data. Buffers are used in this study to create zones of analysis within a certain distance of the shoreline (for example 500 meters). Composition Metrics Composition metrics measure the content of spatial features of a unit of the landscape. Examples include proportions, evenness and dominance of a particular landscape type. Configuration Metrics Configuration metrics measure the spatially - explicit characteristics, organization or arrangement of landcover types within a defined unit of the landscape. Examples of configuration include size, shape, and ratio of landcover patches. Connectivity Connectivity refers to linkages or systems that connect one landscape unit to another. Networks of roads, surface water flows and drainage systems are examples of landscape connectors. Cost Distance As a program function in GIS software, a cost distance is a measure of distance between a source cell and a selected target cell. Instead of calculating distance as a straight linear distance, the cost distance is calculated by moving through cells provided as a source grid, in this case water pixels. The cost distance was calculated by moving through the water pixels to all edge pixels within a selected distance. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) A digital elevation model is a grid file where each cell contains an attribute relating to its elevation. This project used a 30 meter DEM supplied by the United States Geological Survey. FLOWLENGTH command The FLOWLENGTH command calculates the stream distance to the stream mouth by calculating the in- channel distance (rather than a straight linear distance). 36 Intensity Metrics Intensity metrics measure the degree to which the land is used for a certain socioeconomic purpose, such as the total percent of the landscape devoted to single- family residential housing or total number of roads in a given area. Landscape Metrics Landscape metrics are methods of measuring or quantifying the patterns or characteristics of the landscape at a set point in time. Patch A patch is an identifiable landscape element that differs from its surrounding areas. The patch is considered to be internally similar, such as a forest area is internally similar and distinguishable from a neighboring grassland patch. Pixel Pixel is short for picture element. It is the smallest dissolvable unit in an image or grid data set. Pixels may have a spatial coordinates (x,y), values or assigned attributes. Pour Point A pour point is an outlet at which water flows out of an area, such as a stream outlet into a bay. In order to capture all surface flow, all shoreline pixels were considered pour points for small surface drainages that do not contribute to streams before entering a bay. Sub -basin or Sub - watershed A sub -basin or sub - watershed refers to a portion of a watershed that drains to a particular point within a larger drainage or basin. The uplands that collect to create a stream form a sub -basin or watershed for a larger watershed. Watershed A watershed is an area that drains water and other substances to a common outlet through overland surface flow, and in certain locations such as cities, drainage infrastructure. Watersheds are bounded by a drainage divide or ridge separating watershed units. WATERSHED command The WATERSHED command is a program function of ARC /INFO geographic information system software. It delineates, or defines, the extent of a watershed using an digital elevation grid to find the highest point or ridge. It then returns a file that has only the points associated with a common drainage point. 37 Figure 1. Study of Urbanization Impacts on Shellfish Growing Areas within Puget Sound Selected Study Sites (18) Burley Lagoon -10 Dabob Bay -14 Dyes Inlet -11 Eld Inlet -1 Filucy Bay -8 Henderson Inlet —2 Kilisut Harbor -17 North Bay-6 Oakland Bay -5 Rocky Bay -9 Quartermaster Harbor -33 Totten Inlet -3 Budd Inlet –25 Dungeness Bay -19 Nisqually Reach -24 Port Townsend -31 Samish Bay -29 Sequim Bay -18 Candidate Sites- not shown Buck Bay Dabob Bay South Quilcene Bay Westcott Bay Discovery Bay Skookum Inlet East Sound North Port Gamble Lynch Cove Drayton Harbor Port Blakely Birch Bay Liberty Bay Portage Bay Note: We make an important distinction that the boundaries of the study areas were determined to coincide with the DOH water quality stations (1500 meters from any of the bay's stations). Therefore due to the limits of the water quality monitoring locations, the study area may not include the entire bay or waterbody such as in the case of Port Townsend. Due to the location of the stations, Port Townsend is split into two sub -basins for this analysis. 38 Figure 2. Distribution of 18 Study Sites within Puget Sound The watersheds cross boundaries of 11 counties, including public, private, tribal and military lands. They represent both geographical distribution and a gradient of development from urban to rural. F F F CIO ti N 0 U oo L 0 U Burley Lagoon Dabob Bay Dyes Inlet Eld Inlet Filucy Bay Henderson Inlet Kilisut Harbor North Bay Oakland Bay Quartermaster Harbor Rocky Bay Totten Inlet Budd Inlet Dungeness Bay Nisqually Reach Port Townsend Samish Bay Sequim Bay Birch Bay Buck Bay Dabob Bay South Discovery Bay Drayton Harbor East Sound North Liberty Bay Lynch Cove Port Blakely Port Gamble Portage Bay Quilcene Bay Skookum Inlet Westcott Bay 39 Figure 3: Comparison of Landscape Patterns for Two Puget Sound Basins The two basins featured in the box below illustrate the differences in land cover and water quality. 0 3 6 9 � Characterization Eld Inlet Henderson Inlet Population Density low density mod / high density Total Area 3= � 120.4 totals .km Urban Area 2.37 urban s .km 35.4 urban s .km Growing Area Classification 4 Approved, Conditional and Closed Y �6 Characterization Eld Inlet Henderson Inlet Population Density low density mod / high density Total Area 89.1 totals .km 120.4 totals .km Urban Area 2.37 urban s .km 35.4 urban s .km Growing Area Classification Approved Approved, Conditional and Closed 40 Figure 4. Examples of DOH Water Quality Monitoring Stations Source: DOH, 2004. 41 Figure 5. Watershed Delineation and Characterization We defined the boundaries and assessed the characteristics of each watershed using a series of landscape metrics. The inset shows the 2002 Land Cover Classification for Henderson Inlet. 42 Figure 6. Example of Cost Distance Grid Calculation Process We calculated a cost distance grid of 1500 meters from each DOH water quality station to the coastline to produce pour points. Watersheds were delineated for each basin combining the results of each pour point to represent the total fresh water inputs into each bay. The basic unit of landscape analysis is the watershed basin that contributes to a water body. The purpose of the Cost Distance Process was to determine what landscape areas influence the water quality stations for our analysis. The first step was to isolate the shoreline pixels that could be used as pour points for the watershed delineation process. The question answered by this process was "what shoreline pixels are 1500 meters from the water quality monitoring stations in each bay." Water quality monitoring stations from Lynch Cove will be used for this example. 1. Data Preprocessing: Digital elevation models and water quality station locations are pre - processed for the cost distance process. The red dots are the water quality monitoring stations (276, 277, 278, etc). The bright blue cells are the individual shoreline pixels of the DEM; the light blue cells are open water cells of Lynch Cove. Cost Distance Grid Calculation: A distance of 1500 meters was calculated for each cell across the water surface. The cost distance function calculates the distance of each cell to the monitoring station. The cells are assigned to the monitoring station that the closest to the cell. In the example, the shoreline cells associated with station 276 end at the red arrow in the diagram. This is the furthest extent of the shoreline pixels associated with Lynch Cove for this study. 3. Watershed Delineation: The shoreline pixels from each water quality monitoring station are aggregated and used to delineate the watershed for each basin. The process results in a continuous section of shoreline to be used as pour points for each basin to capture both stream contributions and surface flow into the study bays. The final box shows the extent of Lynch Cove watershed after the delineation process is completed. Source: Urban Ecology Research Laboratory 43 Figure 7. Scales of Analysis: Basin and Local 500 Meter Shoreline Zone Two scales of analysis were utilized: the basin scale and 500 meter distance from the shoreline upland through the flow path. We measured landscape patterns at both scales. Source: Urban Ecology Research Laboratory 44 Figure 8. UERL 1991 & 1999 Land Cover Change Classification: Land cover classification data from 1991 and 1999 were used to conduct a landscape change analysis for the Central Puget Sound area. As a landscape analysis tool, comparisons of two land cover classifications eight years apart enable changes in the landscape to be measured and contrasted for different development scenarios. Source: Urban Ecology Research Laboratory 45 Figure 9. UERL 2002 Land Cover Classification: This classification incorporated both supervised and spectral unmixing classification techniques for the entire Puget Sound area. 46 Figure 10: Example of Water Quality Stations per Basin per Year for 15 Selected Basins: This figure shows the distribution of the number of water quality stations for 15 Puget Sound stations within each bay from 1988 -2002. The graph represents the range of measurement across the bays inclnrieri within thk ctnriv 47 Figure 11. Population Density for 32 Candidate Watershed Basins 48 700.00 Population Density Pop /Km2 600.00 500.00 N Y 400.00 a� c 300.00 ;. a 200.00 100.00 0.00 �., N T T C 2v T C T C 10 cc ca In C M m m N L L 4) m o m m O S m �� m O N Y. m L L E U O E a O T a m m m in c £ m m� Y m O m C N 'D N +-' (a "O m T L N c a 0 T N N N L L N c. 7 N N O Y U 3 y U fV f6 U :- LJJ 7- 0 m a J T • -Boo opm WNZY Jf On f0 O y O�m d°m Jam_ 0 � Y d m U3' 48 Figure 12. 2002 Land Cover Distribution for 32 Candidate Watershed Basins 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2002 Prism Land Cover W M M N N W N d T N M T N N c0. w C M> c4 c0 O O O N O c4 - O mmm 000mm C �mmYm�m w �m O Emma �a-2 cm oco c w 0 Aso cCDM o E 4 `i' z �m QU w E5 9 �W m m0 :C CO 5 a�i > 0 � vQZ 00 U- ayi Ow o f6 � M a-c M 0 O�pm Tip O 3 o n. cn U) � � O u, a� J = 0 ij � 3 a pa Y m Basins Sorted By Total Urban • Steep Slopes • Water ❑ Shoreline ❑ Wetlands ❑ Snow, Rock, Ice ■ Clear Cuts ■ Forest Grass, Shrub, Crop ❑ Dry Native Grass ■ Bare Soil ❑ Mixed Urban Dense Urban 49 Figure 13. 2002 Land Cover Distribution for 500 Meter Shoreline Zone 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of 2002 Land Cover in Shoreline 500 T N -6 t T >, T T T T N C 'O �6 'C f0 — c6 „d„ •-• N N C O N O N. O m m m cp c0 N> O C O N l4 f0 cd CO OmYm N 0 Cm 7".S [�'� C f6mmmmCm m O O N� C m>., m m C C ], U m U E m E 6 rn 2 O N O y O) �[ = C� L J NF$ 2 L N 2� V m m OIL 'C m p N f6 N N w 0 O R p N U lY W Z >+ N F— m J N m O 1- 0 0 0 �$Y3u'Y rid �O rn N O o fl CJ �ln = Z o mao 0 D Sorted by Total Urban ■ Steep Slope Mask ■ Water m Shoreline ❑ Wetlands • Clear Cuts • Forest ❑ Grass, Shrub, Crop B Dry Grass ■ Bare Soil Mixed Urban ❑ Paved Urban 50 Figure 14. Percentage Impervious Surface for 2002 Land Cover for 32 Candidate Basins 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Percentage Impervious Surface N 'LC M N M N m �. f0 N N > N O N 6' 0O m 'O w 0O U N O N M N R O] O co m O] m m C C 0] O C O] O CO 4 CO Y CO N 00 - N C O M m C C O] �c Z Z r > i c t m Z-o E U a m m m d CM `"N c° c ro 7 N > O U U 7 7 d N (7 C W 7 V f0 C N 0] N o >. j J Ul >, N O CO a Z ;5 LL cc y L m -ld _m Z 0 ti CO 5 as 2 0 M r Z m Figure 15. 2002 Land Use Distribution for 26 Basins Land use data was not available for all basins and several basins have large portions of unknown land use parcels. The 26 basins presented here show the extent of information available for land use at the time of this project. m N C J c m v L m a 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2002 Land Use Distribution N m m m m N C 7 Y m fT0 N O [�'6 N i4 o = m m m o 'd 'p N C m N w Z f6 m N W f0 L m m (6 N Z T L U T w m W a�i m m m 0_ 5 3 m •�' 2 cYi C7 > w c = LL ?'= d am M a v i m N _ m> o of ° rn y ai a cY m tj c Y a. 0 rj m' � w Ci Sorted by Single Family Residential Land Use Category Descriptions ■ No Data Transport Tribal ❑ Water • Open Space • Parking Institutional Office ® Industrial ■ Agriculture ❑ Commercial ❑ Nixed Use IVFR SFR Abbreviation Category Description No Data No Land Use Data Parcels of land with no land use data available Transport Transportation Infrastructure Linear roads, arterials, streets, alleys, utilities Tribal Tribal All Indian reservation land includes all activities Water Water Open water areas, Open Space Open Space Protected or undevelopable land, open space, Parking Parking Parking lots and facilities Institutional Institutional Schools, churches, government, hospitals, etc. Office Office Service /office without retail: doctor, real- estate, etc. Industrial Industrial Light manufacturing Agriculture Agriculture Farms - poultry, dairy, crops, and livestock Commercial Commercial Businesses: hotels, sales, retail, trade, hatcheries, Mixed Use Mixed Use Combined residential and commercial uses mixed MFR Multi - Family Residential Duplex, triplex, apartment building SFR Single Family Residential Single family residential, bed & breakfasts, etc. 52 Figure 16. Land Cover Change 1991 -1999 for 15 Selected Basins 20% `m 15% u 10% V R 5% C 0% 0 -5% 0 c -10% ea U -15% -20% Change in Percentage of Land Cover N 8 >+ z L T >+ N >' Z T C y C O m m C O m C m O C C m N 7 U 7 U O W N J N j, 0 N o o CO jl �°. O >, Z -:2 a>i N O a 0 J J c Y U) m N CO S 0 Central Puget Sound Basins Sorted by Total Change in Paved and Mixed Urban ■ Change in % Water ■ Change in % Clear Cut ■ Change in % Bare Soil 0 Change in % Grass, Shrub, Crop ■ Change in % Forest Change in % Paved Urban 0 Change in % Mixed Urban 53 Figure 17. 2000 Road Density and Lengths by Basin The data for this analysis utilized Washington State TIGER road data. Major roads are classified as TIGER category A4 and local roads are classified as TIGER categories Al -3. Road Lengths for Local & Major Roads (KM) 4000 3500 3000 2500 ■ Local Roads A4 2000 1500 0 Major Roads A1,2,3 1000 500 0 .5 mmomc° —� �ommm�?��c>om >cm�mcZ°�mm�cLi =Om Y M CO M 7s O CO O m N m C C Cmm O Nm m d C Cmm m CO a� C Y O>° m Z T m M -a c t U O N c N c t a- 2 0> m O U 2 U UJ >, Y J E E— O E= L ._ - N N O N, m o 0 N m N LL M 'C m CLO• y C jv m 0 W O y Z �. O O O N H N w 'Y m m CD °aa� Y W as mJCJ Ui �� J 7 O N�� N 0 0 000 = Z Sorted by Total Road Length in KM 54 Road Density by Basin 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 ■ Local Road Density 2.00 $r 1.50 E3 Major Road Density 1.00 'A 0.50 0.00 I . I - . I . . I . . ! , O O m C O O O m N m' m. m m m C m m C C-2 m m .. C N m Y N 7 0 m C C N d >' fC N >+ O O p U 7 S U U N W 3 [0 V -° 0 _7 m J N >, H cc O O_ O N >. J D N 2 m m N N V 0 m Z N CD TW O O o N Co m F- LL O r u1 m N ._ N FO- C () 0 O� 0— CL Y` O �O CL 7 Y W 7 C 7 -0 a N D U) O CO N O mm Z [L = 00 Sorted by Total Road Density Road Lengths for Local & Major Roads (KM) 4000 3500 3000 2500 ■ Local Roads A4 2000 1500 0 Major Roads A1,2,3 1000 500 0 .5 mmomc° —� �ommm�?��c>om >cm�mcZ°�mm�cLi =Om Y M CO M 7s O CO O m N m C C Cmm O Nm m d C Cmm m CO a� C Y O>° m Z T m M -a c t U O N c N c t a- 2 0> m O U 2 U UJ >, Y J E E— O E= L ._ - N N O N, m o 0 N m N LL M 'C m CLO• y C jv m 0 W O y Z �. O O O N H N w 'Y m m CD °aa� Y W as mJCJ Ui �� J 7 O N�� N 0 0 000 = Z Sorted by Total Road Length in KM 54 Figure 18. 2000 Road Density and Lengths for 500 Meter Shoreline Zone The data for this analysis utilized Washington State TIGER road data. Major roads are classified as TIGER category A4 and local roads are classified as TIGER categories Al, A2 and A3. 55 Road Density for 500M Shoreline Zone(KM /KM2) 9 8 7 so g ■ Local Roads A4 5 ■ Local Roads A4 40 30 E3 Major Road 4 0 Major Roads A1,2,3 3 A1,2,3 2 1 10 0 0 O O m4 Co C m m C m m C m� C m m� Y m N m m O O m N C O m.2 m C !n Z N E f6 'O Y m 2 @ E C E Z L Y y 'O N .0 2 CO mT '0 7 -7 U N O m a "O J N O :� W 7 7 y fO 0 U U O cc (0 m Z F m O m° �0 m M w w p N f- O O O d V- O V p T 0_' n 0 0 YapN -U'0 cnJ o m m Nm Cy ��ma a o ca � z = ° a 0o w Sorted by Total Paved Road Density 55 Road Lengths for 500M Shoreline Zone 90 80 70 so 50 ■ Local Roads A4 40 30 0 Major Roads A1,2,3 20 10 0 m� mmmmmr o my °� m a� `o mm m i m m� me m� m Y m Co 0 Co w� C C-2 m m m- p m V7 m C m N m C m Q Co m CO m 0 0 (n Y O N> mn T Z N Z N N C O LC E N U s O >O CO C Z y ." Cn m o m (a U 42 O J C N �, 7 y p y 7 C U `- � N W 6 N 3 N T 7 m 0:33 —3.2 p 0 w 0 LL to m N 7 V m6 O N 0 Z N N O C m � O Y 0° m O .� J F .O d m O 'C N O 7 N 6 a Y— (n N J 7 ��O .O w� v_, m d� ° o z o w Sorted by Total Road Length in KM 55 Figure 19. Percent Forest Cover and Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean for 2002 Land Cover Percent Forest and FC Geometric Mean at Basin Scale 8 RZ = 0.4434 c 7 ■ 0 ii 6 c 5 :n E ■ ■ U 4 ® ■ cc c 3 ■ ■ E 2 ® ■® 0 cD 1 0 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Forest Land Cover 56 Figure 20. Aggregation Index of Forest and Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean Aggregation Index & FC Geometric Mean at Basin Scale 10 9 ■ R2 = 0.4235 0 8 N N 7 6 a m 5 4 'C E 3 ■ (D s 2 ®® 1 0 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 Aggregation Index of Forest 57 Table 1. Size and Percent Impervious Area for 18 Study Sites* Basin Area (lane) Area (km2) Below 500M Elevation* Percent Basin Below 500M Elevation Percent Impervious Area Impervious Area (km) o a j y ° a Burley Lagoon 41.72 41.74 100% 5.0% 2.08 Dabob Bay 59.21 59.25 100% 1.0% 0.57 Dyes Inlet 102.59 102.61 100 % 9.7% 9.99 Eld Inlet 89.10 88.88 100% 2.5% 2.19 Filucy Bay 13.44 13.44 100% 1.7% 0.23 Henderson Inlet 120.36 120.37 100% 13.1% 15.80 Kilisut Harbor 14.28 14.29 100% 4.2% 0.60 North Bay 140.69 140.71 100% 1.5% 2.07 Oakland Bay 310.98 311.04 100% 2.8% 8.68 Quartermaster Harbor 44.20 44.23 100% 3.2% 1.41 Rocky Bay 52.36 52.36 100% 1.7% 0.89 Totten Inlet 102.58 101.59 99% 2.0% 2.03 Budd Inlet 544.43 458.90 84% 4.9% 26.40 Dungeness Bay 527.62 122.90 23% 14.6% 76.88 Nisqually Reach 2069.17 1189.57 57% 4.7% 96.63 Port Townsend 119.20 119.21 100% 3.5% 4.12 Samish Bay 378.85 336.75 89% 2.0% 7.69 Sequim Bay 127.25 100.56 79% 2.5% 3.16 * Area (km2) below 500M Elevation: This measure of land area calculates the amount of each basin that is within the land cover classifications used for this study. Land area above 500 meters was not classified in the 1991 andl999 UERL land cover process. For 2002, landscape metrics were calculated using total basin area. For landscape metrics calculated from 1991 and 1999 land cover data (e.g. percent forest, percent impervious surface, etc.) the area below 500 meters was used. 58 y 0 CQ R A 4I 0 Ski N H -o Y O Y Y 0 U 0 U O == O U O U C C •� 'O 'C ii b b •.3 r'3 O O O D O U G' ❑ Y U U U U o rnrn U U a> a� 00 0 0 O O ..s 0 „�' 0 �_ �, O UU O o o G �cn �C4 L• V) Y Y a C� Ya UUU f'l o �UU O O .y ° 0UU b b ..s 0 � y,,, �+ Y U y U Y U U U y Y Y cd cd s. 3., U U •r' S.. �•, fC cC Ci L'i '—' ti 3va.3aa,aa 3UUwwxxH�- _ a.a,x��cn�33���� Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m n m m N N N .Y U G:+ Y '��'' iw 0 s, 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C O Y Y Y Y Y Y V Y Y O m m m C7 H p. W W U U »» U U U J U U » N U » U U » N 1 N » I U U » U U » U U » U U »» U U E E C C O O ;_, ,� Y M .0 .� E yy E t t U u a��+ 9 UC a� G Z V U v t t u U t r N Ri " < .Y-i .Yi � c0 CC R$ G C� e E 7) N E E fO fO cd�I�N...II II..N��.�� II..N�..II 1�.N.HI .0 R M.Mou U� c� CC .�0 i.+ Q Q MM U O M O w cl.+ W 4-I A Q U U /O� /U U U f.." i. O U /V �" r•� 1-a Q O O O o ^� Ste.' ��•' Q A L.' Q Q M 0 Q 06 (U� ' �" ' L' Q Q. E E 'L U Q U Q L• Un 'ti s. N L U �+ N N N C. %i"r %r C� is � . �" ' C^" $'.. Sr" � . C "•^"i � a • L. S-�.% L'. • L' .0 % (� i (� � iii �U+ i.r *r �i �.r � a, a, � � --i a a L: �i'•i ' i".. • S'i S+.r �i QI Q� i"�-. � a a cd m co a s cc cz m e c❑ cz cz En V YI F� IY M--1 Sn it Y Y r� Y 1�1 �1 U U O O Y "C O O A Li ^c3 O "'s O O D OS." U „�' C ,�• O U O U „�' .� C S". .L' ..0 �,' ".s ��. .7 U U ,1• z.^, .J' O U O U w W❑❑ U U r. O 0 O 0 U 0 v 0 0 0 U 0 U 7 7. E •E U_ U O 0 D 0 U 0 cC =' c0 Cn C C L7 i", VI' N y cC cd O 0 U U U U r O U U ..0 .D 7 —• 7 `� a��33333avv= .� ,-co .°�xx�Ha iN. a.xxv)v)V)Ln O .� O cd «i iC C as C N O r. O N cd Y 0 Y co Q cz c° .0 •(C U 01 CG //��� I--1 cd Y cc Y VI cts /�� FBI ° I� LZ C� i Q Q `v� cd , Q O y i 0 ti 5 V U cE O Q ' v0 ' •Ri > 0.S O Q � O N .Y rr yy�� � :d "� � :�� � Q Y-/ � Q ca m .D Q 8 CC > V O U O 7ti N +�• i'y .y 'b H V �.+ ICI :� �i+" X G' is 191, X W H c> �] 3 E a c a a H O O a a o O o ti❑ O a O o a o o U U o D o U O G � E-� U U D U 0 0 U U 0 0 0 7. O 0 O 0 D U A O c� O v, 7 a O E E 0 O O D U 0 0 p U U O O E Cy U U O O D U cC cC sue. s`n. U U 00 V] C C '� '� m � a �Na�3w3�UV °'tixxF- F-a,a, C41) .L 33. v)Ln Table 3: Complete List of Land Use and Landscape Metrics Intensity Metrics Composition Metrics Configuration Metrics Residential Road Length Total Impervious Surface Aggregation Index Major Road Length Percent Land Cover — Forest Total Road Density Change in Percent Land Cover — Mixed Urban Population Density per Basin Change in Percent — Paved Population Density per Paved Paved Urban — Grass, Shrub, Crop Mixed Urban Percent Land Adjacency - Forest - Mixed Urban - Paved Urban 60 Table 4. Landscape Metrics Definitions and Equations Landscape Metrics Equations Percentage Land n a# Sum of the area of all patches of the corresponding pLand = j =1 patch type divided by total landscape area. A Road Density E li Kilometers of road length per km2 of land area. rDensity = ' A Population Density Densi # People P tJ = A Number of people per km' of land area. Mean Patch Size n Y a# Sum of the areas of all patches divided by the number _1 MPS = of patches. ni Percent Like Adjacency Equals the sum of the number of like adjacencies for each patch type, divided by the total number of cell g; adjacencies in the landscape; multiplied by 100. PLADJ = (100) M Y g- k=1 Aggregation Index Equals the number of like adjacencies involving the corresponding class, divided by the maximum possible g, number of like adjacencies involving the AI = (100) corresponding class; multiplied by 100. max --> g +r Contagion Probability of two cells of type I and j to be adjacent m m 21n(m) + I I P# In P# where m is the number of land cover types, Py is the i =1 j =1 proportion of cells in land cover i adjacent to cells of C - 21n(m) type j and 2 ln(m) is the maximum when all possible adjacencies of class i and j occur with equal probability. 61 Table 5: Definitions of Land Cover Classes 1991- 1999 Land Cover Classes Description Paved Urban >75% >75% impervious Mixed Urban 15 -75% 15 -75% impervious Forest Coniferous and deciduous forest Grass Shrub Crops Agricultural land, fields, orchards Bare Soil Exposed soils Clear Cut Forest practice areas Water Open water, lakes, streams 2002 Land Cover Classes Description Paved Urban >75% >75% impervious Mixed Urban 15 -75% 15 -75% impervious Forest Coniferous and deciduous forest Grass Shrub Crops Agricultural land, fields, orchards Dry Grass Natural, non - irrigated grasses Bare Soil Exposed soils Clear Cut Forest practice areas Water Open water, lakes, streams Rock, Snow, Ice Reflective pixels above 1000 meters Shoreline Wetlands National Wetland Inventory land (NWI) Steep Slope Mask Steep slopes over 30% grade 62 Table 6: Definitions of Land Use Classes We developed a combined system of land use codes for the purpose of analyzing land- use /land -cover relationships across 11 counties. As each county has their own set of codes, we needed a systematic way to compare land uses across l I counties. Puget Sound Description Land Use Detail Description Aggregated Land Use Classes Single Family SFR Includes single family residential, bed & breakfasts, mobile Residential home parks Multi- Family MFR Duplex, triplex, apartment buildings Residential Mixed Use Mixed Use Residential with institutional lodging, Residential with motels/hotels, Residential with other Commercial Miscellaneous Development Anything that does not fit into the rest of the classes Commercial Commercial Hotels, service, retail, sales, trade Heavy Commercial Motor vehicle sales /equipment, regional shopping center, fueling stations, scrap & waste material Built Recreation Bowling alleys, pools, stadiums, fairgrounds, race tracks, amphitheaters, motion picture theaters, recreational centers Fisheries Shellfish fisheries, hatcheries, fish related activities Agriculture Agriculture Farms - poultry, dairy, crops, and livestock Industrial Industrial Light manufacturing including food/paper processing, all terminal - air /marine /train, warehouses, landfills, treatment plants, military bases /installations Heavy Industrial Mining activities, heavy manufacturing Heavy Use Transport Highways, expressways, linear railroad lines Office Office Service offices without retail - includes doctor and real- estate; military admin/logistics centers. Heavy Use Office Microsoft or downtown Seattle concentration of banks, financial centers etc. Institutional Institutional Schools, churches, government, hospitals, museums, etc. Parking Parking Parking lots Open Space Vacant Any undeveloped land Protected Forest Protected/undevelopable land, open space, parks, wildlife refuge, greenbelts, non - commercial forest Unprotected Forest Timberland and any forest land for commercial purposes. Non -built Recreation Space for recreational activities including golf, playgrounds, beaches, resorts Water Water Water areas, such as lakes. Tribal Tribal Lands All Indian reservation land includes all activities - commercial, industrial, residential, etc. Transport Transportation Linear roads, arterials, streets, alleys, communication exchanges, utilities, transmission right of way. 63 Table 7: Definitions of Selected U.S. Census TIGER Road Classes The road classification system was adapted from U.S. Census TIGER road classification system. The TIGER database contains integrated information for geographic entities, roads, landmarks and place names. The road classifications used in our project are listed by class type and description. Road Variable TIGER Class Definition Major Roads A1, A2, A3 Interstate highways, primary, secondary roads, hard surfaces Local Roads A4 Local traffic, residential, single lane in each direction Service Roads A51 Vehicular trails, fire roads, logging roads 4 Wheel Drive Roads A74 Service roads, logging access roads, farms, park roads 64 Table 8. Water Quality Metrics Water Metrics for Each Watershed Equations Fecal Coliform Mean n I FG Mean fecal coliform bacteria from measurements taken FCMean — ' =1 within each basin n Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean 11 FC ; The nth root of the product of the fecal coliform FCgeOmean = j=1 measurements, where n represents the number of n measurements. Fecal Coliform Exceedance Rate n I (FC _> 43), Number of measurements that exceeded 43 fecal 1 Exc = '- coliform divided by the total number of measurements n Fecal Coliform 90`h Percentile The value above which 10 percent of the observed fecal FC 90th Percentile coliform measurements fall and below which 90 percent of the observed measurements of fecal coliform fall. Fecal Coliform Pollution Index(FPI) Fecal Coliform Pollution Index Calculation: The Fecal Pollution Index is a weighted ranking tool Sampling Station: The proportion of 901h percentiles in calculated by the Department of Health for evaluating each category (good, fair, bad) multiplied by a the impact of fecal pollution at the level of the sampling weighting factor of 1, 2, 3 respectively and summed. station, growing area and region. At each scale, the index categorizes samples as good (90th percentile below Growing Area or Region: The proportion of 90`h 30 MPN), fair (90`h percentile between 30 and 43 MPN) percentiles in each category in a growing area or region or bad (estimated 90th percentile above 43 MPN). multiplied by the weighting factor and summed. 65 Table 9. 2002 Land Cover Classification: Percentages by Class for 18 Study Sites Basin Percent Total Urban Percent Mixed Urban Percent Paved Urban Percent Bare Soil Percent Dry Grass Percent Clear Cuts Percent Grass, Shrub, Crop Burley Lagoon 12.8% 10.6% 2.1% 0.3% 3.8% 0.0% 8.8% Dabob Bay 1.4% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5% 4.5% Dyes Inlet 20.9% 13.6% 7.3% 0.3% 2.5% 0.2% 5.4% Eld Inlet 5.7% 4.3% 1.5% 0.3% 2.4% 0.0% 10.3% Filucy Bay 4.3% 3.6% 0.7% 0.1% 5.8% 0.0% 10.3% Henderson Inlet 26.8% 16.4% 10.3% 0.8% 7.3% 0.1% 9.5% Kilisut Harbor 7.7% 5.6% 2.1% 0.1% 5.6% 0.0% 4.3% North Bay 3.6% 3.1% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6% 0.3% 4.4% Oakland Bay 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.5% 3.8% 0.3% 10.8% Quartermaster Harbor 5.1% 4.4% 0.7 % 0.1% 3.8% 0.0% 9.7% Rocky Bay 4.7% 4.3% 0.4% 0.1% 1.3% 0.0% 5.1% Totten Inlet 4.1% 2.9% 1.2% 0.1% 2.0% 0.5% 10.1% Budd Inlet 10.5% 6.8% 3.7% 0.3% 4.8% 1.7% 9.3% Dungeness Bay 2.2% 1.5% 0.7% 0.2% 2.8% 0.3% 1 3.3% Nisqually Reach 4.2% 2.9% 1.3% 0.2% 4.3% 1.8% 6.6% Port Townsend 7.2% 5.3% 1.9% 0.1% 6.0% 0.1% 10.9% Samish Bay 5.0% 4.0% 1.1% 0.9% 3.1% 0.1% 21.4% Sequim Bay 5.5% 3.9% 1.6% 0.2% 3.1% 0.9% 6.7% Basin Percent Forest Percent Water Percent Snow, Rock, Ice Percent Wetlands Percent Shoreline Percent Steep Slope Mask Burley Lagoon 73.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% Dabob Bay 91.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% Dyes Inlet 68.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Eld Inlet 79.9% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% Filucy Bay 76.9% 0.3% 0.0% 1.7% 0.5% 0.1% Henderson Inlet 49.6% 3.3 % 0.0% 2.3% 0.1% 0.3% Kilisut Harbor 78.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 3.4% 0.2% North Bay 84.6% 3.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.2% 0.3% Oakland Bay 73.7% 1.9% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.3% Quartermaster Harbor 78.2% 1.6% 0.0 % 0.0% 1.6% 1 0.0% Rocky Bay 85.5% 1.3% 0.0% 1.6% 0.3% 0.2% Totten Inlet 79.3% 2.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% Budd Inlet 70.5% 1.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.2% Dungeness Bay 69.3% 0.1% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% Nisqually Reach 77.2% 1.6% 3.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% Port Townsend 74.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% Samish Bay 67.4% 1.1% 0.0 % 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% Sequim Bay 83.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 66 Table 10 (a). Land Use Codes: Percentages by Class for 18 Study Sites: Land use codes from 11 counties were collected and calibrated to create a condensed 14 categories. Areas with no data represent areas where information was not available. Basin Total Land Area Classified by Land Use (kMZ) Percent Single Family Residential Percent Multi Family Residential Percent Mixed Use Percent Commercial Percent Agriculture Percent Industrial Burley Lagoon 41.75020709 9.0% 48.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 1.2% Dabob Bay 59.18969493 2.5% 9.3% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0% Dyes Inlet 102.5879436 10.6% 27.1% 1.3% 0.5% 1.9% 1.0% Eld Inlet 88.87024621 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 43.1% 4.5% 5.0% Filucy Bay 13.43491551 5.0% 32.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% Henderson Inlet 120.1919344 0.0% 3.3% 4.4% 12.4% 7.8% 4.7% Kilisut Harbor 14.20918201 33.8% 11.9% 0.0% 42.6% 0.0% 0.0% North Bay na na na na na na na Oakland Bay na na na na na na na Quartermaster Harbor 44.19721526 5.1% 28.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% Rocky Bay 51.83014779 4.6% 19.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Totten Inlet na na na na na na na Budd Inlet 544.3974922 0.0% 1.0% 2.8% 39.0% 3.9% 6.2% Dungeness Bay 527.5468124 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 2.3% 0.2% 2.3% Nisqually Reach na na na na na na na Port Townsend 119.0570878 14.1% 13.6% 0.2% 7.4% 0.3% 0.5% Samish Bay 376.8195199 2.2% 14.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 29.4% Sequim Bay 124.3066175 11.9% 11.0% 0.1% 8.6% 0.3% 4.5% 67 Table 10 (b). Land Use Codes: Percentages by Class for 18 Study Sites, continued Basin Percent Office Percent Institutional Percent Parking Percent Open Space Percent Water Percent Tribal Percent Transport Percent Other Burley Lagoon 1.7% 0.1% 0.7% 1.8% 35.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% Dabob Bay 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 86.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dyes Inlet 1.1% 0.4% 8.9% 0.9% 45.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% Eld Inlet 18.5% 25.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Filucy Bay 0.0% 0.0% 0.2 % 0.0% 51.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Henderson Inlet 23.3% 31.6% 6.2% 2.3% 0.0% 2.9% 1.2% 0.0% Kilisut Harbor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Bay na na na na na na na na Oakland Bay na na na na na na na na Quartermaster Harbor 1.0% 0.1% 1.6% 0.0% 58.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Rocky Bay 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 73.2% 0.1% 0.0% 1.6% Totten Inlet na na na na na na na na Budd Inlet 12.2% 15.8% 1.7% 0.9% 14.7% 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% Dungeness Bay 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% Nisqually Reach na na na na na na na na Port Townsend 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 62.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Samish Bay 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 49.8% 2.2% 0.0% 0.2% Sequim Bay 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 61.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.9% 68 Table 11. 2000 Road Density: Total Road Density and TIGER Road Lengths Basin Total Road Length (km) Major & Local Road Length (km) Major Road Density (km/km1) Local Road Density (km/kml) Major & Local Road Density (km/km2) 4WD Road Density (km/km2) Logging Road Density (kr /krn) Total Road Density (km/km2) Burley Lagoon 150.36 148.67 0.38 3.19 3.56 0.00 0.04 3.60 Dabob Bay 86.26 86.26 0.05 1.41 1.46 0.00 0.00 1.46 Dyes Inlet 399.26 399.26 0.25 3.64 3.89 0.00 0.00 3.89 Eld Inlet 205.34 194.03 0.16 2.02 2.18 0.00 0.13 2.30 Filucy Bay 42.26 42.13 0.00 3.13 3.13 0.00 0.01 3.14 Henderson Inlet 504.48 493.80 0.09 4.01 4.10 0.00 0.09 4.19 Kilisut Harbor 48.49 48.49 0.62 2.77 3.39 0.00 0.00 3.39 North Bay 271.64 266.37 0.15 1.75 1.89 0.02 0.02 1.93 Oakland Bay 802.98 798.97 0.10 2.46 2.57 0.00 0.01 2.58 Quartermaster Harbor 146.49 146.49 0.00 3.31 3.31 0.00 0.00 3.31 Rocky Bay 113.62 112.87 0.11 2.04 2.16 0.00 0.01 2.17 Totten Inlet 210.98 206.03 0.15 1.85 2.01 0.03 0.02 2.06 Budd Inlet 1681.32 1592.83 0.05 2.87 2.93 0.06 0.10 3.09 Dungeness Bay 333.16 332.69 0.02 0.62 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.63 Nisqually Reach 3807.62 3633.91 0.09 1.67 1.76 0.03 0.05 1.84 Port Townsend 359.84 358.82 0.20 2.81 3.01 0.00 0.01 3.02 Samish Bay 616.38 591.81 0.17 1.39 1.56 0.05 0.01 1.63 Sequim Bay 256.65 253.42 0.15 1.85 1.99 0.00 0.03 2.02 69 Table 12. Population Density from 2000 U.S. Census Block Groups Basin Population Population Density (pop/km2) Population per Total Roads (popes) Population per Total Paved Area (pop/km') Major Roads per Population (pop) Burley Lagoon 8514 204.1 56.62 1184.99 0.02 Dabob Bay 219 3.7 2.54 236.01 0.39 Dyes Inlet 42012 409.5 105.22 1561.14 0.01 Eld Inlet 8848 99.3 43.09 1438.43 0.02 Filucy Bay 1469 109.3 34.76 1952.46 0.03 Henderson Inlet 71867 597.1 142.46 2030.92 0.01 Kilisut Harbor 954 63.0 19.68 623.36 0.05 North Bay 4963 35.3 18.27 652.58 0.05 Oakland Bay 24129 77.6 30.05 911.15 0.03 Quartermaster Harbor 4176 94.5 28.51 1260.17 0.04 Rocky Bay 3612 69.0 31.79 1008.95 0.03 Totten Inlet 4850 47.3 22.99 1058.68 0.04 Budd Inlet 94640 173.8 56.29 1278.90 0.02 Dungeness Bay 13205 25.0 39.63 248.91 0.03 Nisqually Reach 118521 57.3 31.13 638.19 0.03 Port Townsend 8450 71.6 23.48 644.19 0.04 Samish Bay 11708 30.9 18.99 561.17 0.05 Sequim Bay 6791 53.4 26.46 661.66 0.04 70 Table 13. Forest Landscape Metrics Basin Forest Percent Land Forest Percent Like Adjacencies Forest Aggregation Index Burley Lagoon 73.42% 87.22 87.70 Dabob Bay 91.74% 95.89 96.28 Dyes Inlet 68.24% 88.02 88.34 Eld Inlet 79.88% 91.49 91.81 Filucy Bay 76.86% 89.27 90.12 Henderson Inlet 49.59% 81.25 81.57 Kilisut Harbor 78.81% 91.01 91.84 North Bay 84.59% 94.06 94.32 Oakland Bay 73.72% 90.36 90.54 Quartermaster Harbor 78.15% 91.02 91.49 Rocky Bay 85.49% 92.96 93.38 Totten Inlet 79.32% 92.19 92.50 Budd Inlet 67.30% 90.73 90.87 Dungeness Bay 69.26% 93.17 93.31 Nisqually Reach 70.69% 94.11 94.19 Port Townsend 73.98% 91.87 92.17 Samish Bay 67.30% 91.48 91.66 Sequim Bay 83.01% 93.83 94.11 71 Table 14. Paved Urban Landscape Metrics Basin Percent Paved Urban Percent Paved Like Adjacencies Paved Aggregation Index Burley Lagoon 2.13% 40.84 42.19 Dabob Bay 0.34% 32.96 35.34 Dyes Inlet 7.32% 63.90 64.61 Eld Inlet 1.47% 45.36 46.59 Filucy Bay 0.70% 21.90 24.34 Henderson Inlet 10.31% 64.57 65.12 Kilisut Harbor 1.87% 38.18 40.57 North Bay 0.49% 37.55 38.96 Oakland Bay 2.01% 61.23 61.97 Quartermaster Harbor 0.70% 38.37 40.62 Rocky Bay 0.38% 26.48 28.43 Totten Inlet 1.17% 43.91 45.15 Budd Inlet 3.55% 65.14 65.59 Dungeness Bay 0.73% 52.31 53.12 Nisqually Reach 1.22% 56.36 56.69 Port Townsend 1.92% 49.71 50.71 Samish Bay 1.08% 52.01 52.79 Sequim Bay 1.58% 58.84 60.12 72 Table 15. Mixed Urban Landscape Metrics Basin Percent Mixed Urban Land Mixed Urban Percent Like Adjacencies Mixed Urban Aggregation Index Burley Lagoon 10.64% 40.57 41.16 Dabob Bay 1.02% 28.32 29.46 Dyes Inlet 13.62% 46.40 46.78 Eld Inlet 4.27% 34.70 35.24 Filucy Bay 3.63% 26.94 28.16 Henderson Inlet 16.44% 51.89 52.25 Kilisut Harbor 5.54% 28.52 29.53 North Bay 3.15% 33.90 34.40 Oakland Bay 4.01% 37.46 37.79 Quartermaster Harbor 4.40% 29.95 30.61 Rocky Bay 4.31% 34.44 35.15 Totten Inlet 2.95% 31.18 31.73 Budd Inlet 6.54% 47.63 47.87 Dungeness Bay 1.49% 35.55 35.93 Nisqually Reach 2.70% 36.23 36.38 Port Townsend 5.31 % 42.94 43.46 Samish Bay 3.96% 38.07 38.37 Sequim Bay 3.90% 38.16 38.68 73 Table 16. Fecal Coliform Descriptive Statistics -All Data from 1998- 2002 Basin # FC Samples FC Minimum FC Maximum FC Mean FC Geometric Mean FC Standard Deviation FC Median # of Samples Exceeding 43 Organisms Exceed- ence Rate 90th Percentile Burley Lagoon 1457.00 1.80 920.00 15.95 5.95 48.39 4.50 113.00 7.76% 33.00 Dabob Bay 582.00 1.80 23.00 2.36 2.07 2.06 1.80 na na 2.65 Dyes Inlet 1252.00 1.80 1600.00 11.77 4.41 51.37 2.00 64.00 5.11% 23.00 Eld Inlet 2905.00 1.80 920.00 9.15 3.78 29.41 2.00 114.00 3.92% 17.00 Filucy Bay 559.00 1.80 2400.00 35.46 5.29 177.21 2.00 53.00 9.48% 33.00 Henderson Inlet 3428.00 1.80 2400.00 15.69 5.77 62.19 4.50 236.00 6.88% 33.00 Kilisut Harbor 1788.00 1.70 350.00 2.91 1 2.01 13.17 1.80 10.00 0.56% 2.00 North Bay 1763.00 1.80 920.00 12.62 4.84 40.39 4.00 95.00 5.39% 23.00 Oakland Bay 2381.00 1.80 1600.00 13.91 4.81 54.07 4.00 147.00 6.17% 27.00 Quartermaster Hbr. 533.00 1.80 350.00 7.17 3.25 20.45 2.00 14.00 2.63% 15.18 Rocky Bay 883.00 1.80 1600.00 11.43 4.35 56.84 2.00 45.00 5.10% 23.00 Totten Inlet 2063.00 1.30 170.00 4.27 2.68 9.14 1.80 19.00 0.92% 7.80 Budd Inlet 41.00 1.80 49.00 8.69 4.45 12.34 2.00 2.00 4.88% 32.60 Dungeness Bay 974.00 1.70 540.00 15.72 6.02 33.16 4.50 98.00 10.06% 46.00 Nisqually Reach 3092.00 1.80 540.00 10.85 4.34 26.27 2.00 182.00 5.89% 25.24 Port Townsend 544.00 0.17 540.00 5.23 2.48 26.34 1.80 6.00 1.10% 6.80 Samish Bay 2107.00 1.80 540.00 10.87 3.84 31.12 2.00 120.00 5.70% 23.00 Sequim Bay 2112.00 1.70 240.00 3.39 2.26 8.95 1.80 15.00 0.71% 4.50 74 Table 17. Fecal Coliform Descriptive Statistics- Seasonal Data from 1998 -2002 Basin # FC Samples FC Minimum FC Maximum FC Mean FC Geometric Mean FC Stan dard Deviation FC Median # of Samples Exceeding 43 Organisms Exceedence Rate 90th Percentile Burley Lagoon 624.00 1.80 920.00 6.17 6.17 56.88 4.50 57.00 9.1% 33.00 Dabob Bay 18.00 1.80 17.00 2.96 2.96 4.44 1.80 na na 13.40 Dyes Inlet 432.00 1.80 1600.00 4.42 4.42 79.12 2.53 20.00 4.6% 23.00 Eld Inlet 1080.00 1.80 920.00 4.16 4.16 40.10 2.00 44.00 4.1% 22.00 Filucy Bay 216.00 1.80 2400.00 4.89 4.89 202.63 2.00 22.00 10.2% 49.00 Henderson Inlet 1584.00 1.80 2400.00 5.40 5.40 70.99 4.50 97.00 6.1% 29.00 Kilisut Harbor 852.00 1.70 350.00 2.03 2.03 13.96 1.80 7.00 0.8% 2.00 North Bay 870.00 1.80 540.00 4.66 4.66 35.49 2.70 41.00 4.7% 23.00 Oakland Bay 1032.00 1.80 1600.00 4.93 4.93 63.25 4.00 65.00 6.3% 30.61 Quartermaster Hbr. 72.00 1.80 41.40 3.04 3.04 8.35 1.87 na na 16.40 Rocky Bay 156.00 1.80 110.00 4.81 4.81 17.38 2.00 8.00 5.1% 31.60 Totten Inlet 456.00 1.80 130.00 2.65 2.65 9.70 1.80 3.00 0.7% 7.80 Budd Inlet 12.00 1.80 49.00 5.78 5.78 16.10 4.50 1.00 8.3% 44.20 Dungeness Bay 144.00 1.80 140.00 4.72 4.72 23.68 2.00 13.00 9.0% 33.00 Nisqually Reach 1332.00 1.80 540.00 4.43 4.43 28.35 2.00 87.00 6.5% 32.40 Port Townsend 12.00 1.70 4.50 1.84 1.84 0.81 1.70 na na 3.66 Samish Bay na na na na na na na na na na Se uim Bay 870.00 1.70 1 240.00 2.31 2.31 11.61 1.80 8.00 0.9% 4.50 75 Table 18: Significant Correlations Between Landscape Variables and Fecal Coliform 18 Basins (Cross - sectional data set) Landscape Variables Combined Seasons Wet Season Dry Season (FC Geometric (FC Geometric Mean) (FC Geometric Mean) Mean) r r r Intensitv Metrics Population Density 0.48* 0.62 "" Road Total Length Road Length per Person 0.49` Composition Metrics % Impervious Surface 0.63 ** 0.56* % Urban Cover 0.57* % Mixed Urban Cover 0.62 *+ % Forest Cover 0.67** Confieuration Metrics Al Forest -0.52` - 0.65`+ PLADJ Forest -0.50* 0.48 k - 0.65" Al Mixed Urban 0.52 PLADJ Mixed Urban 0.52# Local Metrics %Paved Land (Local) 0.63 *' % Forest (Local) -0.49* - 0.67** (N =18) ..P< 0.01 p< 0.05 Z Table 19: Significant Correlations Between Landscape Variables and Fecal Coliform 12 Basins (Longitudinal data set) Landscape Variables Combined Seasons Wet Season Dry Season (FC Geometric (FC Geometric Mean) (FC Geometric Mean) Mean) R r r Intensity Metrics Population Density 0.72" 0.64` Total Road Length 0.76` Comnosition Metrics % Impervious 0.62 ` % Urban 0.68 ` 0.62` % Mixed Urban 0.70 ` 0.66` % Forest -0.70` -0.63` Confieuration Metrics Al Forest - 0.77" -0.62` -0.67` PLADJ Forest - 0.75" -0.60` -0.67` Al Paved 0.65` PLADJ Urban 0.66` 0.66` Al Mixed Urban 0.77" 0.66` 0.65` PLADJ Mixed Urban 0.77" 0.66` (N =12) **P< 0.01 p< 0.05 77 Table 20: Significant Models using Cross- sectional Sample Basins in Puget Sound (18) Response Variable: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform (Combined Seasons) Independent adj.W P Models N Independent adj.R2 P 1. 18 % Forest Cover 0.41 0.003 2. 18 % Impervious 0.36 0.005 3. 18 Al Forest 0.23 0.026 Response Variable: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform (Wet Season) Models N Independent adj.W P 1. 18 % Forest + Rod Den 0.47 0.003 2. 18 %Forest +Forest Al 0.44 0.005 3. 18 % Forest (Local) 0.44 0.003 4. 18 % Paved (Local) 0.40 0.005 5. 18 %Impervious 0.27 0.016 Response Variable: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform (Dry Season) Models N Independent adj.R2 P 1. 18 Population Density 0.40 0.006 2. 18 Forest Al 0.39 0.003 3. 18 %Mixed Urban 0.38 0.006 78 Table 21: Significant Models using Longitudinal Land cover subset (12) Response Variable: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform (Combined Seasons) Models N Independent adj W P 1. 12 Al Mixed Urban 0.56 0.003 2. 12 Al Forest 0.55 0.003 3. 12 Pop Density 0.47 0.009 4. 12 % Forest 0.44 0.011 5. 12 % Impervious 0.33 0.030 Response Variable: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform (Wet Season) Models N Independent RZ P 1. 12 Total Road Length 0.54 0.004 2. 12 Al Mixed Urban 0.37 0.021 3. 12 Al Urban 0.36 0.023 4. 12 % Forest 0.34 0.028 Response Variable: Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform (Dry Season) Models N Independent adj.R2 P 1. 12 Al Forest 0.40 0.016 2. 12 Al Mixed Urban 0.38 0.019 3. 12 %Mixed Urban 0.38 0.019 4. 12 Population Density 0.36 0.024 79 80 qj�A ML, ysd-\ \Z I 1, I L7 GERALD STEEL, PE ATTORNEY -AT -LAW RECEIVED 7303 YOUNG ROAD NW OLYMPIA, WA 98502 Tei /fax (360) 867 -1166 December 7, 2007 Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 DEC 1 0 20007 JEFFERSON COUNTY - COMMISSIONERS Re: Postpone the Decision on the Brinnon MPR to the 2008 Docket GMA Violations re: Public Participation Dear Chairman and Members: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Brinnon Group and the Brinnon MPR Opposition. We are writing this letter to ask you to postpone the decision on the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive to the 2008 Docket. Any action you take to adopt a Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the 2007 Docket is highly likely to be found invalid by the Growth Board for interference with Goal I I (public participation) of the Growth Management Act The relevant history of the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment is as follows: On March 1, 2006 the complete application for the Brinnon MPR was first submitted. Attachment A hereto (missing oversized Exhibits A -2, and C -1 to C -4). The application is for a "Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment" submitted by Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. with property owners Black Point Properties, LLC, KMC Investments LLC, Bill Kaufman, and Chuck Manke. Attachment 7 of Attachment A hereto. The application is for 251 acres. Attachment A hereto at fifth page. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket dated Sept. 5, 2007 restates the ownership, states that the project is approximately 252.64 acres, and incorporates the application (Attachment A hereto) and Sept. 5, 2007 DEIS. 4, Notice of public hearing before the planning commission states that the proposal is to change approximately 251 acres in 13 parcels east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road from RR to MPR on the Comprehensive Plan. �a The Notice of public hearing before the BOCC has not been reviewed. f Board of County Commissioners December 6, 2007 Page 2 The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is for a MPR map change for the 251 acres on 13 parcels as shown on Attachment A hereto at A -24. This does not include any State of Washington property (WDFW or DNR), or the Jupiter Auto or Tudor properties. Therefore the December 3, 2007 staff recommendation may not be adopted because it includes State of Washington properties, Jupiter Auto, and Tudor properties that are beyond the scope of the site specific Statesman application. Further the SEPA analysis would be inadequate to support the staff recommendation because the EIS did not consider the impacts from having all of these properties included in the MPR designation with the Statesman property having its full proposed development. If this Board wishes to consider the December 3, 2007 staff recommendation, it should put off consideration of the Brinnon MPR until the 2008 Docket so that the amendment proposal can be refined and the EIS supplemented and so that there can be an opportunity for the public participation required by RCW 36.70, RCW 36.70A, RCW 43.21 C, and the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations of the County. The application includes development of Cell D in Attachment A hereto at A -24. Inclusion of this 11.86 acre parcel has been abandoned in the application because it was not analyzed in the DEIS or FEIS. Therefore the scope of the proposed MPR application should be for just (251 - 11.86 =) 239.14 acres. No other property is in the proposed MPR site specific application and also analyzed by the EIS. The application proposes a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in Attachment A hereto at A -29. However, it does not propose any conditions, goals, or policies to guide the implementation of the Brinnon MPR or further language in the Comprehensive Plan to make that plan (including the Brinnon subarea plan) internally consistent. The proposed text amendment is inconsistent with the development analyzed in the EIS because the proposed text amendment has 1270 residential units. It also includes a marina that is not identified as part of the acreage proposed for the resort in the comprehensive plan application. The majority and minority planning commission recommendations include conditions on the StatGynan MPR. There is no provision in RCW 36.70A or RCW 36.70 for adopting comprehensive plan amendments with conditions first proposed by the planning commission and not included in the planning commission's public review draft amendment language. The proper procedure is to implement any proposed conditions in goals and policies for the Brinnon MPR added to the comprehensive plan. Just as the Port Ludlow MPR has a goal (LNG 23.0) and implementing policies (LNP 23.1 to 23.8) in the Comprehensive Plan to guide that MPR, so also should the proposed Brinnon MPR have goals and policies to guide its implementation. Such goals and policies must be supplied to the public before a planning commission hearing or proposed by the BOCC as a change to the planning commission recommendation pursuant to the requirements of the current Comprehensive Plan and RCW 36.70.380 et seq. Attachment B hereto (note particularly RCW 36.70.430 and 440 attached). Attachment C hereto includes selected pages from the current Comprehensive Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment must be consistent with this existing comprehensive plan language. For example, page C -1 of Attachment C states there is only one MPR in Jefferson County. This is an example of the internal inconsistencies that are being created with the Brinnon MPR proposal. But even more importantly page C -2 states no sprawl is allowed outside the new MPR but if the Statesman proposal is approved it would require no other urban development on nearby properties such as the State of Washington properties, Jupiter Auto, Board of County Commissioners December 6, 2007 Page 3 and Tudor properties. Note that LNP 3.3.3 (page C -3) suggests that densities around MPR should be RR 1:20 to prevent such sprawl. If such densities are not required around the Statesman MPR, then they should be required in a buffer inside the MPR. There is not compliance with the current proposals with Goal LNG 24.0 and the implementing policies LNP 24.1 to 24.13. See pages C -4 to C -6. There is also a lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan amendment procedures in Attachment D hereto and development regulation procedures in Attachment E hereto. The Statesman proposal is not consistent with the development regulations in Attachment F hereto. For example, JCC 18.15.123(2) requires 65% of the units to be used solely for short term rental and this is not being provided. This Board should not adopt a half -baked proposal and then cause the Growth Board to put the MPR under invalidity for as many years as the Irondale and Hadlock UGA will be under invalidity. The better solution is to refine the comprehensive plan proposal and hear it in the 2008 Docket. You are allowed by your policies and regulations to simply continue this project to the 2008 Docket for further refinements in the proposal to be completed by March 1, 2008. R spectfully, erald Steel P.E. Attorney for the Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition JEFFERSON. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 629 Sheridan Street - Pori Townsend • Washington 98368 360/379.4450 - 360/379 -4451 Fax www.00,jefferson Wa.us Application for Formal Site- Specific Comprehensive plan /UDC Amendment' rr-�u� no I MLA # Q(Q ^ Q):3 PROJEC7/APPUCANT NAME'S t a t e s ma n o f Compani ea— LT Applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community development by May 1 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during this year's amendment process. Please note that, beginning in 2004, the application submittal deadline will be February 1 of each calendar year. Completed applications that are recaived after deadline will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year. Apprications that are incomplete (i.e., that do not include all of the information required below) will be returned to the applicant: Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use Application and SEPA Checklist (if applicable). Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner. See attached 2. A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. Not required at this time 3. Comprehensive PlanAJDC Amendment application fee (as applicable), as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance, as amended. A. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator-to evaluate the proposed amendment. N/A 5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a vicinity map showing the following: Attached e. The location of the area proposed to be redesignated; b. The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (S00) feet of the site. 6. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit B," a description of the proposed Plan/UDC amendment and any associated development proposal(s), If applicable. Applications for project - related formal site - specific redeslgnatlons must include plans, and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed• uses and Improvements. Applications for such redesignations that do not specify proposed uses and potential Impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. Attached 7. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity [i.e., within a three hundred (300) -foot radius]. The exhibft must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site. The intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site. Attached 'See UDC Section 9.4. 3iTE SPeOPIC APP.000 REV. 3/r. 1/2003 A -1 Page 1 03/01/2006 13:00 3603794451 JEFF CO DCD Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional shee4 ff neoeisary.) 9. The current land use deslgnation/zoning of the site is: Attached 10. The proposed land use deslgnatiorJzoning of the site is: Attached 11. The current use of the site is: Attached 12. The proposed use of the alto is: Attached 13. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or UDC text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit D" proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g., undadfnln and text to be deleted Indicated with strikeouts (e.g.. OWAOLU)• Attached 14. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorough explanation of how the proposed redesignatlon/r ®zone and associated development proposals, If any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following inquiries: a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area In which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c. How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of.the residents of Jefferson County? d. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? f. is the proposal Consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? g. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital faculties, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? h, Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? i, How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (j) Access; (li) Provision of utilities; and (iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties ba in the long -term best interests of the county as a whole? Q SME SPECIFIC AFROOC REV. 3/112003 Page 2 Does the proposed site - specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? If the proposed redesignation /rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the Immediate areas and the overall UGA? Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson ountV, and other applicable inter - jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? is. The applicant hereby certifies that the 'statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false. See attached signature sheets. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE DATE (NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner.] SITE SP201FIC APP.WC AGV.317112009 MAR - 20 CO Page 3 k. I. m. Does the proposed site - specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? If the proposed redesignation /rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the Immediate areas and the overall UGA? Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson ountV, and other applicable inter - jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? is. The applicant hereby certifies that the 'statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false. See attached signature sheets. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE DATE DATE (NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner.] SITE SP201FIC APP.WC AGV.317112009 MAR - 20 CO Page 3 MAR41 -06 11:15AM FROM- .. 1-4dU r.uuoiuuo r-ioc ter. � I` M �itaN awrwMMtlwlraurral■a+�i�t�pp*4r■ 1.1 r11i� IM 1111na1�1 LMM tt� � • � Irtb /rwv�1 wrM�1i11A1 r aIM� r lii riw� •wr sMo•r r I. � i �„ ►.e� wr6MNe irlw1i1 wt aa7aq IIdAs, ■: i�r�ef 11 low '� M try a f 4L aftd j I&Woo * O O ai�1w IM�MI ►M�ArIMAii■■�N1N,�ow�ww/wuu As .2 0 cw.+��5 �ApN 3�t153020) [ MO1�MrrM�IM�" M�. Wsw+► Mtr�r�+ h�Iwihir lralra�Nfwu�� ,it�lkaMnlr■•t�wrM��a ;. ' , 1 .i1rlMOMrMtr s.�.r.rrr• • MAR - 1 2006 r 12/08/2005 14:41 FAX 40J 258 8100 ,v Q/ j — J� S7 Property Description STAMSIK&v coRP REcEn'7" ED 003 a MAR -12006 Iffff nAl rnilAln/ nnn cerwal Location: Peasant Rarbor Mii= and BluE Pomt Prop; Legal Description (from Pmparty Tax SFaten+ant): See >dtkuc e A -01git Parcel Number (from Property Tax 8tsiisment): Tate) Acreage: 251 acres Zone: Applicant ❑ Owner ❑ Contract Purchaser % Lot Coven 13 Lessee Q Other Project Description A Destination Resort managed by The Stares=m Croup that includes- Go 6100 yd Link Style); Club Hosc/ Confers ce Center• 800 7CAM Home Resort ovar Clubhoule Suites around Golf CoursaMaritimo Vill1ge with 10,000 S.F. of Commercial, 2 Additional Stories of Residential RZeson Suites over "r=ercisl and Adjoining Property for 150 Units. Pmpwty Owner (name and ttuariing address): gill Kau&= 308913 Highway 101 i3 =on. Washington 98320 Standard Disclosure In1bR++ellon provided to a prospedvae aWcant duff the ppll� is based on regulations In +effect at the time of the prtb4w ication consultation. Revised at� Iona a feat! s ltdasre_ i eoollnatbn. A pas_ appli��ccpation consultaton does mot vast a fu[ttrr: de�velopmen app tion. _ kknowiadgge.. I slgo twrdfy that +this appplhution Is being mods with the knowledge W d oonsent of al owners ths the affected efts air prop", Ally material lis"hood or any amtselon of a matertaai fact made by the applieantfewn.r with respect to this application psttket nW muk In this permit being nuq,snd Vold. I bother agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson Courtly against all Its OAft, Judgmenta, court ousts, reasonable atiomey's few and expenses wlhloh May In any way soorw against Jofferson County an a mK tof or in oonsequertax of the granting of U* permit. I Anther agree to proAde some and right of a"b Jefiorson Courtly and its employees, representatiyes or agents for time sole purpose of oppliestimt (*view and gny required lido+ Inspections. This right of entry sW coke when the County (through the Administrator or the AdiTiinistrm Wee mpresei" ) wndodes the application hae compiled with al appllcsble laws and rwyAKlons. Armes and right of entry to th to " nrs shalt be rvquaftd and stun 000ur only during regular b OW$ hours. (slor'tAivAIII) (DATE) I t►aeby diisignate L to ant as my *gent In matters misted to this prealpplIcallon ceon[erenee. (tntve►ov<n R sta►ulvrzs) DATE) (�J Pn LAM coea tSeM Maoe aEV. 06=nCO3 Page 2 MAR-Ul-05 11 :50AM FROM- � h OPTION AGREEMENT" DATE; September ; I � , 2005 PARTIES: Brown Trust Black Point properties, LLC 2507 SE 151st Ave Vancouver, WA 48683 RECITALS T-481 P- 002/005 F -194 ( "Effective Date ") ('Brown ") ( "Black Point ") A. Brown owns certain real property, consisting of approximately 20 acres, in Jefferson County, Washington legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Brown Property"). B. Black Point owns adjacent real property in Jefferson County, Washington (the "Black Point Property:), C' Black Point has been approached to sell its property and desires to sell the Brown Property as a package with the Black Point Property, which Black Point has previously disclosed to Brown. D. Brown is willing to sell to Black Point and, due to the contingency of the sale of the Black Point Property, will grant Black Point an option to purchase the Brown Property under the following terms and conditions. AGREEMENT Therefore, for good and valuable consideration to Brown, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Brown and Black Point agree as follows: 1. Purchase Option. Brown grants to Black Point the option to purchase the Property during the term hereof in the manner and for the price as follows: 1.1 Exercise of Option. This option shall be exercised, if at all, by written notice (the "Exercise Notice ") given by Black Point to Brown at any time during the term hereof. This option may be exercised only with respect to the entirety of the Property, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as permitting Black Point to purchase less than all of the Property pursuant to this option. Upon exercise of this option, Black Point shall be obligated to purchase the Property from Brown, and Brown shall be obligated to sell the Property to Black Point, for the price and in the manner herein set forth. 1.2 Failure to Exercise Option. If Black Point fails for any reason to exercise this option in the manner set forth herein, Black Point shall have no further claim against or interest in the Property. In the event of the failure to exercise the Option, Black Point shall provide Brown with any instruments that Brown reasonably may deem necessary for the purpose of removing from the public record any cloud on title to the Property which- is- -� ttributable to the grant or existence of this Option. a OPTION AGREEMENT - I�� MAIL - UPI -Ud II:d1AM PXUM— I-4dI V.UUd /UUd h-1 y4 1.3 Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property Ps_ (the "Purchase Price "). The entire balance of the Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at Closing. 1.4 Closing. Closing of the sale and purchase of the Property (the "Closing") shall occur no later than sixty (60) days after exercise of this option (the "Closing Date "). The escrow for the Closing shall be established at a title company (the "Title Company ") located in Jefferson County, Washington selected by Black Point. 1.5 Closing Obligations. On the Closing Date, Brown and Black Point shall deposit the following documents and funds in escrow, and the Title Company shall close escrow in accordance with the instructions of Brown and Black Point. 1.5.1 Brown shall deposit the following: (a) The conveyance documents described in Section 1.8, duly executed and acknowledged; (b) A duly executed affidavit certifying that Brown is not a foreign person, trust, partnership, or corporation in compliance with the requirements of IRC § 1445; (c) Such documents as Black Point or the Title Company may require to evidence the authority of Brown to consummate this transaction; and (d) Such other documents and funds, including (without limitation) escrow instructions, as are required of .Brown to close the sale in accordance with this Agreement. 1.5.2 Black Point small deposit the following: (a) The Purchase Price specified in Section 1.3; (b) Such documents as Brown or the Title Company may require to evidence the authority of Black Point to consummate the transaction contemplated; and (c) Such other documents and funds, including (without limitation) escrow instructions, as are required of Black Point to close the sale and purchase of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. 1.6 Costs. Black Point shall pay one -half of all Closing costs, including all of the escrow fees of the Title Company and recording fees with respect to the Closing. Brown shall pay one -half of all Closing costs, together with the premium for any title insurance that Black Point requires, and for all conveyance or excise taxes, if any, payable by reason of the purchase and sale of the Property. 1.7 Takes. There real property taxes and assessments shall be pro -rated as of the Closing Date. 1.8 Conveyance. At the Closing, Brown shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Black Point a warranty deed conveying the Property to Black Point. 2. Term. The term of this Purchase Option commences as of the date of this Agreement (the "Effective Date ") and terminates on November 30, 2006 if Black Point has not provided written notice of the exercise as of that date. MAR -1 2006 OPTION AGREEMENT MAR -01-06 11:51AMA FROM- T -481 P.004/005 F -104 3. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing. and shall be deemed given and received when personally delivered or sent by facsimile with confirmation of transmission, one day after being sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier or two days after deposit in the United States Mail, certified or registered form, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: To Brown: Black Point Properties, LLC c/o Bill Kaufman 306 SE 15" Gresham, OR 97080 With a copy to: Doug Chiapuzio Harmng Tong Gary Rudnick, PC 1001 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1650 Portland, Oregon 97204 Facsimile: (503) 241 -1458 To Black Point: _ Brown Trust With a copy to: Doug Whitlock 405 W 13th St PO Box 748 Vancouver, WA 98666 -0748 Facsimile: (360)693 -5783 Notice given in any other manner shall be effective when it is received by the party for whom it is intended. Either party tnay change its address by giving five (5) days' advance notice to the other party. 4. Governing Law, This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laves of the state of Washington. 5. Binding Effect/Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 6. Headings. The captions and headings used in this Agreement are for reference only and shall not be construed to define or limit the scope or content of this Agreement. 7. Entire Agreement, This Agreement contains the final and entire understanding between Brown and Black Point with respect to its subject matter and is intended to be an integration of all prior negotiations and understandings. Brown and Black Point shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, statements, warranties, or representations not contained in this Agreement. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and is signed by both Brown and Blank Point. S. Waiver. A failure by Brown or Black Point to enforce any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of that right or of any other right. 9. Attorney Fees. If litigation is instituted with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party, in addition to all other._surns MAR - 1 2.006 OP'fYON AGREEMENT - 3 %� �� 1.1I \I\ VI VV I1 V1 / \I.I I1 \WI.I 1 YVI I VVV /YYV I IVY ' 1• and allowable costs, its reasonable attorney fees, both in preparation for and at trial and any appeal or review, such amount to be set by the court that hears the matter. lo. Counterparts; Pronouns. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall be effective when one or more counterparts have been signed and delivered by Brown and Black Point. With respect to any pronouns used herein, each gender used shall include the other gender and the singular and the plural, as the context may require. 11. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence regarding this Agreement. 12. Authority to Execute. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Brown and Black Point, respectively, warrants his or her authority to do so. Signed this 33 — day of September, 2005. r _ Black Point Properties, LLC by. kwil�liaimmlKaufmnan, manager Attachments: Exhibit A- Property LIAR -1 2006 OPTION ArjkEEMENT - 4 ninrt-u'i -vu II•IYMY1 rrtum- i -"u r - uv uuo r'IDL • all 4Ii" �ISfI►i 1 SISPIN 14Warp1f11�f�IMi14MiWINBI�t�n i wad o►e.....,.,�•�..r..,.�. fir "77 , M iNOr� w�r��na��nawall, l�, o►R,r►�I��+���n�pnr�w�r�a�,tiw�a � „Q,.g"m*jm W420A.4 r I m Z.d o9�'N b6S EI]9 JIMMAR HMW'IW4 W440ts Doug 82 gad ,� •dl�d ! as e�tA RQs 4m oe G� Ada may 104AD IC amlaw + A PGASooea 19TNVf nW WTf lgAgAq7.tVq Ep ;Rt 9ARWIR /RR MARIV I-uo II:IaNMI rKum- i Im mom tow � � Y LIMA Ih� t� r� ed pgplytlgn Y►V�YRi 0l�tdenlr j L Ir Mw PON" 16d00dowmma is isum wttbtn on 0011UM eedd uUn OR M& Gno (Ut7A) would ' me Pmml mW*vY Mo to soma Y or "ofto of Wvk" b Lb" Mmmw shoo onp Mu a�.nlo alA� M, N 0)0? pt+opoioe on+arfdment douotiasnl wtlA fin W9100 Mwm"rd Act (0* 1m 3e:70A Rcvj da counCywlan P4mino Pdoy for ,hMnon CWfjW, oA, GMW oppVc" ints(Lf140 WMM pad" or ! » pMumnts, mW ony aher i&M, +Mars a hdvrl IM? Is 1t» /pow" m1bY Mom Mel Ms Wf amsW mW*h d to " sppmmom mr 4" &W MOW an rmuno► p piq d i►R mw aplllr�r1�r11j, OW The ipPOWI io honky oaku wagm E181 OW sp0mvw rued an ,Ilia* �+ mqb. nrnkrrd Mriy/Van aaiwmrr+lAralMld a M Arr�. ' I • 1 r�oraoffY oWa! i OMAN �.- ..............�..._ ._._� i tuts . i �NDTE: PnrrN toryulied aignaluroo, nayauonlhQvr �hdz�ite►n inrop►�Irod lllappl)oa�tioh Innal /f�ttrd'byttkoWnu►:a' •1 I f' , l 1 I 1 If I I . I IM Hn OC'd UBLV 462 SOS II) IAlff 83W'luci WdBO:a 9003 9Z 9ad Op 96941 raeoz COO eo9 c- oa 4o Lee 6C5 `Wd40 _B 90 /9z /z : pQ^Te9By MAK' MO 11:10AM rNum- 1-480 P.004/006 F-18Z I ' �' r�MMMYM�fw� '�Rlwi�w�wM�as�M'�wwM�/r� ,t l itN IN Ir�� uwwiwrt ~I i�+Ma�irwe�r r its. m�yv•"MAMMU w�K++ w m 04 ww w�rwae .w MhirM Mprr � m �vMw . �+W NIMMcf�ll POW r . y, ar/N IAu11 A �MOR�r1 w w Wr &W AV" M► ' ni �'Ni11r rql ll.11U w "Pow w �Ilrl NArM1�df1�d �IU�I! rIrAM4. ' MTV ��e IYr.IM wMMd MaR•l� rNrr�MW� •w,Iiru.�lw N rw�•�►t�..+k.r.n 1r �.tM�nwry A�...,►.►� ;, 2006 k. toes the proposed aitaospedtla amendment materially offset the. land use and•titipuiaticn yr'OWi11rOCNgrii,= r , that are the bases of the ComprahanelVe ptan7 „ . , L it the proposed rodesignationfretrme la located withli an ;unincorpor8tad •urbIdh --0dMK -Mi (1. 111 - WOOld' the proposal metoriaAy 6080 the adequacy or avollablilty of urban (acne& and services to the Immadlala auras and the overall UGA? M. (a the propoeii'gmendment conaiatant ;%►illy the •Grawlii Manapehnen! Act ._(Chapter .38.70A RCft- the Couniplde,-Planning Policy -hr Jeffe'rvon County,, and other Applicable Choi polibW--er ogreernenta, and any other local, state or fodami- laws?'• 16. 7ft eppecenr hBlsby Caltllies that the atstaments oor,Yelndd,jn, lhls applicaf/on afe•tiile4nd OMVlde An.atccurafe ropmento0an of Me proposed amendment, and the •appllaa3 kd) hereby acknowledges that arty approval issi ad an E this appkedon maybe revoked Uany such slatoment Is tound'to be'falae, .• /►p a GNATUAa BATS ::r'•:' .'�j^ PEA7Y !� EN 6 6! FW DATE 1 PROPERTY OKWEWS 610W1 VAR PROPCRIY OWt'IER'8 SIONAT1JtiS 'OATS �"` :'' ,• - (NOTe. For all required algnvetureejapresentaNk authcrixallori ls•raqulrers lfepplitatlon is -DoE igned by it a�owne ; };,• " '1: MA _L . JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington 98368 360/379 -4450 • 360/379 -4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Master Permit Application MLA: Project Description (include separate sheets as necessary): A Destination Resort managed by The statesman Group that includes: Golf course: 6100 yd Links S44e Club HousaProshop&ounge; Conference Facilities Spa and Grotto; 130 Residential Resort Units in 3 Storey over Club House and Conference Center, 800 town Home Resort; Suites around golf Course; Maritime Village with 10, 000 S.F. of Commercial and adjoining property for 150 units. Tax Parcel Property Number. See Attachments -1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Size: 252.64 acres (acres /square feet) Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point Properties See Attachments -1, 2 3 4 5 Property Owner(s) of Record: Attachment -6 Telephone: Fax: email: Mailing Address: Applicant/Agent (if different from owner): Statesman Group of Companies Ltd Telephone: (403) 256-4151 Fax (403) 256 -6100 email: oarth0statesmanc:orporation.com Mailing Address: 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd SW Calclary Alberta Canada T311 4H9 What kind of Permit? (Check each box that applies) I Building t Variance (Minor, Major or Reasonable Economic Use) I Demolition Permit t Conditional Use [C(a), C(d), or C] T Single Family t Discretionary "D" or Unnamed Use Classification T Garage Attached / Detached ! Special Use (Essential Public Facilities) ** I Manufactured Home t Boundary Line Adjustment I Modular t Short Plat ** T Commercial * t Binding Site Plan *" T Change of Use t Long Plat** T Address t Road Approach t Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRDYAmendments ** I Propane t Plat Vacation/Alteration ** f Allowed 'Yes" Use Consistency Analysis t Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions'* I Stomwaiter Management t Shoreline Management Substantial Development ** S Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) * I Shoreline Management Variance ITem Temporary Use EfComprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment I Wireless Telecommunication * t Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment I Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium * May uire a Pre -AppMeadon Conference **Requires a Pre-d Ilcat%n Conl0runce Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: DESIGNA ON OF AGENT i hereby designate Statesman Group of Companies Ltd, to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). OWNER SIGNATURE See Attachment •7 Date: By signing this application form, the owner /agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and correct to the best of his, her or it's knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner /agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. 1 further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities, judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and Its employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Access and right of entry to this property shall be requested and shall occur only during regular business hours. !may Signature: C Date: March 1 2006 The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered species Act' or 'ESA! Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken becausethis permit has been issued will not violate the ESA. Any individual, group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s) even it you are in compliance with the Jefferson County development code. The Applicant acknowledges that he, she or►���QQ indi u I and nontransferable responsibility for adhering to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs ai9dl es it el Signature: .�i�%.i.�...__ Date: March 1.2006 /f -11 . __ OWNER BUILDER STATEMENT The signer of this statement does hereby certify that they are the Owners of the parcel referenced herein, that they are not licensed contractors and that they will be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed project. Signature: Date: _ GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLER: PHONE: FAX: ( ) ( ) MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL: CONTRACTORS LICENSE NUMBER: WAINS NUMBER ARCHITECT /ENGINEER: PHONE ( ) FAX: ( ) MAILING ADDRESS: EMAIL Project Type: Frame Type: Bathrooms: Shoreline: Aater ewage Disposal: ❑ New 0 Wood Existing: 0 Addition 0 Steel Proposed: a nity System 0 Alteration/Remodel ❑ Concrete T al: ai System 0 Repair tilo ry it # ❑ Demolition pply: a&. ❑ Private well 0 Two Party Type of Heat: 0 Public Total: Name of System: N this ,Is a Commercial Protect You must answer the following: Number of Parking Spaces: Current; Proposed: Number of ADA Parking Spaces: Number of occupants (includes owners, tenants, employees, etc) Current proposed IBC Occupancy: _ IBC Type of construction: Will you have Food Service? Yes / No If this is a Propane Tank and /or Appliance Installation permlt, mark all items below that apply: T Underground Tank t Above ground Tank Size of Propane Tank I Heat Stove t Cook Stove i Woodstove i Fireplace Insert i Hot Water Tank I Pellet Stove 1 Other Is this appliance being installed In a Manufactured./ Mobile Home? Yes / No When applying for a permit to install a propane tank you must also submit a site plan showing all of the buildings, all property lines, tank location and size, distances from the propane tank to all property lines, buildings and septic system components, Includin the resWo area Square Foote a For Office Use Only,., , Amount, Consistency Review: Current Proposed Main Floor 2 Floor Base fee:' V Floor Additional Section: Mezzanine: Flan Chookfee:; Heated Basement State Surcharge fee: Unheated Basement Pot Water Review fee: Other Unheated 911 /Rd Approach fee: Garage/Carport TOTAL: $ Decks ReceipE Number: Cash/Check Number. Date: Other ESTIMATED COST (REQUIRED) .Fair market value of all labor and materials foundation to finish Initials: MAR Attachment -1 Legal Description of the Land Owned by Black Point APN 502153002: The Northeast 1/4 ofthe Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., in Jefferson County; Washington; TOGETHER WITH a perpetual non- exclusive easement for road and utility purposes through, across and over the following: described property: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 15; thence run West, along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, approximately 175 feet to the Southerly line of Black Point County Road; thence Northeasterly, along said Southerly line, to a point 30 feet North of said South line when measured at right angles; thence East, parallel to said South line, to the East line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 30 feet to the point of beginning; AND over and across the West 30 feet of the South 30 feet of Government Lot 4 in said Section 15. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. APN 502153003: The East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., in Jefferson County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof, lying within a strip of land conveyed to the State of Washington, for State Road No. 9, Duckabush River North Section, by deed dated August 28, 1933, and recorded under Auditor's File No. 70817, records of Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. APN 502153023: Those portions of Sections 15 and 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and Government Lot 7 of said Section 15, and Government Lots 2 and 3 of said Section 22; _ -_ 4 4 MAR -1 2006 EXCEPT those portions thereof lying East of the West line of the East 695.00 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, and East of the Southerly prolongation of said West line; ALSO EXCEPT that portion of the West 100.00 feet of said Government Lot 7, lying Southerly of the North 539.00 feet thereof. TOGETHER WITH tidelands of the Second Class, as conveyed by the State of Washington, situate in front of, adjacent to and abutting upon the West 1/2 in width of said Government Lot 2, in said Section 22. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. APN 502154002: That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West W.M., lying Southerly of the Black Point Road as conveyed to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Auditor's File Nos 223427, records of said County; EXCEPT that portion described as follows: That portion of the Northwest 114 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and the Southerly margin of the Black Point Road; thence South along the said East line, a distance of 300 feet; thence West 350 feet; thence North to the Point of intersection with the Southerly margin of the Black Point Road; thence Easterly along said Southerly margin to the Point of Beginning. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Attachment - 2 Legal Description of the Easements Owned by Black Point APN 502153022: Those portions of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Section 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The east 695.00 feet less the East 520.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, as measured along the North line thereof. TOGETHER WITH that portion of said Government Lot 2 lying East of the Southerly prolongation of the West line of said East 695.00 feet and West of the Southerly prolongation of the East line of said East 520.00 feet. Containing 10 acres, more or less. Situate in Jefferson County, State of Washington. This land is also known as Parcel 3 of that certain Boundary Line Adjustment recorded March 20, 1998 under Auditor's File No. 408943, records of Jefferson County, Washington. TOGETHER with a perpetual non - exclusive easement for ingress and egress over, across and within existing roads and future roads as they are created within the development. SUBJECT TO an easement in favor of Black Point Properties, LLC, its heirs, successors, and assigns, for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of a golf course over the above described parcel. EXCEPTING FROM said easement the South 300 feet of said Government Lot 2 as measured perpendicular to the line of mean high tide. The Grantor hereby agrees to provide to the above described land domestic water, electrical power, telephone, cable TV and sewer hookups to the property that are comparable to other future single- family homesites within this development. The Grantor hereby represents that no hookup charges shall be assessed to the Grantee for connecting to the above- mentioned utilities, exc t for normal connection fees charged by utility purveyors. APN 502153021: Those portions of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Section 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferso/nn _ County, Washington described as follows: MAR —1 2006 The east 520.00 feet less the East 345.00 feet of said southwest quarter of the southeast quarter, as measured along the north line thereof, TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 2 lying east of the southerly prolongation of the west line of said east 520.00 feet and west of the southerly prolongation of the east line of said east 345.00 feet. Containing 10 acres, more or less. Situate in Jefferson County, State of Washington. This land is also known as Parcel 2 of that certain. Boundary Line Adjustment recorded March 20, 1998 under Auditor's File No. 408943, records of Jefferson County, Washington. TOGETHER WITH a perpetual non - exclusive easement for ingress and egress over, across and within existing roads and future roads as they are created within the development; SUBJECT TO an easement in favor of Black Point Properties, LLC, its heirs, successors and assigns, for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance of a golf course over the above described parcel; EXCEPTING FROM said easement the south 300 feet of said Government Lot 2 as measured perpendicular to the line of mean high tide. APN 502153020: Those portions of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, and Government lot 2 of Section 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The East 345.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, as measured along the North line thereof. TOGETHER WITH that portion of said Government Lot 2 lying East of the Southerly prolongation of the West line of said East 345.00 feet. Containing 20 acres, more or less. Situate in Jefferson County, State of Washington. SUBJECT TO an easement in favor of Black Point Properties, LLC, its heirs, successors, and assigns, for the purpose of construction, operation, and maintenance of a golf course and appurtenant facilities over the above described parcel. EXCEPTING FROM said easement the South 300 feet of said Government Lot 2 as measured perpendicular to the line of mean high tide. MAR -1 2006 TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities through, across and over the following described property: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 15; thence run West, along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 approximately 175 feet to the Southerly line of Black Point County Road; thence Northeasterly, along said Southerly line to a point 30 feet North of said South line when measured at right angles; thence East, parallel to said South line, to the East line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 30 feet to the point of beginning; AND over and across the West 30 feet of the South 30 feet of Government Lot 4 in said Section 15, AND over and across an existing roadway through the East one -half of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, over and across the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 15 and over and across Government Lots 2, 3 and 7 of said Section 22. AND TOGETHER WITH an easement over the South 60 feet of that portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., lying Southerly of the Black Point Road as conveyed to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Auditor's bile Nos 223427, records of said County. EXCEPT that portion described as follows: That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the Southerly margin of the Black Point Road; thence South along the said East line a distance of 300 feet; thence West 350 feet; thence North to the Point of intersection with the Southerly margin of the Black Point Road; thence Easterly along said Southerly margin to the Point of Beginning. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. MAR - 2006 Attachment - 3 Legal Description of the Land Owned by KMC APN 502152005: That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., as follows: A strip of land 250 feet wide lying Easterly of and parallel to the Southeasterly right -of -way of State Highway 101; EXCEPT the right of way for Black Point Road as conveyed to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 223427 and 410339, records of Jefferson County, Washington. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described tract: Beginning.at the Southwest comer of Government Lot 3; thence North 88 23' 07" 'West 308.14 feet to the Southeasterly right -of -way of State Highway No. 101, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, thence Southwesterly along said Highway, 117 feet, thence South 88— 23' 07" East, to a point 175 feet West of the high tide line; thence Northeasterly to a point on the North line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, 100 feet West of said high tide line; thence North 88 ° 23'07" West to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this exception. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. APN 502152012: Lot 2, Pleasant Harbor Marina Short Plat, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 221 to 223 and amended in Volume 3 of Short Plats, pages 8 to 10, records of Jefferson County, Washington. TOGETHER WITH Second Class tideland as conveyed by the State of Washington, in front of, adjacent to axed abutting the above described excepted uplands. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. MAROOE APN 502152013: Lot 1, Pleasant Harbor Marina Short Plat, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 221 to 223 and amended in Volume 3 of Short Plats, pages 8 to 10, records of Jefferson County, Washington, EXCEPT that portion of lot 1 described as follows: That portion of Government Lot 3 abutting 2nd class tidelands in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North 1/4 corner of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington; thence South 88— 13'42" East along the North line of said Section 15 for a distance of 364.50 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 88 13' 42" East 23 8.76 feet to the line of mean high tide; thence South 61 12'00" West along the line of mean high tide 34.78 feet; thence North 400 41' 54" West along the line of mean high tide 3.31 feet; thence South 62 36' 19" West along the line of mean high tide 26.83 feet; thence South 87 54' 36" West 166.65 feet; thence North 210 21' 05" West 43.00 feet to the point of beginning. AND ALSO EXCEPTING Second Class tideland as conveyed by the State of Washington, in front of, adjacent to and abutting the above described excepted uplands. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. MAR Attachment - 4 Legal Description of the Land Owned by Kaufman "N 502152014: Lot 1 of Watertouch Short Plat, as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. APN 502152015: Lot 2 of Watertouch Short Plat, as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. APN 502152016: Lot 3 of Watertouch Short Plat, as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. y MAC. - !� js Cl) JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA Attachment - 5 Site Map of the Land Call C Pleasant Harbor. Attachment - 6 Property Owner(s) Land Owned Owner Contact Information 308913 Highway 101 Black Point William Kaufman, Manager; Brinnon, Washington 98320 (see legal description T.W. O'Boyle, Manager; Tel: 503-705-2251 Attachments I - 2) Fax: 503-618-9101 Palmer Byrkit, Manager KMC William Kaufman, Manager 308913 Highway 101 Brinnon, Washington (see legal 98320 description Attachment - 3) Tel: 503-705-2251 Fax: 503-618-9101 308913 Highway 101 Kaufman Brinnon, Washington 98320 (see legal William Kaufman Tel: 503-705-2251 Attachment-4) Fax: 503-618-9101 MAR 2006 mucus $. CHWUZIO Admitted M Oregon •nd NhsMngton doU&0%ap ni6@bW 9-00m i 1 HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK =' March 1, 2006 VIA EMAIL & REGUL4R MAIL Susan Rants W.H. Pacific 724 Columbia street NW, Ste 140 Olympia, WA 98501 Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Dear Susan. The signatures which were faxed to you earlier this morning from Black Point Properdes, LLC, KMC Investments LLC, Bill Kaufman and Chuck Manke were intended to apply both far the Application for Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Master Permit Application, both for Jefferson County, Washington. This is in reference to the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort application which was submitted by Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. Sincerely, HARRANG LONG GARY RUDMCK P.C. Douglas S. Chispuzio DSC 1001 S.W. FWTRAVENUE SUITE 1650 PORTLAND, OREGON 9724 TELEPHONE: 503.242.OM FACSIMILE: 503.241.1459 OFFICES IN EUGENE, PORTLAND & SALEM OREGON MAC - I ZOCt;. MAri [Ub ExmBTT A -1 VICINITY MAP PLEASANT JJARBOR J /_ MARINA & GOLF-RESORT PERRONE CONSULTING, INC., P.S. Geotechnica! & underground Engineering 11220 Fieldstone Lane NE Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 vjperronei@�perroneconsulting.com Tel: 2o6 -778 -8074 Fax: 206- 780 -5669 Website: www.perroneconsulting.com Recent Landslide (Qls) Recent landslide deposits consist of disturbed soils originating from Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva) and Pre- Fraser non - glacial fluvial deposits along the coastal bluff of Hood Canal. Vashon Recessional outwash (Qvr) Recessional outwash soils were deposited by meltwater in deltas forming foreset bedding striking east -west and dipping 65 degrees to the south. Recessional outwash soils consisted of meltwater deposited, stratified and sorted sand, gravelly sand, sandy gravel, and gravel with trace to little silt. These soils are moderately to highly permeable and can vary from loose to dense consistency. Ice Contact (Qvi) Vashon age ice contact soils were deposited directly beneath and along the margins of the glacier. This unit exhibits discontinuous stratification highly variable deposits of glacial till, glacial outwash and glacial lacustrine deposits . These deposits are highly variable in sorting, stratification and grain size. Ice contact deposits consisted of predominantly sand, silty sand, and silty sandy gravels with occasional layers of silt and clayey silt. Soil permeability varies from low to high and soil consistency typically vanes from medium dense to very dense. Vashon Glacial Till (Qvt) Glacial till was deposited beneath the advancing glacier as lodgment and /or ablation till and is locally known as "hardpan' due to its very dense consistency. Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and cobbles with occasional boulders. Glacial till has low permeability and retards downward movement of water. Vashon Advance Outwash (Ova) Vashon advance outwash soils were deposited by meltwater in front of the advancing glacier and subsequently overridden by the advancing glacier. Advance outwash consists of silty sand, sand and sand - gravel mixtures. The coarser material was deposited close to the glacial whereas the sand was deposited further away from the glacier. These soils are typically dense to very dense. Advance outwash deposits have moderate to high permeability and when located below the zone of saturation and recharge they are a significant groundwater aquifer. Pre- Fraser Non - glacial Fluvial (Qofnf) Non glacial deltaic deposits of pre - Fraser glaciation age (Pleistocene) consisting of moderately to well sorted deposit (lithic) of gravel, sand, and silt. Deposits exhibit foreset beds striking north -south and dipping 20 degrees east. After deposition, these soils were over -ridden by continental glaciers and are therefore, typically dense to very dense. Fluvial deposits are moderately to highly permeable. Pre Fraser Non - glacial Lacustdne (Qpfnl) Non - glacial sedimentary deposits of pre- Fraser glaciation age (Pleistocene). These soils consist of predominantly sift and clay which were deposited in lakes or closed depressions and part of the non - glacial deltaic deposits (Qpfnf). Deposits exhibit foreset beds striking 185 degrees and dipping 15 degrees to the northwest. After deposition, these soils were over -ridden by continental glaciers and are therefore, typically hard to very hard. Lacustrine deposits have low permeability and retards downward movement of water. aMP,IT C -3a MAR 1 2006 P:\ statesman Group1o3309" tanning \ComprehensiveWubrt'16C\G6 6 jo Una Perrone.�an4uf<Ing•doo 9 EXHIBIT B m �AR -1 DESCRIPTION OF TBIE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Statesman Corporation proposes to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 2004 Land Use and Rural Element by adding a new addition to the section on Master Planned Resorts at pp 3 -23(a) (a new page) -- "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort" "Pleasant Harbor is a 252.6 -acre master planned resort located just south of Brinnon on Hood Canal, focusing on the natural amenities of Hood Canal, spectacular views, and proximity to the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest. The resort consists of an existing marina with 290 slips, a planned maritime village with ±180 units and a 10,000- square -foot new commercial village replacing the current facilities, an 18 -hole golf course with conference, food service, and meeting capability, as well as ±1,090 residential units, designed to serve the visiting public (a "condotel" program with individual units privately owned but managed as a resort). The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is a self- contained destination resort facility with a primary focus on short term, on site and nearby activities and lodging. The specifics of the resort will be controlled by a Master Plan approved by the County, together with a Shoreline Permit for shoreland related construction, and a development agreement that will control long -term development related conditions." Please refer to Exhibit B Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort for schematic site layout as envisioned at the time of application. Additional reference materials prepared by the developer are contained within subsequent sections of this note book. The application prevails over information contained within these subsequent sections should there be any discrepancies. go MAP - WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY The purpose of this section is to describe the proposed water requirements for the project, the means of supplying that water, water rights associated with the supply, and to describe aquifer response associated with the supply. The resort water demand will be supplied from groundwater and water harvested from precipitation; water will not be supplied from an off - site municipal source. Water Supply Requirements The development will utilize both potable and non - potable water use. Potable water will be required for domestic uses at the residential units and for commercial uses. Non - potable water will be used for golf course and local irrigation, and for the Fire -Smart program. The Fire -Smart program will be used to irrigate native vegetation to reduce fire hazards, and for aquifer recharge. A potable water demand of about 135 acre -feet per year is anticipated for the project. Residential water use is estimated to be roughly 175 gallons per day per occupied unit. This demand value has been calculated based on water efficient appliances and low volume shower heads, toilets, etc. Based on occupancy estimates by Statesman, about 105 acre -feet of water will be required per year for the 1090 units. Commercial water use has not been fully estimated at this time, but is expected to be between 15 and 30 acre -feet per year. A non - potable water demand of about 120 acre -feet per year is anticipated. This demand is based on an irrigation demand of over 15 inches per year, or 70 acre -feet for the golf course. The irrigation demand was calculated using Irrigation Requirements for Washington, Washington State Cooperative Extension Publication EB 1513. The calculation assumed equal irrigation for golf course tees, greens, fairway, and rough for the 53 acres of the course that will be irrigated. Since all parts of the course will not be irrigated equally, this is likely and over - estimate. Roughly 50 acre -feet per year is currently budgeted for the Fire -Smart program. This calculation was based on irrigating roughly 60 percent of the non - developed property (over 120 acres) to satisfy the evapotranspiration deficit that naturally occurs during the summer months. The approach will be to maintain soil moisture storage in the summer months to facilitate groundwater recharge in periods when it typically does not occur. Any excess water captured during the year will be allowed to infiltrate using this method and direct infiltration. Based on these estimates, the project will require roughly 260 acre -feet of water per year. Water Supply Sources Water supply for the purposes described above will be from three sources: 1) groundwater rights; 2) water harvesting; and, 3) water reuse. The project currently owns 34.5 acre -feet of groundwater rights. The PrOiecf4sicuitently in negotiations to purchase an additional 18.5 acre -feet of water rights from adJ en water MAR -B2- supply systems on Black Point. The total groundwater water rights anticipated for the project is 53 acre -feet. Groundwater will be supplied using an existing well preyiously usedrfor the campground that formerly occupied much of the property. Assuming the well is functioning properly, it will be used for the supply. A backup supply well is anticipated to be drilled in the same location. Harvesting of precipitation that falls on the structures and roadways of the project will be used as another source of supply. Based on existing weather data, about 170 acre -feet of water is anticipated to be harvested from these sources and the ponds created for the project; this estimate includes the effects of evaporation. Precipitation will be collected from the 18 acres of roof tops and 10 acres of roadway anticipated. The water will be collected and routed to existing depressions, or kettles, on the site. These will be lined so the water can be stored. The water will be routed through three of the four ponds based on supply and demand. The water will be treated according to the requirements of Chapter 246 -290 WAC at the time of distribution from the pond to the point of potable use. Excess water harvested that is not used for potable purposes will be routed to the golf course or fire smart irrigation systems, or direct recharge. Jefferson County has an existing policy on rainwater collections (Policy Statement Number 97 -01). We are currently working with the County on implementing the program for this site; once we receive the County's concurrence, the Department of Ecology will be approached for water rights associated with water harvesting. Non - potable water will be used for golf course irrigation and the Fire -Smart program. The source of the non - potable water will be treated wastewater effluent from the domestic and commercial uses. The quantity of water is estimated to be about 135 acre -feet per year and discussed in the Water Supply Requirements section above. Wastewater will be treated to Class A standards as presented in the Wastewater treatment Concepts (ASGC), and routed to the largest of the four ponds. This pond will also be lined. Water rights for this use will not be required as they will be acquired for the previous two sources, however the use will be regulated by the State Departments of Health (Division of Drinking Water) and Ecology under the "State of Washington Reclamation and Reuse Standards" September, 1997 (Publication #97 -23). AQUIFER RECHARGE AND PROTECTION The project is located on a peninsula where groundwater is recharged by direct infiltration of precipitation and from lateral flow from the mainland to the west. The peninsula is bounded on three sides by salt water; upland Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas have been defined on the peninsula. As such, protection of the aquifer resource is of vital importance to the project, County, and State. The project has been designed to preserve the aquifer such that aquifer recharge is maintained for local supply purposes, and for protection from salt -water intrusion. Water use will essentially be a pass - though system, where water will be pumped and collected, used and treated, and then irrigated or directly recharged to the aquifer. Impervious surfaces will - account for only about 13 percent of the project area; the water from these surfaces will be V /� 131 MOM MAC?. collected and eventually reintroduced to the aquifer. The only losses to the system will be through evaporative and evapotranspiration processes, primarily from the ponds. These losses have been estimated to be less than 5 percent of the annual pre - development -water budget. Groundwater recharge during the wetter portions of the year will be slightly less while water is collected, but will be greater during the summer months when recharge typically does not occur. As such, recharge will be maintained over the year; where the recharge rate over time will be more gradual with fewer peaks and valleys. The site has designated Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The areas were delineated primarily based on mapping performed by Grimstad and Carson (198 1) for preparation of Water Supply Bulletin No. 54 for the Department of Ecology. Preliminary geologic field mapping has been performed by consultants to Statesman that offer different interpretations of the peninsula, possibly due to an evolution in the understanding of the geologic processes that formed the peninsula. The project is in the process of using Best Available Science in characterizing the geologic and groundwater regime through field mapping and borings on site. These efforts will be used to develop susceptibility ratings for the site based on actual site data. An Aquifer Recharge Area Report will be prepared to quantify aquifer recharge and susceptibility. Based on the results of these studies, Adaptive Management procedures will be developed for maintaining groundwater quality and quantity. The same work will be utilized to evaluate the potential for seawater intrusion so that the site conforms to County policy. Jefferson County has an existing Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones policy (UDC Section 3.6.5). The site is a coastal Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ). Based on the County's web site, no At Risk or High Risk SIPZ areas have been identified on the peninsula. As stated above, the projected impact to the aquifer will be minimal based on a pass - though water use system; the project may actually provide some net benefits. Monitoring programs will be implemented using a network of monitoring wells that can be used to measure groundwater quality and recharge effects. .. WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONCEPTS BAR The purpose of this summary is to review the most likely op tions to be used for treatment and reuse of wastewater flows at the Pleasant Harbor community development- Since the status of the project is still in the preliminary stages, volume and characteristics of ogy the wastewater flow is difficult to assess. The use the w home echnolu from trad titian of on -site stormwater for irrigation will tend to to estimates. For the purpose of this analysis, we have assumed residential use to be per day approximately 75 gallons per unit per day and have added another 25,000 approximately o usage estimate for the 25 acres of commercial development. Assuming that estimated 95% of those water usages will flow to the wastewater treatment facility, capacity need of the treatment plant will be about 100,000 gallons per day. It is the intent to utilize reclaimed wastewater for irrigation purposes. The use of reclaimed water is acceptable in the State of Washington Water ) pure and is jointly regulated by the State ose of this Departments of Health (Division: of Drinking and Ecology. For the report, the "State of Washington Reclamation and Reuse Standards" September 1 97 (Publication 497 -23) is followed with respect to effluent water quality and comp Applicable permitted reclaimed water • Irrigation of landscaping (parks, golf courses, highway medians, etc.) • Irrigation of crops at appropriate application rates • Stream now augmentation • Discharge to wetlands • Groundwater recharge by surface percolation • Direct aquifer recharge • Use for toilet and urinal flushing The State Reclamation Standards define four levels of treatment be tilized for ant' oflthe above final use. Class A reclaimed water is the highest quality an purposes. Class A water requires treatment beyond � � � to of form per 100 mLnIn addition, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to less than the reclaimed system must include emergency storago�tt redundancy, discharge e locations for upset conditions and have automatic alarms, treatment operations staffing. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed Class A reclaimed water will be the goal. In considering treatment options, it is assumed the �o utammoniatand phosphorus s are normal for residential flows and that there will and it is contribution that will require enhanced treatment. The plant is small (100e000 duce and can the intent to utilize a package system that meets treatment goalT m p packaged type systems be constructed in a complimentary and non-intrusive �4k 14 1) -B5- MAR are successfully meeting the requirements of Class A water and would occupy is minimal footprint and allow architectural treatments suitable for the development. The two.processes considered are a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) with additional filtration and disinfection, and Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) with disinfection. Either system could produce Class A water and each has operational and economic advantages when compared. The following provides a brief description of each system and comparisons. Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) — In the SBR process, all of the activated sludge functions are accomplished by operating a single basin in a timed sequenced batch mode. That is, the first staged cycle acts as an aeration basin, with air provided to the basin. After an established period of time, the aerators are shut off and the basin acts as a clarifier. After a settling period, the settled effluent is decanted off of the surface using a decanter. To provide denitrification, the first phase of the next cycle includes a mixed fill cycle (mixed without aeration), which creates the anoxic environment necessary for denitrification. In practice, at least two trains of SBR reactors are normally operated in parallel. That is, when one train is filling and reacting, the second is settling and decanting. Addition of filtration and disinfection to the system allow Class A water to be reliably produced. There are multiple manufacturers of the SBR system in the United States and competitive pricing for the systems is assured. The system would require headworks (screened solids), necessary pumping, the package SBR, tertiary filtration, and UV disinfection. The primary advantages of the SBR process are the elimination of the separate clarifiers and return activated sludge pumping. When the SBR basins are in "settle" mode, there are no flows into or out of the basin, so the settling conditions are perfectly quiescent. The SBR process is not subject to hydraulic washout caused by high storm flow rates. The primary disadvantage of the SBR process is the added complexity of having computer - controlled, motor operated valves opening and closing several times each day. In addition, the SBR process is still subject to biological upsets, which limit the mixed liquor solids concentrations in the basins to about 3,000 mg/L, and require some form of downstream filtration, in order to prevent solids washout to reliably meet Class A reclamation standards. Because we are dealing with a predictable residential wastewater, the concern over biological upsets should be minimized. Membrane Boreactors (MBR) The MBR process is a form of the activated sludge process, in which the clarifier is replaced with a fine pore membrane, to achieve the liquid/solids separation. This process' would be an appropriate choice to produce Class A water. The elimination of a separate clarification and filtration step will result in significant operations savings, by eliminating the careful control required by the other processes, to avoid biological upsets and solids carryover to the filtration and disinfection processes. The membranes are provided by several manufacturers and may be in the form of hollow fibers or flat plate modules that are submerged in the aeration basin, or they may be in stand -alone module skids to which the mixed liquor is pumped. The membrane pore opening size is typically 0.1 to 0.5 microns, so bacteria, micro - organisms, and other insoluble solids 1�'] :. MAC' cannot pass through. This eliminates the need for downstream clarification and filtration in order to meet the reclamation standards. The pore size is not a complete barrier to viruses; however, downstream disinfection is still required. Downstream disinfection will be - considerably easier, however, because there is no possibility of solids interference. A second major advantage of the MBR process is the higher mixed liquor suspended solids concentrations that can be maintained in the aeration basins. Because the process does not rely on gravity solids separation, the solids concentrations can be as high as 8,000 to 12,000 mg /1, or 3 to 4 times the concentrations normal in SBRs or extended aeration activated sludge. Because the size of the basins is based on the total mass of solids under aeration, increasing the concentration will proportionately reduce the required volume of the basins. This, in turn, will reduce the cost of the structure. A third major advantage of the MBR process is that the rney water systems n be ceded as needed, provided the initial tankage is large enough expecting significant growth over time, this allows the plant expansion to match the actual growth, and saves initial capital casts. disadvantage of the MBR process is the high cost of the membranes, and the The primary techniques to potential for membrane fouling. Various membrane manufacturers ers ion a �scrubb scrubbing, p° coarse air scrubbing, prevent surface fouling, including chemical ni chlorine) feed, and isolated clean -in -place (acid) selecting a MBR mamnufacturer. cleaning techniques should be carefully examined before of this is approximately 7 to 8 years, but the accuracy The expected life of the membranes is app rocess and the short operational history - not well established, due to the limited use of this p life -cycle cost analyses. The cost of replacement membranes needs to be factored into any peak flows in e of the MBR process is the inability to Pass wired The second major disadvantage be required to 'ce the average daily flow. To keep the number of membrane modules required excess of twi p equalization may within economic limits, some form of upstream ama es. eliminate having to treat the peak hourly Filtration sludge or SBR eam filtration will be required if the extendede u. ed if the membrane bioreactor Downstream used include biological process is Cho act as filte s. Filters commonly used media filters. process is used because traveling bridge or continuous backwash sand filters, and rotating Disinfection reclamation standards, disinfection will be required regardless of the provided by chlorination or by To meet the Class from the use of biological treatment process chosen eC� years, the ren has been away dangerous to ultraviolet (UN) light disinfection. with trace organic materials to form ' e because it is toxic to fish and usually requires dechlorination. It is chlorin gaseous form, and rt reacts store and handle in the g a IN byproducts that are known to be carcinogenic. Therefore, the recommended disinfectant is LTV light. LTV disinfection systems are available in a variety of forms, including low and medium intensity, high and low pressure lamps, and horizontal and vertical lamp configurations in open channels, or as medium- pressure, high - intensity units in a closed pipe configuration. MAC ` SS-111 '4-y MAR —1 Solids Handling product of the wastewater treatment process and must be addressed. Sludge Solids are a by p treatment must comply with Federal Regulations 40C FR, Part allow ow thsimilar udge to be Requirements. The 503 Regulations specify three considered biosolids. They are: 1. The sludge must meet certain pollutant standards, particularly with respect to toxics such as heavy metals and pesticides. Generally, this criteria is met by source control at industrial contributors. Because there are no heavy industries contributing, meeting these criteria should not be a concern. 2. The sludge must also meet certain vector attraction e not significant ficant dodors standards. to ttract vectors sludge must be stable enough so that there (capable of transmitting diseases to humans) such as flies and rats. This is generally accomplished by digestion, alkaline addition, or composting where the volatile materials are stabilized to less offensive materials. 3. The third criteria is the concentration of pathogens (disease causin B bingo ids achieve ms). Two sludge coliform classes are specified. In general, Class pathogen reduction by conventional aerobic or anaerobic digestion processes, or by lime stabilization. Class A biosolids achieve better pathogen destruction by utilizing processes that further reduce pathogen concentrations, generally by utilizing elevated temperatures. Since the composting process produces heat, composting is a Class A pathogen reduction process. The primary differences between the allowed uses of Class A and Class B biosolids o are tracking and public access restrictions. Class B biosolids may be land app a permitted site, with limited public access. Class A biosolids may be freely distributed to the public without further monitoring requirements. Thus, Class A compost may be given away, or sold, to the public without restrictions. Biosolids Processing On ons Practical options for plants of this size include: 1. Stabilize sludge with an aerobic digester and haul liquid sludge for landspreading on nearby agricultural property. 2. Dewater sludge to about 16 percent solids and stabilize with lime treatment. ruck. Haul percent solids, the sludge is a semi -solid that can be hauled in a dump stabilized, dewatered sludge to a commercial landspread site. percent solidoduct thaand an besold or used dewatered to as age 3. Dewater sludge to about 16 to stabilize it and convert it to a useful pr soil amendment. A Y Im EXHIBIT D MAR Comprehensive Plan Change Proposed amendatory language —pp 3 -23(a) (new language) "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort" "Pleasant Harbor is a 252.6 -acre master planned resort located just south of Brinnon on Hood Canal, focusing on the natural amenities of Hood Canal, spectacular views, and proximity to the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest. The resort consists of an existing marina with 290 slips, a planned maritime village with ± 180 units and a 10,000- square -foot new commercial village replacing the current facilities, an 18 -hole golf course with conference, food service, and meeting capability, as well as (1,090 residential units, designed to serve the visiting_ public (a "condotel" program with individual units privately owned but managed as a resort). The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is a self-contained destination resort Counttogether with a Shoreline Permit for shoreland related construction, and a development agreement that will control long; -term development related conditions." Unified Development Code (UDC) change- -Add a new Subsection: "Master Planned Resorts -- Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort." 1. Purpose The purpose of this section is to provide for the long -term development and enforcement of County standards in the Development of Master Planned Resorts and specifically the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. 2. Land Uses, Development Standards, and Phasing a. Land Uses. Land uses within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort will be controlled by an approved master plan Dated [date approved by county) as amended , -and corresponding "Development Agreement of even Date which shall be recorded as a covenant governing the property. Such Master Plan and Development Agreement shall control the layout density, lot configuration, road configuration utility service and facilities to be constructed and operated within the resort. Contemporaneous or subsequent permits including plats binding site plans shoreline substantial development permits grading and fill permits and any other permits required for the facility shall comply with the 9 Y -Dl- Master Plan and Develo went A jTeement Where the master lan or development agreement does not make speclA o t �rpccl-ha11 et he s d development within the master plan. IL_ Phasing, Vesting, and Long-ter St�andar Pia Phasing, detailed tm the Aug of the Master Plan approval proc ess. Where the Develo ment +i,A nPVP1n„ment A2reeme master an area. 3. Amendment Amendment of the Master Plan shall include three levels of detail: a. Administrative review —b the Coon Planner and En ineer. number of units or facilities to be rovided but ma make chan es In location to accommodate terrain or h sical size to address local conditions. Chan es that cumulative) K are within 10% of the overall im ervious surface for the ro'ect and do not increase the number of units rovided shall be considered "minor changes within administrative authority ". b. Mao or chan es within the lap- -Chan es not fallin within the arameters of a above but which are within the existin boundaries of the Master Plan and ro ose an increase in im ervious surface between 10% and 25% or an increase in the number of units or size of ma. or facilities by more than 10% shall be reviewed and a roved by the heann s examiner. c. Changes in excess of those provided in "a" or "b" above, including_any Chan e,- ro osin to add or delete lands form the Master Plan shall be heard b the Plannin Commission and Board of Count Commissioners under the process for the original approval. A. Standard of review -111 "a" and "b" above the standard of review shall be to maintain the overall rote t of the Plan as a destination resort rovide reasonable and accessible facilities to serve the resort Dopulation and to assure that the environmental im acts are identified and miti ated to avoid - off site im act. Such chan a ma increase or reorient units and facilities the current lan and ma rovide su lemental or new facilities to within serve the destination resort where demand for such additional facilities -D2- may be shown. In "c" above, the County shall examine the larger question of growth in size or intensity of the resort under the criteria in the County Comprehensive Plan and the GMA RCW 36.70A.360/362 and the Policies of LNG 23. e. Nature of review —Anv nronosal reviewed under "a" or "b" above shall be considered a "project level review under the Purview of the LUPA appeals system." Any proposal reviewed under "c" above is a Comprehensive Plan amendment and shall be reviewed under the GMA standards set forth the Chapter. 9-011! f� y9 7 ' - ,A: Exhibit E Redesignation /Rezone Questions and Writeups, a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment andlor the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Original Comprehensive Plan for Jefferson County only recognized the Port Ludlow Area as a master planned resort. The 2004 Comprehensive plan recognized that areas in south Jefferson County could be an attractive area for a master planned resort. The Pleasant Harbor Marina area was one site discussed during the planning process leading to that change. The proposal is in response to the County's invitation to provide a master planned resort in south Jefferson County. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information sec Jefferson lCounty Comprehensive considered during th process amendmearzdoptio f Plan or any subsequent The assumptions in the County Plan are valid. The Master Plan Resort an in the P 's invitation for a master p Pleasant Harbor ism response to the County area. The new information is the demonstration of feasibility si of development f t sewer and water resources and facilities to handle the rote planned for the resort. he proposed amendment reflect currently widely held values of the c. How does t P e o p County? residents of Jeff on level, the plan provides the Master planned Resort a a south At the County lated and encouraged by the adopted county location contemp community briefmgs, a Comprehensive Plan- At the local level, during favorably disposed to the substantial majority (65 %) of those responding location of a more contemporary resort at Pleasant Harbor, and an additional 7% required more information. e Proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? d. Does th p enc will be a condition of approval of the Master Plan and any Concurr y A full traffic study will be prepared for the EIS and resulting corresponding plat. the nature and timing of conditions and development agreements will identify to maintain required traffic hnprovements, both on site and off site, necessary q levels at acceptable levels of service and safety. A County concurrency A NI -El- Developer Agreement will be pursued with the State Department of ,F Transportation. e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and e- mergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)? The creation of a large, well- populated resort during the summer months will bring population and service demands to south county that do not presently exist. The resort anticipates 80% occupancy in June, July, August, and September; 50% occupancy in the shoulder season in April, May, and October; and 25% occupancy in the off season between November and March. The fire and emergency service capabilities of the Fire District will require upgrades to meet the additional demand and needed capabilities. The fire system will be designed in accordance with County standards and the uniform fire code. Standards will be met through a combination of facilities. These include: 1) road improvements to meet fire and emergency vehicle access geometry requirements, 2) minimum fire water, flow, pressure, and reserve water storage standards, and 3) building sprinkler systems where necessary to meet fire code standards used in combination with 1) and 2). During the EIS process, the applicants will explore the additional facilities and other mitigation needed to assure concurrency is maintained for the referenced facilities. f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is precisely the type of facility contemplated in the amendments leading to the current language on master planned resorts in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. g. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the County's transportation network; capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? No. The application has, and will go through the EIS process, carefully looking at all of the issues addressed to assure that the potential impacts are adequately mitigated. The project will require transportation improvements (both new and improvement of existing infrastructure) to handle increased traffic, the creation of new sewer and water facilities to be dedicated to and operated by the County PUD, and a careful planning and management of the structures and golf facilities to protect particularly the water quality of Hood Canal. This site has had intensive use in the past, and the proposed uses are designed to be much more sensitive to water runoff and quality and to other impacts to the environment. The project will create permanent impervious surfaces and change the water regime with the golf course, when compared to the existing condition, but the proposed water management plan will provide full treatment prior to any runoff or disposal. -E2- o The area will also have a much higher human population than presently, affecting overall habitat values on the upland area, but no threatened or endangered, species are anticipated to be affected or displaced. The EIS will explore these issues in detail. An initial critical areas inventory has been conducted utilizing readily available data from the County's website, along with minor field explorations. Wetlands, habitats, and archeological influences will be thoroughly studied as part of the EIS. The proposed site plan will be adjusted to minimize environmental impacts if necessary, and will identify mitigation requirements. As part of the EIS process, the complete site will be evaluated for the existence of resource wetlands (waters of the U.S). All discovered wetlands will be delineated by professional wetland biologists and concurred with by appropriate state and federal areas. For impacts proposed to these resource areas (if any), an alternative analysis will be performed and ultimately mitigation projects will be proposed to offset the resource impacts in accordance with mitigation ratios, quality, and monitoring requirements. A complete site hydrologic analysis will be performed to understand pre - developed site hydrology. A post development hydrologic analysis will be performed to quantify any increase in runoff intensity and volume conditions. All hydrologic analysis will be performed in accordance with the current Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington issued by DOE. Changes to stormwater runoff intensities and volumes that will be discharged to natural riparian or other sensitive ecologies will be mitigated through stormwater infiltration techniques, collection and diversion to on -site, manmade lakes or collection, and disposal using conventional detention systems. Changes to stormwater quality associated with new impervious surfaces, exposure to fertilizers and other landscaping impurities will be mitigated in accordance with Jefferson County standards. Systems that may be used include, but are not limited to, bio filtration, stormwater cartridge treatment, extended dry detention and/or treatment through an on -site package water treatment plant. Particular attention will be paid to incorporating sustainable and low impact development concepts into the project design. h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? No. The applicant will be upgrading road, fire, and public service capabilities as part of the project development, and will be providing new sewer and water plants to provide the utility services necessary. In addition, at build out, constructed facilities should provide more than $500,000,000 in asset value to the Jefferson County Assessed value, providing $5 -7 million dollars [the tax levy is typically 12- 15/000 depending on school levies in the Counties] in additional revenues to -E3- r disposal laws, the Shoreline Management Act and Jefferson County Master Program, and current and ongoing initiatives to protect Hood Canal water quality. -E6- ;��' -1 9 vy c y the rural scale of these facilities will provide needed additional. service capability to the traveling public without defeating the rural nature of the overall area. These new off -site facilities may not be served by the sewer and water systems in the planned resort. Additional activity may well be anticipated in Brinnon, which is a LAMIRD. Such growth of activity within a LAMIRD is anticipated and approved under GMA as a way to provide needed services to the rural areas. No "change" in Brinnon's status would be expected as a result of the approval of the resort. The County's Comprehensive an Ppaeint�ed Resort. The Pleasant Harbor Marina benefits of a South County Master and Golf Resort is designed to bring precisely that benefit to the community and, as such, serves the long -range interests of the county as a whole. k. Does the proposed site - specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the County Comprehensive plan? No. The County Comprehensive Plan contemplated a south county destination resort, and the permanent population of the resort is very small (measured in the hundreds), which is not material in the County's overall population planning. It is anticipated that many of the permanent jobs may well be available to existing families who would otherwise have to leave the area because of declining economic opportunities in resource industries. 1. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? Not applicable. m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RC99 the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state and federal laws? Yes. GMA contemplates Master Planned resorts aimed at the short term or transient visitor. This is precisely the focus of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. The resort also provides a south county economic anchor to improve the county tax base and employment base, both of which are overall goals of the County. The plan is designed to comply with all local, state, and federal laws. The EIS process will track more specifically the applicable laws and how they are being achieved, including without limitation, clean water act, NPDES requirements, water supply and treatment laws, waste water treatment and t�-yr -E5- s disposal laws, the Shoreline Management Act and Jefferson County Master Program, and current and ongoing initiatives to protect Hood Canal water quality. q - N6 -E6- RCW 36.70.380: Comprehensive plan — Public hearing required. Page 1 of 1 RCW 0 « 0r Public Comprehensive plan — :. d... Before approving all or any part of the comprehensive plan or any amendment, extension or addition thereto, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing and may hold additional hearings at the discretion of the commission. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.380. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 38.1 IN http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=')'6.70.380 12/6/2007 RCW 36.70.390: Comprehensive plan — Notice of hearing. Page 1 of 1 RCW • ,' Comprehensive plan — Notice of hearing. Notice of the time, place and purpose of any public hearing shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county and in the official gazette, if any, of the county, at least ten days before the hearing. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.390. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 39.] F� http: // apps .leg.wa.gov /RCW /default.aspx ?cite = 36.70.390 12/6/2007 RCW 36.70.400: Comprehensive plan — Approval — Required vote Record. Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70.400 Comprehensive plan — Approval Record. The approval of the comprehensive plan, or of any amendment, extension or addition thereto, shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of the commission. Such approval shall be by a recorded motion which shall incorporate the findings of fact of the commission and the reasons for its action and the motion shall refer expressly to the maps, descriptive, and other matters intended by the commission to constitute the plan or amendment, addition or extension thereto. The indication of approval by the commission shall be recorded on the map and descriptive matter by the signatures of the chairman and the secretary of the commission and of such others as the commission in its rules may designate. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.400. Prior: 1961 c 232 § 2; 1959 c 201 § 40.] R-J http: // apps. leg .wa.gov /RCW /default.aspx ?cite= 36.70.400 12/6/2007 RCW 36.70.410: Comprehensive plan — Amendment. Page I of 1 RCW 36.70.410 Comprehensive p• n ---- Aniendment. When changed conditions or further studies by the planning agency indicate a need, the commission may amend, extend or add to all or part of the comprehensive plan in the manner provided herein for approval in the first instance. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.410. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 41.1 http: / /apps.leg.wa.gov /RCW /default.aspx ?cite= 36.70.410 12/6/2007 RCW 36.70.420: Comprehensive plan — Referral to board. RCW 36.70.420 Comprehensive plan — Referral to board. Page 1 of 1 A copy of a comprehensive plan or any part, amendment, extension of or addition thereto, together with the motion of the planning agency approving the same, shall be transmitted to the board for the purpose of being approved by motion and certified as provided in this chapter. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.420. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 42.1 16-f http: / /apps.leg.wa.gov /RCW /default.aspx ?cite= 36.70.420 12/6/2007 •RCW 36.70.430: Comprehensive plan — Board may initiate or change — Notice. Page 1 of I RCW 36.70.430 Comprehensive plan — Board may initiate or change — Notice. When it deems it to be for the public interest, or when it considers a change in the recommendations of the planning agency to be necessary, the board may initiate consideration of a comprehensive plan, or any element or part thereof, or any change in or addition to such plan or recommendation. The board shall first refer the proposed plan, change or addition to the planning agency for a report and recommendation. Before making a report and recommendation, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed plan, change or addition. Notice of the time and place and purpose of the hearing shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county and in the official gazette, if any, of the county, at least ten days before the hearing. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.430. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 43.] g -� http: / /apps.leg.wa.gov /RCW /default.aspx ?cite= 36.70.430 12/6/2007 RCW 36.70.440: Comprehensive plan — Board may approve or change Notice. Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70.440 Comprehensive i Board may approve or change — Notice. After the receipt of the report and recommendations of the planning agency on the matters referred to in RCW 36.70.430, or after the lapse of the prescribed time for the rendering of such report and recommendation by the commission, the board may approve by motion and certify such plan, change or addition without further reference to the commission: PROVIDED, That the plan, change or addition conforms either to the proposal as initiated by the county or the recommendation thereon by the commission: PROVIDED FURTHER, That if the planning agency has failed to report within a ninety day period, the board shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed plan, change or addition. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county and in the official gazette, if any, of the county, at least ten days before the hearing. Thereafter, the board may proceed to approve by motion and certify the proposed comprehensive plan or any part, amendment or addition thereto. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.440. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 44.1 9-7 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70.440 12/6/2007 -,RCW 36.70.450: Planning agency — Relating projects to comprehensive plan. Page 1 of 1 RCW .. Relating Planning agency — plan. After a board has approved by motion and certified all or parts of a comprehensive plan for a county or for any part of a county, the planning agency shall use such plan as the basic source of reference and as a guide in reporting upon or recommending any proposed project, public or private, as to its purpose, location, form, alignment and timing. The report of the planning agency on any project shall indicate wherein the proposed project does or does not conform to the purpose of the comprehensive plan and may include proposals which, if effected, would make the project conform. If the planning agency finds that a proposed project reveals the justification or necessity for amending the comprehensive plan or any part of it, it may institute proceedings to accomplish such amendment, and in its report to the board on the project shall note that appropriate amendments to the comprehensive plan, or part thereof, are being initiated. [1963 c 4 § 36.70.450. Prior: 1959 c 201 § 45.1 J r, http: // apps .leg.wa.gov /RCW /default.aspx ?cite= 36.70.450 12/6/2007 INTRODUCTION JEFFERSON COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION Jefferson County is located in the north - central portion of Washington's Olympic Peninsula. The County is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the east by the waters of the Admiralty Inlet and Hood Canal. Clallam County and the Strait of Juan de Fuca define the northern border, while the southern boundaries are defined by Mason and Grays Harbor Counties. Jefferson County comprises 1,808 square miles, and is the eighteenth largest of the State's thirty -nine counties. The Olympic National Park and National Forest, which bisect the County into western and eastern halves, comprise approximately 65 percent of the County's 1.16 million acres of land. The majority of the County's population, nearly 96 percent, resides in eastern Jefferson County. A map of the entire County is shown on page 3. Jefferson County is largely a rural County with one incorporated city, Port Townsend, and one Master Planned Resort, Port Ludlow. The County's population is located primarily in the northeast portion of the County, in the communities of Port Townsend, Tri -Area, and Port Ludlow. Quilcene and Brinnon are the largest communities in the southern portion of the County. Port Townsend is the largest community. The County is comprised primarily of agricultural and forest lands. Seventy -five percent of Jefferson County is within the boundaries of Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, and State Forest land, this leaves very little land for development. Dotted among the County are clusters of small residential developments. This rural quality of life is what attracts many residents and tourists to the County and is what most residents have expressed a desire to protect. The Comprehensive Plan outlines goals and policies that help define, direct and guide future growth and development throughout the County. WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document that serves as a decision - making guide for both officials and citizens, and is intended to serve as a tool for making decisions about future growth and development in the County over the next 20 years. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN To date, Jefferson County's comprehensive planning process can be characterized as one of conflict and challenges. Yet out of this charged environment has emerged a unique opportunity to direct the participation of the community into a meaningful and enduring vision that is pragmatic and responsible. This Comprehensive Plan has been crafted to incorporate the lessons learned in a difficult planning process. It is the intent of this Plan to accept and build on the difficulties of the past; identify appropriate solutions consistent with relevant laws, decisions, adopted policies, and community involvement; and propose a responsible strategy with which the County can effectively face the future. C/ .Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1 -1 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 LAND USE AND RURAL Master planned resorts (MPRs) are large- scale, self - contained developments that are based on an integrated, conceptual master plan, yet are typically developed in stages depending on market demand or other factors. Recent amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) allow jurisdictions to recognize existing master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of Urban Growth Areas as limited by RCW 36.70A.362. Jefferson County currently contains one existing master planned resort, Port Ludlow. A Resort Plan Revision Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process was initiated in 2004 and is currently in the planning process prior to issuance of a Final SEIS and project level permitting. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies in LNG 23.0 that help guide development at Port Ludlow. Many of Port Ludlow's goals and policies were drafted from issues identified by community residents who, through the establishment of community planning groups, articulated their desired plan for Port Ludlow's future development. The goals and policies identified by the community and included in Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan focus on maintaining and enhancing Port Ludlow's recreational and community amenities, and preserving the community's lifestyle. The GMA also authorizes counties to allow for the development of new MPRs in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360. According to the statute, counties may permit new master planned resorts "in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short -term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on -site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities ". The MPR designation provides an opportunity to encourage economic development that takes advantage of the significant rural recreational resources and scenic amenities of Jefferson County, particularly in the more remote areas of the County where the local economy's dependence on natural resource -based industries has been negatively impacted, or where other economic opportunities are more limited. For example, in the southern and western portions of Jefferson County, many of the existing communities and rural residential areas have experienced a downturn in resource -based economic activities. These areas are gradually transitioning from primarily a natural resource -based local economy to one that is also dependent on the tourism industry. The remote rural areas of south Jefferson County, for example, offer significant recreational opportunities and scenic amenities including access to the Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest and Hood Canal. Popular recreational activities in the area include boating, fishing, shellfish gathering, hiking, camping, birdwatching and historical sites. In the peak summer months, it is estimated that as many as 500,000 tourist visitors travel through the North Olympic Peninsula. However, the lack of private tourist accommodations and services in the south County area often means that potential economic benefit from tourism spending is lost to other, more developed, areas of the Peninsula. An MPR designation in this part of the County would help boost local economic activity and more effectively serve tourist needs in this part of the County. 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. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -23 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE 417- 1213 -04 LAND USE AND RURAL ten (10) acres, and one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres in size and subject to the following criteria: LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre - existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre- existing developed "suburban" platted subdivisions. e. parcels designated as Forest Transition Overlay. LNP 3.3.2 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and, d. critical area land parcels. LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 20 acres) or larger; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a "transition" to Urban Growth Areas or the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort; d. critical land area parcels; e. agriculture resource designated parcels; f. publicly owned forest lands; and g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. LNP 3.4 Review residential limited areas of more intensive rural development and consider measures to allow infill development at comparable densities. Measures shall be considered to limit and contain these areas to the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use once identified and designated. Designation of Residential LAMIRDs shall be through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. LNP 3.5 Allow minimum lot sizes within the designated boundaries of Rural Village Centers which are flexible and determined by such considerations as: septic or sewer availability, potable water availability, zoning and building regulations such as setbacks and parking requirements, fire prevention measures, and community character. LNP 3.6 Facilitate the multiple use function of Rural Village Centers (RVC) by establishing siting and design criteria to provide buffering and mitigation between potentially incompatible uses. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -48 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 LAND USE AND RURAL MASTER PLANNED RESORT GOAL: LNG 23.0 Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) authorized under RCW 36.70A.362. POLICIES: LNP 23.1 Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County development regulations established for critical areas and that on -site and off -site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated. LNP 23.2 The provision of urban -style services to support the anticipated growth and development at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary. LNP 23.3 No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. LNP 23.4 The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed the 199' ) Port Ludlow HIS total of 2,250 residential dwelling units. LNP 23.5 Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, single family and multi - family housing and assisted living care facilities. LNP 23.6 Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces and wildlife corridors. LNP 25.6.1 Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve. LNP 23.7 No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200 -acre area south of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary (as depicted on the official Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been approved by the County. LNP 23.8 The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designated as the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. GOAL: LNG 24.0 Provide for the siting of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs), pursuant to the adoption of development regulations consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.360), in locations that are appropriate from both an economic and environmental perspective. POLICIES: LNP 24.1 Master planned resorts are generally larger in scale, and involve greater potential impacts on the surrounding area, than uses permitted under the Small -Scale Recreation and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -64 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 LAND USE AND RURAL Tourist Uses standards. MPRs may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by RCW 36.70A.360. LNP 24.2 Owners of sites where MPRs are proposed to be located must obtain an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, giving the site a master planned resort designation prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review. The comprehensive plan amendment process should evaluate all of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts from the entire proposal, even if the proposal is to be developed in phases, and these impacts shall be considered in determining whether any particular location is suitable for a master planned resort. LNP 24.3 The process for siting a master planned resort and obtaining the necessary Comprehensive Plan designation shall include all property proposed to be included within the MPR and shall further include a review of the adjacent Comprehensive Plan land use designations /districts to ensure that the designation of a master planned resort does not allow new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR. This policy should not be interpreted, however, to prohibit locating a master planned resort within or adjacent to an existing Urban Growth Area or within or adjacent to an existing area of more intense rural development, such as an existing Rural Village Center or an existing Rural Crossroad designation. LNP 24.4 MPRs should not be located on designated Agricultural Resource Lands or Forest Resource Lands, unless the County specifically makes the finding that the land proposed for a Master Planned Resort is better suited and has more long -term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and also makes the finding that the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent Agricultural or Forest Resource Land production. LNP 24.5 The master planned resort shall consist of predominantly short-term visitor accommodations and associated activities, but may include some other permanent residential uses, including caretakers' or employees' residences and some vacation home properties, provided they must be integrated into the resort and consistent with the on -site recreational nature of the resort. MPRs may propose clustering construction, setbacks, lot sizes, and building sizes that vary from those normally found in the Rural or Resource Lands designations. LNP 24.6 The master planned resort may include indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, conference facilities and commercial and professional activities and services that support and are integrated with the resort. These facilities shall be primarily designed to serve the resort visitors, either day visitors or overnight visitors, but may also provide some limited goods and services for the surrounding permanent residential population. LNP 24.7 The capital facilities, utilities and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical provided on -site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the resort. These facilities, utilities, and services may be provided by outside service providers, such as special purpose districts, provided that the resort pays all costs associated with service extension capacity increases, or new services that are directly attributable to the resort, and provided that the nature of the facilities and services provided are adequate to meet the increased needs of the resort, based on the planned concentration of guests, structures and other facility, utility and service demands. .Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -65 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 LAND USE AND RURAL Plan approval shall provide that facilities serving the resort, which may be urban in nature, not be used to serve development outside the resort areas, except at appropriate rural densities, uses, and intensities. LNP 24.8 MPRs should only be approved when it can be demonstrated that on -site and off -site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully considered and mitigated. LNP 24.9 The MPR shall contain sufficient portions of the site in undeveloped open space for buffering and recreational amenities to help preserve the natural and rural character of the area. Where located in a rural area, the master planned resort should also be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent practical, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas outside of the MPR designation. LNP 24.10 The MPR must be developed consistent with the County's development regulations established for environmentally sensitive areas and consistent with lawfully established vested rights, and approved development permits. LNP 24.11 Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development Agreements, as authorized by RCW 36.7013.170, to implement these policies. 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. LNP 24.13 New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas of existing shoreline development, such as marinas and shoreline lodges, which promote public access to developed shorelines, and /or locations which promote public access and use of National Parks and National Forests. DRAINAGE, FLOODING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & POLLUTED DISCHARGES GOAL: LNG 25.0 To manage stormwater to improve drainage, control stormwater quality and quantity, protect shellfish beds, fish habitat and other natural resources and to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution. POLICIES: LNP 25.1 Require new development and redevelopment to comply with the standards of the latest edition of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. LNP 25.2 Encourage the preservation of natural drainage systems. LNP 25.3 Periodically review, revise and update the storm water management Standards of the Unified Development Code to incorporate current best management practices (BMPs) and to ensure consistency with the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan, as may be amended. 6 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -66 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213-04 TRANSPORTATION TRP 1.4 Maintain the efficiency of traffic flow by monitoring traffic, upgrading traffic control devices, and developing traffic management techniques as appropriate. TRP 1.5 Require that streets are designed and constructed to County standards to efficiently and effectively meet the needs of the community and promote overall transportation safety. TRP 1.6 Require use of access management techniques to regulate driveway access. TRP 1.7 Encourage the use of roadway features in rural areas that enhance rural character, minimize impervious surfaces, and minimize cost to taxpayers and developers. TRP 1.8 Prevent glare and minimize pollution to the night sky through the use of appropriate roadway lighting and fixtures without compromising public safety. TRP 1.9 Encourage the retention or use of roadway features that enhance rural qualities by applying appropriate rural standards. TRP 1.10 Enhance urban qualities by applying appropriate urban standards in Urban Growth Areas and Master Planned Resorts. TRP 1.11 Design roadways in the County Road system according to their functional classification and forecasted 20 -year traffic demand. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GOAL TRG 2.0 Promote a coordinated and integrated public transportation system available to all residents, guests, and those without personal transportation options in Jefferson County. POLICIES TRP 2.1 Support existing public transportation programs and coordinate with the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization to improve the system as needed. TRP 2.2 Encourage cooperation between private transportation providers and public transportation providers. TRP 2.3 Provide 8,400 Annual Transit Revenue Service Hours ( ATRSH) or a minimum Level of Service of 270 ATRSH per 1,000 County -wide population for fixed routes in Jefferson County. Additionally, as a planning guideline, seek to provide the Level of Service for Transit Service Links adopted by the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization's Plan for routes that have an origin or destination in Jefferson County. TRP 2.4 Provide convenient automobile and bicycle access to park and ride facilities on arterial/collector routes where warranted and cost effective. TRP 2.5 Ensure that retail shopping facilities, offices, industrial and residential developments and ( -7 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 10 -33 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 f , INTRODUCTION agricultural products, timber, or the extraction of minerals. Rural areas may consist of a variety of uses and residential densities at levels that are consistent with the preservation of rural character. Natural Resource Lands: This term refers to agriculture, aquaculture, forest and mineral resource lands which have long -term commercial significance. Open Space: This term refers to any land area, the protection of which in its present use would conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; protect streams or water supplies; promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes; enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations, sanctuaries or other open space; enhance recreation opportunities; or preserve historic sites. The Decision - Making Process Planning decisions must be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is a legal, binding document and cannot be disregarded; it is also a document designed to adapt to changing trends and circumstances. The Plan serves as the basis for land use decisions. Over time the Plan's policies may change to ensure that the development pattern occurring in the County remains consistent with both the intent of the community's vision for the future, and the Plan's goals and objectives. The Community Vision Statements found in Appendix C provide internal consistency within the Plan and create a foundation for land use decisions. This is especially important in cases where there are competing Comprehensive Plan policies and clarification as to the overall intent of the Plan is needed to assist decision- makers. This characteristic is especially noticeable when applying broad policy language to more detailed community plans, amendments to the Plan (site - specific or general), land use regulatory changes, or project - specific development proposals. The comprehensive character of the Plan brings with it an inherent nature to address a wide variety of community issues. The public participated in developing and defining Jefferson County's vision for the future. The primary community concerns and goals are reflected in the following non - prioritized list: Community Vision Statements • Preserve the high quality of life. • Strive for government efficiency. • Support and encourage economic opportunities. • Increase housing choices for all residents. • Ensure that necessary transportation facilities and services are available to serve development at the time of occupancy and use. • Balance urban uses and environmental protection. • Protect and retain rural lifestyles. • Protect and conserve agriculture, forest and mineral resource lands. • Protect and conserve the environment, ecologically sensitive areas, and preclude development and land uses which are incompatible with critical areas. • Respect property rights. • Encourage citizen participation and involvement. Community Vision Statements reflect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and should be considered collectively when making land use decisions. Community Vision Statements provide a decision - making a -/ Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1 -16 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE 417- 1213 -04 INTRODUCTION framework that can be referenced when considering the merits of a land use issue -- particularly where there are numerous competing goals, policies, or strategies. Appendix C contains charts that summarize the community's vision statements for each element. Amending the Comprehensive Plan The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan addresses long -range and County -wide issues that are beyond the scope of decisions on subarea, local or functional plans or individual development proposals. The Plan serves as a vital guide to the future and provides a framework for managing change. It is important that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan retain the broad perspectives articulated in the community vision statements, satisfy the goals, policies, and strategies of the Plan, and remain consistent with the intent of the Growth Management Act. Amendments are to be justified through findings from monitoring of "growth management indicators" (i.e., population growth [actual v. projected], land capacity [actual v. projected], economic indicators [property values /comparative sales compared to statewide averages and local trends], changes in technology, needs, omissions or errors, or a declared emergency). Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must conform to the following: a. The requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter RCW 36.70A and the State Planning Enabling Act, Chapter RCW 36.70. b. Any proposed amendments to the Plan must be submitted by the County to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development at least 60 days prior to final adoption by the Board of County Commissioners (RCW 36.70A.106). C. Proposed amendments must be consistent with Federal and State laws, the Comprehensive Plan, the County -wide Planning Policy, related plans, and the comprehensive plans of other counties or cities with which the County has, in part, common borders or regulated regional issues (WAC 365 -195 -630[1 ]). d. Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be considered on an annual basis (no more frequently than once per year), except when the following circumstances apply: (i) the initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea, and (ii) the adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program pursuant to RCW 90.58. All proposals will be considered concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained (WAC 365 -195- 630[2]). The County may consider adopting amendments more frequently than once per year if a declared emergency exists. e. Consistent with the timelines contained in the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County must review all Urban Growth Area boundaries, as well as the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each Urban Growth Area. If necessary, the Urban Growth Area boundaries will be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the County for the succeeding 20 -year period. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1 -17 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 INTRODUCTION f. Amendments or changes to natural resource lands and critical area designations should be based on consistency with one or more of the following criteria: • Change in circumstances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan or public policy. • A change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner pertaining to the subject property. • An error in designation. • New information on natural resource land or critical area status (WAC 365 - 190-040[2][g]). Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments Policy amendments may be initiated by the County, or by other entities, organizations, or individuals through a petition submitted on forms provided by the County and subject to fees as determined by the BOCC. The merits of proposed policy amendments shall be measured against the petition submittal requirements contained in Jefferson County's adopted development regulations to ensure consistency in the review and decision - making process. In general, these requirements will address the following: a. A detailed statement of what is proposed to be changed and why. b. A statement of anticipated impacts to be caused by the change, including geographic area affected and issues presented. C. A demonstration of why existing Comprehensive Plan policies should not continue to be in effect or why existing policies no longer apply. d. A statement of how the amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan's community vision statements, goals, policy and strategy directives. e. A statement of how functional plans and Capital Improvement Plans support the change. f. A statement of how the change affects implementing land use regulations (i.e., zoning) and the necessary changes to bring the implementing land use regulations into compliance with the Plan. g. A demonstration of public review of the recommended change. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments Comprehensive Plan Map amendments may be initiated by the County, or by other entities, organizations, or individuals through petitions. The boundaries separating the Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas and Natural Resource Lands designations are intended to be long -term and unchanging. Land use designations may be subject to minor refinements, but only after full public participation, notice, environmental review, and an official assessment of planning growth management indicators. Amendments must comply with the same petition submittal requirements as policy amendments (see a -g above which are incorporated herein as a -g) and the additional following items: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1 -18 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 INTRODUCTION a. A detailed statement describing how the map amendment complies with Comprehensive Plan land use designation criteria. Urban Growth Area boundary changes shall be supported by and dependent on population forecasts and allocated urban population distributions, existing urban densities and infill opportunities, phasing and availability of adequate services, proximity to designated natural resource lands and the presence of critical areas. C. Rural Areas and Natural Resource Land map designation changes shall be supported by and dependent on Growth Management Act criteria, population forecasts and allocated non -urban populations distributions, existing rural area and natural resource land densities, and/or infill opportunities. Natural Resource Land designations should also satisfy the criteria in Section 1 (f) above (WAC 365- 190 -040 [2][g]). General Comprehensive Plan Amendments A general Comprehensive Plan amendment is a policy or land use designation which is applied to a broad class of situations and to a large number of parcels and persons that are not readily identifiable. Petitions for a general amendment proposal are to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) for consideration. The Board may or may not act on the proposal (petition) to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Board is not required to take any action on such amendment proposals. A decision by the Board to initiate the plan amendment process is procedural only, and does not constitute a decision by the Board on whether the amendment will ultimately be approved. Site - Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments A site - specific comprehensive plan amendment is a policy or land use designation that is applied to a specific number of parcels which are in readily identifiable ownership. A proposal which formulates policy yet affects relatively few individuals will generally be characterized as a site - specific action. Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals (petitions) which apply to a specific site, frequently in conjunction with an identifiable development proposal, may be initiated by a petitioner through the following amendment process: General requirements for a site - specific amendment include: a. Fees. The petitioner shall pay to the Department of Community Development the application fee prescribed by the approved fee schedule as now or hereafter amended. Fees for amendments to correct mapping errors may be waived by the Administrator. b. Petition. The petitioner must submit to the Department of Community Development a written application, on forms provided by the Department, containing appropriate amendatory language and, if applicable, a map drawn to scale, showing the proposed change. The petition shall also address policy or rnap evaluation criteria as described above. Incomplete petitions shall not be accepted. Depending on the nature of the application, the petitioner may be required to attend a meeting to discuss the petition with Department staff. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1 -19 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE # 17- 1213 -04 INTRODUCTION Timing. Petitions shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development by the application deadline established through Jefferson County's adopted development regulations. Late or incomplete applications shall not be accepted. d. Approval for Consideration. When a petition application is considered complete the Department of Community Development shall submit it to the Board, with a recommendation as to whether the Board should consider or reject the proposed petition. After receiving the Department's recommendation, the Board, in a public meeting, shall determine whether to consider or reject the proposed petition. A decision by the Board to initiate the plan amendment process is procedural only and does not constitute a decision by the Board as to whether the amendment will ultimately be approved. e. Environmental Review. If the Board approves consideration of the amendment, the petitioner shall submit to the Department of Community Development an environmental checklist. Upon receipt of the environmental checklist and supporting documentation, the Department shall issue an environmental threshold determination on the proposed amendment. If necessary, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be published. (State Environmental Policy Act Rules [Chapter 197-11 WAC]). Process. The Department of Community Development will process the amendment pursuant to the procedures contained within Chapter 36.70 RCW and the Jefferson County development regulations, this process shall include at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission and one public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments Emergency amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are allowed pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b): "Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court." Future Subarea Plans as Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan Subarea plans refine Comprehensive Plan countywide policies for application to specific sub - regions or communities within the county. Subarea plans may reflect differences between local circumstances and values and those generally found countywide, but they must also be "consistent" with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Because of changes to land use districts and policies as a result of the adoption of subarea plans, the reader must take care when interpreting tables and analysis within the Comprehensive Plan to note whether the particular page has been amended. Amended pages contain a notation in the page footer. If a particular page has not been amended, the contents reflect analysis at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis specific to subarea planning is generally contained within the adopted subarea plan itself. 0-3- Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1 -20 UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17- 1213 -04 Document Page 1 of 6 Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS Sections: 18.45.010 Amendments — Purpose and introduction. 18.45.020 Annual amendments — Consideration of cumulative effects. 18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process. 18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment. 18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. 18.45.060 Review of preliminary docket— Adoption of final docket. 18.45.070 Final docket — DCD review and recommendation — SEPA review. 18.45.080 Final docket — Planning commission and board of county commissioners review. 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations. 18.45.010 Amendments — Purpose and introduction. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, defined for the purposes of this chapter as including the plan text and /or the land use map. The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A RCW) generally allows amendments to comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in emergency situations. This chapter is intended to provide the following: (a) A process whereby the county will compile and maintain a preliminary docket of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and then select which proposed amendments will be placed on the final docket for review. no more often than once annually; (b) Timelines and procedures for placing formal applications for amendments by interested parties (i.e., project proponents or property owners) on the final docket for review, no more often than once annually; and (c) Criteria for review of the final docket by the Jefferson County planning commission and the Jefferson County board of commissioners. This chapter is also intended to provide a process for the planning commission to monitor and assess the Comprehensive Plan, and based on this review to recommend amendments (if any) to the plan as part of a standardized amendment process. (2) Public Participation. The public participation process set forth in this chapter is intended to solicit from the public suggested amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future consideration, and to provide an opportunity for public comment on any proposed amendments. This is achieved by early and continuous public involvement with broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provisions for open discussion, information services, and consideration and response to public comments. (3) Planning Commission Role. The Jefferson County planning commission is an advisory body that shall make recommendations to the county commissioners on all Comprehensive Plan matters, including amendments to the plan text and land use map, implementing regulations and subarea plans. (4) Applicability of Chapter 1 8,40 JCC. Amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the land use map, and the implementing regulations are legislative, Type V decisions under Chapter 1 &40 JCC. Accordingly, all applicable provisions of that chapter apply to the decision - making process adopted in this chapter, regardless of whether or not they are specifically referred to herein. [Ord. 2 -06 § I] 18.45.020 Annual amendments — Consideration of cumulative effects. Except as provided in JCC 18.45,0'60, proposals for amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan shall be considered by the board of county commissioners no more frequently than once every year. Proposals for plan amendment shall be considered concurrently so that the cumulative effect of all items on the final docket will be ascertained. Proposals may be considered at separate meetings or hearings, so long as the final action taken considers the cumulative effect of all the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process. (1) Exceptions — Emergencies. In addition to the amendment process set forth in this chapter, the board of county commissioners may amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in any of the following circumstances: (a) Resolution of an emergency condition or situation that involves public health, safety or welfare and when adherence to the amendment process set forth in this chapter would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; ' 4; http: / /nt5.scbbs.com /cgi- bin/om isapi.dll ?clientID = 502402585 &infobase jeffcol.nfo &rec... 12/6/2007 Document Page 2 of 6 (b) Initial adoption of a subarea plan identified in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (c) The adoption of or amendments to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program; (d) Technical, nonsubstantive corrections to manifest land use mapping errors which do not involve interpretations of the criteria for the various land use designations contained in the Comprehensive Plan; (e) Resolution of a decision by an administrative agency or court of competent jurisdiction; and (f) Special use permits for essential public facilities under JCC 18.15.1 Id. (2) Determination of Emergency. Situations involving official legal or administrative action (e.g., decisions by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, state or federal courts, actions of a state agency or office, or the state legislature) affecting Jefferson County will be reviewed by the Jefferson County board of commissioners with advice from the prosecuting attorney's office to determine whether an emergency exists warranting an emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment. [Ord. 2 -06 § I] 18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment. (1) Who May Propose Amendments — Application — Fee. (a) Applications for Formal Site - Specific Amendments. Proponents of land development projects (for multiple sites) and /or property owner(s) or their authorized representative(s), may file an application for a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan relating to a site - specific proposal ( "formal site - specific amendments "). A filing fee as set forth in the Jefferson County fee ordinance shall accompany applications for site - specific amendments. (b) Applications for Suggested Amendments. Anyone may apply for a "suggested amendment" to the Comprehensive Plan which shall be added to the list of proposed amendments to be maintained by the administrator. Generally, applications for suggested amendments should be limited to proposals that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan rather than amendments designed to address site - specific issues of limited applicability. The process outlined in JCC 18.45.060 shall govern whether such suggested amendments are considered during the annual review process. No application fee shall be required for applications for suggested amendments. (2) Application Deadline — Form. (a) Deadline. All applications for formal site- specific and suggested amendments shall be submitted to DCD by March 1 st of the current calendar year in order to be considered during that year's amendment process; except that county- sponsored proposals to amend the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan may be accepted later than other proposed amendments because of their relationship to the county's annual budget process. (b) Application Form. All proposed amendments (i.e., both formal site - specific and suggested) shall be submitted to DCD on forms provided by the department and shall include the following information, as determined by the administrator to be necessary to evaluate a particular proposal: (i) Name and address of applicant; (ii) A description of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and any associated development proposals, if applicable. Formal site - specific or project- related amendments shall include plans, information and /or studies that accurately depict existing and proposed use(s) and improvements. Proposed site - specific or project - related Comprehensive Plan amendments that do not specify proposed use(s) and potential impacts will be assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services: (iii) Proposed amendatory language, preferably shown in a "bill" format (i.e., new language underlined; language proposed for deletion in strikeouts); (iv) An explanation of the rationale for the proposed amendment; (v) An explanation of how the proposed amendment and associated development proposal(s), if any, conform to, conflict with, or relate to the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(c) and (1)(d), as applicable: (vi) If color copies, maps or other visuals are desired the applicant shall submit 20 color copies.. (vii) A completed SEPA checklist including the supplement sheet for nonproject actions if the application is for a formal site - specific amendment, and (viii) Any additional information reasonably deemed necessary by the administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. (3) Failure to Comply — Effect. Applications that do not include the information required under subsection (2)(b) of this section, or which are not received by the deadline set forth in subsection (2)(a) of this section, shall not be processed. [Ord. 2- 06 § 1 ] 18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. f- 2-- http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om—isapi.dll?clientlD=5024025 85&inf6base jeffcol.nfo &rec... 12/6/2007 Document Page 3 of 6 (1) Preliminary Docket — Contents. The preliminary docket described more fully in subsections (2) through (4) of this section shall consist of the following: (a) All proposals for formal site - specific amendments; (b) All proposals for suggested amendments; and (c) When applicable, all amendments recommended by the planning commission during its periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) List of Suggested Amendments. Each year, the administrator shall maintain for public review the annual list of suggested amendments made by citizens, the board of county commissioners or members of the board of county commissioners, county staff, county departments or other agencies. By the end of the second full business week of March of each year, this list of suggested amendments shall be compiled into a preliminary docket. JCC 18.45.060 sets forth the process for selecting which suggested amendments will be placed on the final docket to be formally reviewed during the annual review process. (3) Fonnal Site - Specific Amendments. The preliminary docket shall also include all formal site - specific applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Fonnal site - specific applications for amendments that are properly and timely filed under JCC 18.45.040(2)(a) shall be placed on the final docket for consideration during the current annual amendment process. (4) Planning Commission Periodic Assessment — Recommendations. (a) Periodic Assessment — Timelines. The planning commission shall review, and if necessary, recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan during the periodic assessment in accordance with RCW 36.70A. 130. The planning commission shall complete its assessment of the Comprehensive Plan by November 1 st of the year prior to the assessment. Any amendments recommended by a majority vote of the planning commission shall be forwarded to the administrator by March l st of the year in which the periodic assessment is conducted. The administrator shall place all such recommended amendments on the preliminary docket to be considered during the final docket selection process set forth in JCC 18,45.060. (b) Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The planning commission's periodic assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the following growth management indicators: (i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize; (ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased; (iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need; (iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid; (v) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement; (vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments; (vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.060 Review of preliminary docket — Adoption of final docket. (1) DCD Review of Preliminary Docket. After compiling the preliminary docket, the administrator shall review the suggested amendments and prepare a report concerning which suggested amendments the administrator believes should be placed on the final docket for consideration during the annual amendment process. In addition to addressing the need, urgency and appropriateness of each suggested amendment, the staff report shall include, but not be limited to, a consideration of the following: (a) The availability of sufficient DCD staff to substantively review the suggested amendments and manage the public review process with available staff; and (b) Anticipated DCD costs and budget for processing the suggested amendments. (2) Optional Board of County Commissioners/ Planning Commission Workshop. The board of county commissioners and planning commission may, but are not required to, hold a noticed joint workshop meeting to gather information regarding the items on the preliminary docket and the administrator's report and recommendation. if held, notice of the joint workshop meeting shall be given by publication in the county's official newspaper at least one time 10 days prior to the date of the meeting and by posting a copy of the meeting notice at the county courthouse, which shall include a statement of the purpose of the joint workshop. (3) Planning Commission Hearing — Report and Recommendation. The planning commission shall hold a noticed public hearing to accept public comment regarding the suggested amendments on the preliminary docket. Following the hearing, the planning commission shall prepare a report and recommendation identifying those suggested amendments that it is recommending for consideration by the board of county commissioners during the annual amendment process. The planning hnp: / /nt5.scbbs.com /cgi- bin /om_ isapi.dll ?clientID = 502402585 &infobase jeffcol.nfo &rec... 12/6/2007 Document Page 4 of 6 commission's recommendation shall be based upon the perceived need, urgency and appropriateness of each suggested amendment. The planning commission's report and recommendation shall also include those proposed amendments resulting from the periodic assessment set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4), as applicable. Notice of the planning commission hearing shall be given by publication in the county's official newspaper at least one time 10 days prior to the date of the meeting and by posting a copy of the hearing notice at the county courthouse, which shall include a statement of the purpose of the hearing. (4) Board of Commissioners Decision — Adoption of Final Docket. (a) Review and Decision Process. By the second regular board of county commissioners meeting in May of each year, the board of county commissioners shall review and consider the planning commission's report and recommended final docket at a regularly scheduled commissioners meeting. The board of county commissioners may adopt the planning commission's recommended final docket without a public hearing; however, in the event that a majority of the board of county commissioners decides to add or subtract suggested amendments, it shall first hold a public hearing, noticed as set forth in subsection (3) of this section, which shall be held by the first board of county commissioners meeting in July. (b) Final Docket — Contents. The final docket as adopted by the board of county commissioners shall include the following: (i) All applications for formal site - specific amendments timely submitted under JCC 18.45.050(3); (ii) Any proposals for suggested amendments which the board of county commissioners elects to consider during the annual amendment process; and (iii) When applicable, any amendments recommended by the planning commission during its periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan that the board of county commissioners elects to consider during the amendment process. (c) Effect of Final Adopted Docket. The decision of the board of county commissioners to adopt the final docket does not constitute a decision or recommendation that the substance of any formal site - specific, suggested, or planning commission recommended amendment should be adopted. No additional amendment proposals shall be considered by the county after adoption of the final docket for that year; except for exceptions and emergencies as set forth in JCC 18.45,030, and county- sponsored proposals to amend the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in JCC 18.45.040(2)(x). [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.070 Final docket — DCD review and recommendation — SEPA review. The final docket as adopted by the board of county commissioners shall first be reviewed and assessed by DCD, and the administrator shall prepare a staff report and recommendation on each proposed amendment. DCD shall also be responsible for conducting SEPA review of all items on the final docket (see Article X of Chapter 18.10 JCC). As appropriate, the administrator shall solicit comments regarding the proposed amendments from the public and /or government agencies. The administrator shall also provide notice and opportunity for public comment as deemed appropriate given the nature of the proposed amendments and consistent with RCW 16, 10A� 140 and SEPA (Chapter 43.21 C RCW and Chapter I Q77 -11 WAC). [Ord. 2 -06 § 1 ] 18.45.080 Final docket — Planning commission and board of county commissioners review. (1) Planning Commission Review. All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed and assessed by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners after holding at least one open record public hearing. (a) Notice. The hearing before the planning commission shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. This notice shall include the following: 0) The purpose(s) of amending and /or updating the Comprehensive Plan; (ii) The deadline for submitting comments on the amendments; and (iii) A tentative hearing schedule, continued hearings may be held by the planning commission but no additional notices need be published. (b) Required Findings — Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC I &I5.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following: (i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and /or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and http: / /nt5.scbbs.comlcgi- bin /om_isapi.dll ?clientID= 502402585 &infobase jeffcol.nfo &rec.... 12/6/2007 Document Page 5 of 6 (iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. (c) Additional Required Findings — Formal Site - Specific Amendments. In addition to the required findings set forth in subsection (1)(b) of this section, in order to recommend approval of a formal site - specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings: (i) The proposed site - specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); (ii) The proposed site- specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (iii) The proposed site - specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county'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; (iv) In the case of a site - specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Access; (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; (v) The proposed site - specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long -term best interests of the county as a whole; (vi) The proposed site - specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; (vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site - specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; (viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70;1 RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. (d) Recommendation. The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or approved with conditions or modifications. (2) Board of County Commissioners Review — Appeals. (a) Board of County Commissioners Workshop. The board of county commissioners may first review the recommendation of the planning commission in a workshop meeting(s). (b) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. If after considering the matter at the regularly scheduled public meeting the board of county commissioners deems a change in the recommendation of the planning commission to be necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.1.0.310. The hearing shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. The'notice and public hearing for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments to the county's Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (e.g., this code), or for other actions of the board of county commissioners. (c) Criteria for Evaluation of Proposed Plan Amendments. The board of county commissioners shall apply the same criteria as the planning commission as set forth in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) of this section, as applicable. (d) Adoption by Ordinance. The board of county commissioners shall adopt any amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan by ordinance. This final action on the docket must be taken by the second regular board meeting in December of each year. (e) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to the Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any adopted Comprehensive Plan amendment to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the board. http: / /nt5.sebbs.com /cgi- bin /om_ isapi.dll ?clientID = 502402585 &infobase jeffcoI.nfo &rec... 12/6/2007 Document Page 6 of 6 K (f) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan shall be filed with and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36. 710A RCW. [Ord. 2 -06 § I] 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations. (1) Initiation. The text of the county's adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (also referred to within this code as "development regulations ") may be amended at any time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and land use map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land use map, the amendment shall be processed concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for plan amendments set forth in this chapter. "Implementing regulations" means the controls placed on development or land use activities by the county, including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see RCW 36.,0A.030). Proposed amendments. changes, or modifications may be initiated as follows: (a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 50.70.550; (b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or (c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent with the plan and land use map. (2) Notice. (a) Proposed amendments to the implementing regulations pursuant to subsection (1) of this section which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and land use map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as plan amendments consistent with this chapter. (b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the implementing regulations generated by DCD staff, the board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process shall be given by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. (c) Any additional notice required by state or local law (e.g., statutory notice requirements for amendments to the Shoreline Master Program), or deemed appropriate by the administrator, shall be paid for by the applicant. (3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site - specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable. (4) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting. (a) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that no change in the recommendation of the planning commission is necessary, the board may make a final determination on the proposed amendment(s) and adopt the amendments as recommended by the planning commission. (b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 1_8.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the planning commission is necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed amendments to implementing regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county commissioners. (5) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment(s) to the implementing regulations at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter '16,70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the board. (6) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations shall be filed with and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1 ] http: / /nt5.scbbs.com /cgi- bin /om_isapi.dll?clientID= 502402585 &infobase jeffcoI.nfo &rec... 12/6/2007 Document Article IV. Master Planned Resorts — Special Provisions 18.15.115 Designated. Page 1 of 3 "Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The only existing officially designated master planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to RCW 36.70.1.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site - specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required by JCC 14.45.080. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1] 18.15.120 Purpose and intent. Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features, including climate, vegetation, water, natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and geological features, which are desirable for a wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New master planned resorts authorized by RCW 36.70A.360 offer an opportunity to utilize these special features for enjoyment and recreational use, while bringing significant economic diversification and benefits to rural communities. The purpose of this article is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to those properties the board of county commissioners determines are appropriate for development as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1] 18.15.123 Allowable uses. The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in compliance with RCW 36.70A_-,60: (1) All residential uses including single - family and multifamily structures, condominiums, time -share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided, such uses are integrated into and support the on -site recreational nature of the master planned resort. (2) Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges, and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental; provided, that short-term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units. (3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to, golf courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses, practice facilities, and maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, hiking and nature trails, bicycle paths, equestrian facilities, sports complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent with the on -site recreational nature of the master planned resort. (4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites. (5) Visitor- oriented amenities, including, but not limited to: (a) Eating and drinking establishments; (b) Meeting facilities; (c) On -site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the needs of the users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas, gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real estate /property management offices; and (d) Recreation- oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and outdoor equipment rental and sales. (6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums. (7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the master planned resort. (8) Temporary and /or permanent structures to serve as sales offices. (9) 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 36.70.1.36 }. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1] 18.15.126 Requirements for master planned resorts. An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements: (1) Master Plan. 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: (a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational features that will attract people to the area and resort. 'oo�., I http: / /nt5.sebbs.com /cgi- bin /om _ isapi.dll ?clientID= 108155885 &infobase jeffcol.nfo &rec... 12/2/2007 Document Page 2 of 3 (b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term visitor accommodations, on -site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off -site recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and commercial and supportive services provided. (c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its users. (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. (f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program. (g) 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. (h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan wil I be met. 0) 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. (2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 141.40 JCC (Development Agreements), and RCW 36.700.170 through 36.7013.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.7013.170, the development agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set forth the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned resort, which may include, but are not limited to: (a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes; (b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant; (c) Procedures for review of site - specific development plans; (d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable), visitor- oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on -site recreational facilities, and on -site retail /commercial services; (e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 4_ .2 1 C RCW, and other development conditions; and (f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 11 8.40.840 and RCW 36.7013.170(3). (3) Fonmal Site - Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall require a site - specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to a master planned resort land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18,45,040; provided, that the subarea planning process authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and JCC 18,45,030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the county. The Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the county concurrent with the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for approval of a master planned resort. (4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a master planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.21€:.0 3 I and WAC 197-11-164 and 197- 11 -168. (5) Self - Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on -site urban -level commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70.A.I I(}. [Ord. 8 -06 § iJ 18.15.129 Application requirements and approval process.n http: / /nt5.scbbs.com /cgi- bin/om _ isapi.dll ?clientID= 108155885 &infobase jeffcol.nfo &rec... 12/2/2007 Document Page 3 of _3 MPR applications shall be processed as Type V permits under this UDC, requiring legislative approval by the board of county commissioners and the following: (1) A draft of the master plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of JCC 18.15.126(l). (2) A request for authorization of a development agreement, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.15.11-6(2) and Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements). (3) A request for a site - specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment necessary to meet the requirement of JCC 18.15. 126(3) and 18.45.0401. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1] 18.15.132 Decision- making authority. (1) The planning commission, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040 and 18.45.080, shall hear and make recommendations on master plans and site - specific applications for MPR land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. (2) The board of county commissioners, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040, 18.40.850(5) and 18.41 .080, shall designate new master planned resort land use districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the uses, densities, conditions and standards authorized for site - specific MPRs in a development agreement, and approve master plans. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1 ] 18.15.135 Criteria for approval. An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or approved with modifications. if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the application shall be denied. (1) The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI -D of this chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA)). (2) The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections of this code and all other codes and policies of the county. (3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. (4) The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and sufficient services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR. (5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on -site urban -level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. (6) Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views. (7) All on -site and off -site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and mitigated. (8) Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property. (9) The master plan establishes location - specific standards to retain and enhance the character of the resort. (10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long -term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agricultural or forest resource land production. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1] 18.15.138 Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this UDC. [Ord. 8 -06 § 1] j3 http: / /nt5.scbbs.com /cgi- bin/om _ isapi.dll ?clientID= 108155885 &infobase jeffcol.nfo &rec... 12/2/2007 CC'- -OC17 G Leslie Locke From: Jeanie Orr Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:00 AM To: Leslie Locke Cc: David Alvarez Subject: FW: Brinnon MPR Comments for BOCC Page 1 of 3 Attachments: 1367319445- Brinnon MPR Letter and Attachment A 12- 6- 07.pdf; 3561533726- Brinnon MPR Additional Attachments B to F 12- 6- 07.pdf Leslie, For BoCC with attachments. Thanks, Jeanie From: Gerald Steel [mailto:geraldsteel @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 8:32 PM To: Jeanie Orr; #Long -Range Planning Subject: Brinnon MPR Comments for BOCC Jeanie, Please confirm that you got this email. It includes the letter pasted in below with Attachment A in one email attachment, and the remaining Attachments B through F in the second attachment. This was not sent from my computer but rather was sent directly from my on -line email. Gerald Steel GERALD STEEL, PE ATTORNEY -AT -LAW 7303 YOUNG ROAD NW OLYMPIA, WA 98502 Tel /fax (360) 867 -1166 December 7, 2007 Board of County Commissioners PO BOX 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Postpone the Decision on the Brinnon MPR to the 2008 Docket GMA Violations re: Public Participation Dear Chairman and Members: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Brinnon Group and the Brinnon MPR Opposition. We are writing this letter to ask you to postpone the decision on the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive to the 2008 Docket. Any action you take to adopt a Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the 2007 Docket is highly likely to be found invalid by the Growth Board for interference with Goal 1 I (public 12/7/2007 Page 2 of 3 participation) of the Growth Management Act The relevant history of the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment is as follows: r* On March 1, 2006 the complete application for the Brinnon MPR was first submitted. Attachment A hereto (missing oversized Exhibits A -2, and C -1 to C -4). b The application is for a "Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment" submitted by Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. with property owners Black Point Properties, LLC, KMC Investments LLC, Bill Kaufman, and Chuck Manke. Attachment 7 of Attachment A hereto. -:> The application is for 251 acres. Attachment A hereto at fifth page. c� The 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket dated Sept. 5, 2007 restates the ownership, states that the project is approximately 252.64 acres, and incorporates the application (Attachment A hereto) and Sept. 5, 2007 DEIS. -:> Notice of public hearing before the planning commission states that the proposal is to change approximately 251 acres in 13 parcels east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road from RR to MPR on the Comprehensive Plan. -�, The Notice of public hearing before the BOCC has not been reviewed. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is for a MPR map change for the 251 acres on 13 parcels as shown on Attachment A hereto at A -24. This does not include any State of Washington property (WDFW or DNR), or the Jupiter Auto or Tudor properties. Therefore the December 3, 2007 staff recommendation may not be adopted because it includes State of Washington properties, Jupiter Auto, and Tudor properties that are beyond the scope of the site specific Statesman application. Further the SEPA analysis would be inadequate to support the staff recommendation because the EIS did not consider the impacts from having all of these properties included in the MPR designation with the Statesman property having its full proposed development. If this Board wishes to consider the December 3, 2007 staff recommendation, it should put off consideration of the Brinnon MPR until the 2008 Docket so that the amendment proposal can be refined and the EIS supplemented and so that there can be an opportunity for the public participation required by RCW 36.70, RCW 36.70A, RCW 43.21C, and the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations of the County. The application includes development of Cell D in Attachment A hereto at A -24. Inclusion of this 11.86 acre parcel has been abandoned in the application because it was not analyzed in the DEIS or FEIS. Therefore the scope of the proposed MPR application should be for just (251 - 11.86 =) 239.14 acres. No other property is in the proposed MPR site specific application and also analyzed by the EIS. The application proposes a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in Attachment A hereto at A -29. However, it does not propose any conditions, goals, or policies to guide the implementation of the Brinnon MPR or further language in the Comprehensive Plan to make that plan (including the Brinnon subarea plan) internally consistent. The proposed text amendment is inconsistent with the development analyzed in the EIS because the proposed text amendment has 1270 residential units. It also includes a marina that is not identified as part of the acreage proposed for the resort in the comprehensive plan application. The majority and minority planning commission recommendations include conditions on the Statesman MPR. There is no provision in RCW 36.70A or RCW 36.70 for adopting comprehensive plan amendments with conditions first proposed by the planning commission and not included in the planning commission's public review draft amendment language. The proper procedure is to implement any proposed conditions in goals and policies for the Brinnon MPR added to the comprehensive plan. 12/7/2007 Page 3 of 3 Just as the Port Ludlow MPR has a goal (LNG 23.0) and implementing policies (LNP 23.1 to 23.8) in the Comprehensive Plan to guide that MPR, so also should the proposed Brinnon MPR have goals and policies to guide its implementation. Such goals and policies must be supplied to the public before a planning commission hearing or proposed by the BOCC as a change to the planning commission recommendation pursuant to the requirements of the current Comprehensive Plan and RCW 36.70.380 et seq. Attachment B hereto (note particularly RCW 36.70.430 and 440 attached). Attachment C hereto includes selected pages from the current Comprehensive Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment must be consistent with this existing comprehensive plan language. For example, page C -1 of Attachment C states there is only one MPR in Jefferson County. This is an example of the internal inconsistencies that are being created with the Brinnon MPR proposal. But even more importantly page C -2 states no sprawl is allowed outside the new MPR but if the Statesman proposal is approved it would require no other urban development on nearby properties such as the State of Washington properties, Jupiter Auto, and Tudor properties. Note that LNP 3.3.3 (page C -3) suggests that densities around MPR should be RR 1:20 to prevent such sprawl. If such densities are not required around the Statesman MPR, then they should be required in a buffer inside the MPR. There is not compliance with the current proposals with Goal LNG 24.0 and the implementing policies LNP 24.1 to 24.13. See pages C -4 to C -6. There is also a lack of compliance with the comprehensive plan amendment procedures in Attachment D hereto and development regulation procedures in Attachment E hereto. The Statesman proposal is not consistent with the development regulations in Attachment F hereto. For example, JCC 18.15.123(2) requires 65% of the units to be used solely for short term rental and this is not being provided. This Board should not adopt a half -baked proposal and then cause the Growth Board to put the MPR under invalidity for as many years as the Irondale and Hadlock UGA will be under invalidity. The better solution is to refine the comprehensive plan proposal and hear it in the 2008 Docket. You are allowed by your policies and regulations to simply continue this project to the 2008 Docket for further refinements in the proposal to be completed by March 1, 2008. Respectfully, Gerald Steel P.E. Attorney for the Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition 12/7/2007 cc 107 Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:42 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Course Attachments: MPR BOCC Final.doc From: Andrea Mitchell [SMTP:ANDREA88 @EMBARQMAIL.COM] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:37:48 AM To: Phil Johnson Subject: Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Course Auto forwarded by a Rule Page 1 of 1 Thank you so much for your time last night. I understand you are not feeling well and know that it took a lot of extra effort. I've included a letter commenting on last night's meeting and listing some possible conditions. Andrea Mitchell Brinnon 12/7/2007 TO: .,.. Jefferson_County Board of Cointnrss. 0ne.r ^Deleted: $ ........... _. _ .. _ _ l r t> r?L.. ......................................__._..._..................... ............................... Andica �?teileia:. Brinnon Group & Brinnon..MPR Opposition_Group_Mcmher t7, ate._....._........ - _ ...................._............. ...................................... _....._..Dec;cher...7. ......' -7 Re: C omncnts on the126i07 OCeet 11 _ _. - - - _Cm _._.Conditions R.) Approtia� Deleted:I _. Deleted: I I'd like to comment briefly on a few points from last night's meeting. It concerns me that some -- residents feel that the proposal is the solution to t�,SUes- they 5. e_ a nelatry,e aspect, of rural l�fc._ Rural by definition, does not include mast of the_urban or suburban amenities they mention thee, would like to have. The Quilcene medical clinic was broua t_u.p negatively to have "minimal service." This is precisely what is proposed by the applicant for Brinnon.._One does have to ask why these new residents moved to a rural and remote area if they are not willing to sacrifice convenience for the positive rural qualities present. Areas like Brinnon are few and there are numerous p,i.ac_ .s with the services mentioned. The school principal mentioned 45 new students will_be gene..rated from the resort. The FEIS says 5 to 10 i. r. Sorne envision a new school or community center as part of the rnitiggtio s. I have heard that the new building could easily exceed $6,000,000, yet the number that is rumored to have been discussed with Statesman is $1,000,000. Many residents don't understand that they will be asked to help fund the upcoming Quilcene School District bond because our high school students attend school there. Taxpayers could be asked to pay for Quilcene and an additional amount for the difference between Statesman's MOU and the actual cost of building a new public school and community center on a flood plain. State or Federal matching funds may be more difficult to get since the building envisioned is multi -use. I'm curious about the school negotiations being tied to the golf course in the FEIS , Deleted: I I object to the statement in the FEIS on Rural Character that, "many commentators want Brinnon to remain the same and not be subject to the impact of a Master Planned Resort." Many residents have a fundamental disagreement on the merits of the MPR model. They fear that the environmental, social, and rural costs will far exceed the economic benefits, they are not necessarily advocating no change. Many of us are, in fact, implementing change. We simply believe in diff€re,nt, growth model. We are concerned about the ability of the MPR to be economically successful. Nlany M.P_Ks are ppLp ed..or are being built in the area already. Add that to our existing MPR and others, such as Alderbrook, and you can see one _of.,the,reasons for concern. The proposal is only a'' /z hour drive from Port Ludlow, which is by some counts, not terribly successful and alreac y _ contains a 201f cctursc, wh Gh:_the deevelcr per .rsprc ently subs €diz.inr )along ti� th the restaurants. We think it's possible that the standard golf course attraction may be out - dated. It certainly is cause for much environmental concern__Ihis may be a clear case of environmental cost out - weighing economic benefit I wonder_whk titre are -not atteinoting-jo stimulate the desire for golf or the_other amenities . that exist in...'ort I u low_i stead ofbuildin,� 4whole new MPR, f From what I know of commercial office space, many developers have built high -rise office towers and then have been unable to lease the space. It's simply that many developers brought their projects on line at the same time and created a glut. It's entirely possible that the same will happen with MPRs. From our conversations with other counties on the success of their own MPR's, we have learned that MPRs can require significant unforeseen expense on the county side to oversee and run. In some cases the county costs have been outweighing the economic gains. Problems not anticipated or discussed in the conceptual stages have surfaced. MPR urban density development has changed rural areas outside of MPR boundaries. I'm trying to find a way to express the disappointment I feel with the DCD staff recommendation. I have talked with staff and partly understand the reasoning, but still feel blindsided. Staff knows that development will occur on the west side of the highway. 'l'.o ensure a._s- ew.er- „w_i,ll,.. -s.e. rve the dc,ve, pprnent,they included the land in the MPR designation. My take on this is that it is actually creating the sprawl that the MPR model seeks to avoid.] know the_inelusiOn under the Comp Pl -an arnendrncnt is an effort to satisfy that argument, ho..w, ve..r the sewer hook -up will increase development possibilities on the west side of the highway that otherwise would not be feasible. I'm told that this inclusion would increase the,_ct>m.,111Lenit.y s_ control over some of the development. I need more time to address that, but is this DCD's place? _'1 he services to be built on thc., -west side cat thebigtny,av_are designed rx }t only for resort use but the general community and travel in <� -- - __ pLbli,e _ 1_ his vc uldc c Y t>reacr direct conflict ithC c> �eieted: ¶ .g< 111 -.- _s c Another thought is that staff is ultimately attempting to change the town location through economic forces. The town of Brinnon is located on a flood plain and I'm fully aware of and am s }Fmpatl etic tp the problems this causes for additional development, emergency planning, environmental /critical areas issues, s feAy. etc. Even though the town is historic, I can see the problems from a planner's point of view. Again, though, is this DCD's place without idcnti_fIyina the intended result and subjecting the plan to community scrutiny? If this is a motive, it's clearly in violation of the BSAP objectives. If this is the effect, it is also in violation of the BSAP objectives. Another 11` at the rrresGnt l,cycl_ . ro «ra-ginr is shouldib a,ocIt gee as_the DCD Staff has Irrc'pc7se,c3 � i. 7nrf ic-int. c hangs :, to the proflc�sal_ & di lonal_l:y,.l have read the Sc terriber 5.2007 notrc,na to the stats:._?c,giiclang 2007 cx ecteci C onifrrctjcpsiye Plan amendments „ and i read the inforniat on on Ml. A_06 87 to not cover the staf(�recoinmendation Although I am not an attorrw I would like to Suggest that the coar.nty ccrtnrnr55ioners consider the Deed for the re- notic.ine of the in ,e on thc, staff reconnnendation This rMgirement is outlined in RCW 36.70A. 106( 1). There are quite a few expert opinions that have been made available to the BOCC on the FEIS. They can speak better than most of us on the merits or shortcomings of the environmental elements of the FEIS. We beg you to take note that many have weighed in saying that the FEIS is deficient enough to preclude a zoning change decision and must be sent back for revision. Specifically, traffic figures have been mentioned as incorrect. The EIS cornparison of different alternatives is incornplete as it doesn't: rrrclud cornpaaison of I I)tis or ERt is, sornethins that is pivotal rnrnental....irn_pgrct.. We note that zero storm_ water discharge is not an of�jectrve it) the in arittmc village._Ihav'e not read_th€. trill FEIS ..for lack oftinie,.h.owever. l don't see any mention of a carbon neutral goal, as was advertised 12y.�Lll _qp ant in the Port Townsend lbe|ieve the population growth projections for the rural county in Chapter 3of the Comprehensive Plan are incorrect, showing u projected decline instead ofgrowth. ,Even though I favor the no action alternative and a denial of the rezone request, I'm --|muuet*d: I � including a list of p9igntial conditions- Deleted: ______________________-_- • Except for development directly above the marina, no development intheMpR-- Deleted: I area should ho visible from Hwy |Ol,except for the entrance sign. The sign should be a maximum of two ground monuments, a maximum of8 feet tall, and u maximum o[64 square feet. • that there be no housing uonb of Black Point rd. except for the housing directly above the Marina. • Development should bo placed tobe able to keep 50Y6of the best groves of evergreen trees undisturbed on the site to protect rural character and to maintain "uoottingofxign|fiomtoaturulmncxdieu" purnuotioRCVV36.7OA.360(|). • thu1 objectives clearly state that the resort io created with the "primary focus ou destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations" consistent with RCW 36.70A.360 (1) and to that end; the developer permanently designate over 50Y6of their total uoitmhnabort'teonvixitor who do not have ownership interest and that those units hcideodfiedto the public and the county. • that the total MP}l designated land included iu the amendment, including commercial, not exceed 5OO Equivalent residential units (BRDx). • that u golf course not he positioned over un aquifer recharge area. • that development be regulated under regulations in force at the time that each building permit application iu submitted and vested. • that the county not accept or vest applications for development agreements or permits prior to adopting development regulations for the project or prior to the GMA Board ruling on the validity ot the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan amendment for this project. • that all project pen-nits will comply with the critical areas regulations in affect at the time the project permit vests, and the development agreement shall not state otherwise. • that the county adopt u comprehensive plan provision that disallows any additional master planned resort. • that the developer provide, equip, and staff mnon'xbe. urban fircstation. • that the public lhas Lfull access tothe xhc' development agreement, and permits, so that they may document any shortcomings during and after construction. • that the public ho fully notified and involved io any MODnegotiations Deleted: __ J'ni under a tirne constraint, but wish to thatik eXerv.one. including the applicant. for their time ar Deleted: I Alexander W. Mackie PHONE (360) 705 -9042 EMAIL: AMackie @perkinseoie.com December 7, 2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Master Planned Resorts Dear Commissioners: Perldns Cole m Market Street N.E., Suite zoo Olympia, WA 985oi -ioo8 PHONE 36o.956.3300 -Ax 36o.956.1208 RECEIVEu ".perkinscoic.cor DEC 0 7 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Statesman Corporation appreciates all of the time and public process involved in the community review of the Statesman application for a Master Planned Resort at Black Point in Brinnon. We now ask for your approval. During the discussion, it is apparent that the groups that opposed the designation of land in the Brinnon Subarea Plan for a Master Planned Resort still oppose the resort. But the Comprehensive Plan and the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which are the legal and formal expressions of the public interest of the citizens of Jefferson County, both call for the development of a Master Planned Resort at this location. GMA provisions for Master Planned Resorts emphasize on -site recreational facilities, such as the golf course and marina facilities, as well as the hotel and conference facilities, which make the Statesman proposal an outstanding response to the community desire for a Master Planned Resort. Your comprehensive plan also addressed the need to have the project environmentally sensitive and to have "on- site" treatment of wastewater, which calls for the type of Class "A" recycled program proposed for the project. Many of the critics of the EIS are asking for information that is provided at the project stage, once the County identifies what is allowed to be constructed in the area and a formal, and fully engineered plan is submitted for approval. Your FEIS recognizes the distinction between the initial "programmatic stage," at which environmental issues are identified and mechanisms identified to address the question, and the project level where specific engineering and other solutions are identified. The specific stormwater and water quality questions put forth by the 57577 -000 l /LEGAL 1 3786217.1 ANCHORAGE , BEIJING BE! LEVUE BOISE CHICAGO - DENVER LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PHOENIX , PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE - WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie I1P and Affiliates Jefferson County Board of Commissioners December 7, 2007 Page 2 Northwest Watershed Group and the Jamestown/Sklallam Tribe and Taylor Shellfish representatives are questions to be addressed very specifically in the plans required for project approval, including: • Stormwater management plan, including no discharge requirements for the Duckabush tidelands. • Habitat management plan, assuring compliance with County critical area rules and "no new loss" policies. Marina management plan, including stormwater, marina maintenance and operation and an adaptive management program to address both present and on -going issues with boat traffic. (Remember the new state boat launch is also anticipated to facilitate increased use of the harbor.) The FEIS indicated there is no plan to increase the capacity of the marina and thus no change in the capacity when the project was expanded in the 1990s . The clarification is that greater usage may be anticipated as a result of the upgrade of the facilities from the present decrepit condition, and the attraction of the resort. The marina management program and adaptive management program s are designed to address boat - related questions, as it is impossible to quantify potential increased use. Golf course management plan, addressing the construction and development of the course in a manner suitable to the site to assure the FEIS mandate of no negative impact to Hood Canal and the associated tidelands and intertidal areas is met. A letter from Mr. Wright provided with my testimony Thursday night a more detailed letter on how this is to be achieved. The Commissioners asked for additional information concerning Audubon international certification and a supplemental note from Mr. Wright describing that process is attached. I have attached Statesman's suggested findings in response to both the statutory criteria, and the GMA indicators required to be reviewed under the County code for your consideration. It is important for the County to address the Planning Commission recommendation and the Staff recommendation in two separate motions to avoid confusing the decisions being made. The Planning Commission recommendation is the approval of the Statesman alternative east of US Hwy 101 with the conditions of the FEIS and the seven additional conditions, which are acceptable to Statesman. We would ask the Board to first approve the Planning Commission recommendation. The Staff has also recommended that for the remainder of the lands in the Bn'nnon Subarea Plan outside the Statesman lands, that the alternative labeled Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative in 57577 -0001 /LEGA 1- 1 3786217.1 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners December 7, 2007 Page 3 Chapter 4 of the FEIS also be approved to move the lands from conceptual to actual MPR approved area. A separate vote in favor of that addition will allow both to be reviewed on their own merits. If you elect to approve the Staff recommended additions, we ask that you make it clear that the Statesman responsibility to the added lands would be to provide easements or access to, common facilities, such as sewer and water, but that any oversizing of transportation, sewer, water, or other facilities necessary to serve the properties outside of the Statesman proposal be the economic and legal responsibility of the property owners proposing such additions and not Statesman. Your consideration and affirmative vote are appreciated. Sincerely yours, 4 1� Alexander W. Mackie AWM /kr Enclosure 57577 -000 ULEGAL ] 3786217.1 Page 1 of 2 Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie) From: Wayne S. Wright [wwright @geoengineers.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:20 AM To: Mackie, Sandy (Perkins Coie) Cc: Rentz, Karen (Perkins Coie); Garth Mann Subject: Audubon International Certification Program Importance: High Hello Sandy, The Audubon certification program is largely based on the standards and pollutant controls set my local states, counties, and cities where the facilities are located and blended with the goals and desires of the individual golf courses. The three certification measures are Gold, Silver and Bronze. To achieve Gold and Silver, one must contract with Audubon Environmental Services, Inc., a for - profit consulting arm of Audubon International. Bronze certifications are from projects that were developed by outside consultants (like GeoEngineers) and are submitted to Audubon for approval. Audubon International certification program requires two specific documents regarding any particular project. These are the Environmental Master Plan and a National Resource Management Plan. The Environmental Master Plan guides siting, design, and management decisions relative to environmental aspects of the project. The Natural Resource Management Plan defines extensive environmental education and on -site technical direction toward sustainable development and best management practices. The elements I noted in my letter to the Commissioners are all included and then some. The primary six elements of the National Resource Management Plan are: 1. Wildlife conservation and habitat enhancement 2. Waste reduction and management 3. Energy efficiency 4. Water conservation 5. Water quality management and monitoring 6. Integrated pest management From my experience, these signature programs are very good and typically meet the local jurisdictional requirements to meet local laws and regulations. One does not need the certification from Audubon to achieve environmental stewardship. In the case of Pleasant Harbor, we can work closely with the County to develop specific standards that are appropriate for the site and a conduct a monitoring program that documents performance of the final project. The Commissioners and County staff can have as much involvement with this as necessary to 12/7/2007 Page 2 of 2 alleviate their concerns. The details of this part of the project will be required as we proceed with the construction planning and site development details. I hope this helps, please call if you need more information. Wayne S. Wright, PWS Federal Programs Director Principal, Fisheries & wetlands Scientist I GeoEngineers t: 360.769.8400 f: 360.769.8700 C; 360.265.1340 e: wwrrqg.ht�a�eo-engineers.com 1550 Woodridge DR SE Port Orchard. Washington 98366 www.gepengineers.com Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email. text. table, and or figure), if provided. and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by Leo —Engineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. 1.2/7/2007 GROWTH MANAGEMENT INDICATORS Statesman Corporation recommends the Board of County Commissioners consider the adoption of the following findings in response to the Growth Management indicators set forth at JCC 18.45.050(4)(b). 1. Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster /slower than anticipated or is not materializing Recommended Findings: The Master Plarnled Resort for Brinnon was first identified conceptually in 1998 and mapped in the Brinnon Subarea Plan and on the Jefferson County Land Use map in 2002. The present application was initially filed in 2005. Several earlier attempts were made and did not come to fruition. The Statesman application is the first to be reviewed fully through the County process. The growth and development anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan is progressing slower than anticipated, providing support for now moving forward with this project. 2. Whether the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has diminished or increased Recommended Findings: The County does not have the capacity in South County to provide adequate services for a new Master Planned Resort. To address this issue the County has required, through SEPA review, that the application enter into memorandums of understanding with the local service providers, including but not limited to schools, fire districts, and specific County and regional service providers to address (1) facilities necessary to assure adequate levels of service and (2) funding or finance packages necessary to assure concurrency in facilities and services consistent with the requirements of state law. The memorandums of understanding shall be in place prior to the approval of development permits for any phase creating a demand for the services necessary. The acquisition and development of service capability may be phased in with development phases to assure concurrency is met, consistent with the needs of each specific new development. 3. Whether sufficient urban land is designated & zoned to meet projected demand and need Recommended Findings: The Statesman application, addressing a Master Planned Resort east of US Hwy 101 is within the lands previously identified in the Jefferson County Land Use map and is sufficient to serve the demand and need for the Statesman proposal. The Staff recommendation to include the BSAP proposal west of US Hwy 101 is within the lands previously identified in the Jefferson County Land Use map and is sufficient to serve the demand and need for the Statesman proposal. 4. Whether any of the assumptions on which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer found to be valid Recommended Findings: This provision applies to requests to change the Comprehensive Plan. The application under review seeks to implement the present Comprehensive Plan objective to 57577 -0001 /LEGAL] 3783452.1 achieve a Mater Planned Resort at Brinnon to implement the long -term plan of the County. S. Whether changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the CP goals and the basic values embodied in the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement Recommended Findings: No. The application is designed to implement the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to achieve a Master Planned Resort in the Brinnon/Black Point area. 6. Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments Recommended Findings: No. The application is designed to implement the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to achieve a Master Planned Resort in the Brinnon/Black Point area. 7 Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and GMA or between the Comprehensive Plan and the County wide planning policies Recommended Findings: No, the application under review implements GMA authority to approve Master Planned Resorts in rural areas, County Comprehensive Plan goals to provide Master Planned Resorts in the Brinnon Subarea, and County wide planning policy goals to improve economic development and environmental protection in the County. 8. Whether circumstances related to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and/or the area in which the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be located have substantially changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption Recommended Findings: Here again, this criteria focuses on requests for a material change in the Comprehensive Plan, rather than the implementation of the existing plan. The goal of a Master Planned Resort is still present. The material change is that the County now has a specific plan that is designed to achieve that goal. 9. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid or whether new information is available which was not considered during the Comprehensive Plan adoption process or any annual amendments of the Comprehensive Plan Recommended Findings: The application is designed to implement the assumptions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and is the next logical step in achieving the objective of a Master Planned Resort at Brinnon. 10. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County Recommended Findings: The public interest of the County is reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for a Master Planned Resort at Brinnon that provides tourist, recreation, and economic opportunities in the Brinnon area while providing protection to the enviromnent and facilities and services adequate to meet increased demands created by the resort. The present plan achieves those widely held goals as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and approval of the application is the next step in achieving those goals. 5777- 0001 /LEGAL] 3783452.1 11. The proposed site - specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for traffic and does not adversely affect other adopted levels of service for other public services, sheriff, fire, parks, emergency medical, other govt services Recommended Findings: The action requested is the approval of the conceptual master plan for the Master Planned Resort at Brinnon with mitigating conditions as recommended by the FEIS and Planning Commission. Provision is made through succeeding phases, including the required zoning and development proceedings before the Planning Commission, and ultimately the FEIS and/or the conditions on permit approvals, including and not limited to the memorandums of understanding to be incorporated into any plat, shoreline, and binding site plan approval to assure all concurrency requirements would be met. 12. The proposed site- specific CP amendment is consistent w / the goals, policies and strategies of the various elements of the CP Recommended Findings: The Brinnon Subarea Plan and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan have identified the Black Point area as an area of significant natural amenity and suitable for a Master Planned Resort. The plan called for a resort with onsite recreation and conference facilities, the ability to handle waste water on site, and provide for adequate public services and facilities while protecting the environment. The proposed application achieves those objectives. 13. The proposed site - specific Comprehensive Plan amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the County's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks and environmental features that cannot be mitigated and will not place unmitigated burdens on existing or planned service capabilities Recommended Findings: The project had a potential for significant adverse impacts, which is why the County required a full EIS. The EIS went through formal scoping, and based on the scoping determinations the County published a draft EIS on September 5, 2007, allowed 45 days for comments, held four Planning Commission subcommittee meetings to receive comments and received public comment through October 24, 2007. A final EIS, including response to comments and a summary of required mitigation, including adjustments based on public comments, was included in the FEIS issued by the County November 27, 2007. The environmental documentation and conditions, including the additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission report, are adequate to address the environmental concerns and avoid significant adverse environmental consequences. 14. If the proposed site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendment is to the land use map, that the subject parcels) is /are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and anticipated land use development including but not limited to (A) access, (B) provision of utilities and (C) compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Recommended Findings: The land proposed for the Master Planned Resort has previously been designated a conceptual site for a Master Planned Resort. Preliminary studies demonstrate that access and utilities necessary to serve the project can be provided, and adequate permit controls are in place to assure that the facilities will be constructed to meet concurrency standards. 57577 -0001 /LEGAL13783452.1 The project is an urban use in a rural area as specifically contemplated in the Growth Management Act and contemplated in the Jefferson County Subarea Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Conference facilities and the golf course facilities are all contemplated in the Brinnon Subarea Plan and the project reduces potential impact by retaining buffers, particularly along the Hood Canal shoreline, limiting density to less than four units per acre overall (the minimum density generally accepted to support urban services) and within the general density of the pre - GMA density already in the area, and by limiting impervious surfaces and providing for public access. As such, the project meets the County objective of providing an adequate Master Planned Resort while integrating the resort into the existing rural community. IS. If the proposed site- specific Comprehensive Plan attrendtnent is to the land use map, that the amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designations of other properties unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the best long -term interests of the County as a whole. Recommended Findings: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan already provided for a Master Planned Resort at this location and has rural zones in place on the surrounding lands. There is no request to change the land use maps in the vicinity of the Master Planned Resort and the existing land use designations are consistent with both GMA and the county wide planning policies of the County. Any future change would have to address the long -term interests of the County and consistency with GMA and the county wide planning policies. 16. The proposed site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendment does not materially affect the land use and population projections that are the basis of the County's Comprehensive Plan Recommended Findings: The proposal provides a viable means to implement the County's long - range plans and implements the specific objective of achieving a Master Planned Resort in this area of significant natural amenity and providing economic boost to the area. The project is very limited for long -term residents and is predominately directed to short-term tourist use. As such, the project does not materially or adversely affect either the land use plans or population projections that are the basis of the County Comprehensive Plan. 17, If the proposed site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendment is within an unincorporated UGA, the proposed amendment does trot materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities to the immediate area and the overall UGA Recommended Findings: Not applicable. 18. The proposed anrendnient is consistent with the GMA, the County Wide Planning Policies, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies, and any other local, state or federal law. Recommended Findings: The proposal, as conditioned and mitigated by the FEIS, and Planning Commission recommendation meets the County, GMA, CWPP, and local and land use policies of the County and is in the public interest of Jefferson County. 57577-000 1 /LEGAL 13783452.1 The proposal before the Board of County Commissioners consists of two recommendations: 1. The recommendation of the Planning Commission (7 -2) to approves the Statesman application for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort on the Master Planned Resort lands east of US Hwy 101 as defined in Chapter 1 of the FEIS and as conditioned and mitigated in Chapter 5 of the FEIS and the additional seven conditions of the Planning Commission. Motion 1: 2. The recommendation of the Staff to include the Jupiter and Tudor properties in the approved Master Planned Resort as shown in the Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative in Chapter 4 of the FEIS for those properties within the MPR westerly of US Hwy 101. Such properties are to be developed by land owners other than Statesman, and would independently be required to provide and pay for such additional water, sewer, transportation, and environmental mitigation as required for development of their sites. Statesman is not expected to provide additional facilities or capacity for the additional BSAP facilities, but shall during plat review, provide easements for such future development should the west side owners seek to add capacity to the Statesman facilities to serve the west side facilities. The FEIS layout describes an intensity and potential uses which complement the Statesman Master Planned Resort, but may be provided in a different configuration, so long as the primary facilities and services are provided. The west side development would be subject to the conditions of Chapter 5 of the FEIS to the extent applicable. Motion 2. The Board of Jefferson County Commissioners approves the Staff recommendation to include within the approved Master Planned Resort those properties located west of US Hwy 101 as shown in Chapter 4 of the FEIS, BSAP alternative, as stated as an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The planning agency is directed to develop a set of zoning ordinances and a development agreement addressing the specific standards and processes applicable to the project to achieve the intended Master Planned Resort and assure the County that all required mitigating conditions will be properly and timely implemented, and that the Statesman project provide easements for access by the west side property owners, but that any incremental costs of designing, constructing, or servicing the west side properties be born by the west side property owners. 57577 -0001 /LEGAL 13783452.1 Master Planned Resorts — Statutory Criteria, RCW 36.70A.360 The application requests a Master Planned Resort be identified as a permitted use on the land use map of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, the County will develop project - specific development regulations, much like those controlling development in Port Ludlow, and a development agreement addressing such issues as phasing and processing of the application and future development. Once the development regulations and development agreement are in place, the County may process permits under Jefferson County Code provisions which addresses the review and approval of project - specific applications necessary to permit development of the planned project. State law addresses a number of specific considerations before a Master Planned Resort may be finally approved. RCW 36.70.360. A summary of specific requirements and the recommended findings are set forth below. (1) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self - contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short -term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on -site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. Finding: Jefferson County identified the Brinnon/Black Point area as an area of significant natural amenities in its Comprehensive Plan and Brinnon Subarea Plan, 2002 amendments. The application provides a destination resort and convention facilities, including marina and golf facilities as well as paths and open spaces for on -site and water enjoyment. (2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on -site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master- planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas. Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing certificates of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place of use for a water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever- an existing water right. All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise. Finding: The application provides for sewer, water, and stormwater services on site, and such facilities will be limited by regulation to serving only the urban uses approved within the 57577- 0001 /LEGAL] 3785321.1 resort. Public facilities, including police, fire, EMS, and utility may be provided by outside municipal corporations, and the FEIS requires that prior to any specific project approval for development that an agreement be reached as to the levels of service required to serve the Master Planned Resort and the proper allocation of costs, including tax revenues and mitigation fees, necessary to assure that such facilities are provided and property maintained and operated to serve the needs of the resort. Limitations consistent with GMA requirements shall be included in the agreements and approved as part of any project approval. Water rights are being applied for and will be subject to the requirements of WDOE concerning the order of priority, the granting of such permits and authorizing use. Project review shall include prohibitions against salt water intrusion and the protection of existing wells. (3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on -site recreational nature of the resort. Finding: The FEIS contains a condition that the non resort residential uses are integrated into the resort and support the on -site recreational nature of the resort as described in Chapters 1 and 5 of the, FEIS including support of the planned golf course, marina, and conference and community centers. (4) 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; Finding: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan specifically identified the Brinnon/Black Point area and contained 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.110; Finding: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan has already designated the surrounding area for rural uses and has development regulations in place controlling rural uses. No uses other than the recognized rural uses are pennitted outside the Master Planned Resort unless they are consistent with the rural area development regulations. (c) The county includes a finding as apart 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; Finding: The lands in the application have previously been used for resort and related purposes and do not have any long -tern commercial significance for agriculture, forestry, or mining, and would not be designated for such resource uses if not approved for the master plan. (d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development 57577 -0001 /LEGAL] 3785321.1 regulations established for critical areas; and Finding: The FEIS requires the development of a marina management plan, a habitat management plan, a stormwater management plan, and a golf course management plan prior to any development approval. The review of the plans will assure consistency with and compliance with County critical area requirements and the express goal to assure no net loss of important habitat and wetland functions and values as the site is develops. (e) On -site and off -site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated The application for approval at this stage is for approval of the conceptual master plan as part of the Jefferson County land use map. The FEIS has identified the areas of potential impact and provided reasonable and feasible mitigation to assure that on -site and off -site infrastructure and service impacts are fully mitigated. The County will process development regulations to provide specific processes and standards to assure the mitigating requirements and standards are achieved in practice. Once applications are submitted for project - specific approval, supplemental environmental review will be required to assure that all potential on- and off -site potential impacts are properly addressed and mitigated to achieve required levels of service or protection. 57577 -0001 /LEGAL 13785321.1 December 7, 2007 To The Board of County Commissioners: I have enclosed for your reference the VIP Vacation Club Resort opportunity for over 10,000 homeowners who enjoy a Statesman residential property. These people are just a small portion of the marketing that is essential to successfully maintain the Resort Properties, including Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resorts. Conferences and Weddings are to become a large component of the anticipated guests to Pleasant Harbor. People want to be around a clean and invigorating environment where we "Practice What We Preach" by protecting the ecosystem. Imagine a World Class Health Club with a European Grotto /Spa to Rejuvenate and Refresh. Imagine hiking and bird watching with planned tours of the Olympic Forest, for those who live in crowded cities. Imagine Boat Trips to enjoy the beauty of Puget Sound or learning how to Sail or Tie a Fish Hook or learning how to be healthy through nutritious cuisine. The Golf Course and the Maritime Village are just a small part of the atmosphere planned for Residents and Guests of Pleasant Harbor Resort. The question to the Board of County Commissioners is: WHY? • Why should people bend to the Lesser - Common - Denominator? • Why should pressure from people who do not want improvements in quality -of -life ... determine what is best for others? • Why not exhibit the Trust, and Lead - the -Why for Jefferson County to be seen around the globe as the Trend Setter for Environmentally Sound Developments? Dr. M. Garth Mann President & CEO Statesman Group of Companies THE VIP VACATION CLUB RESORTS 5450 E. DeerValley Drive i'hoenLt, Arizona. £iStit (460) 5850808 wwc%!toscana iiving,reet Tosc&NA OF DESERT RIDGE: Statesman's Toscana ol'Dr ertRidgeisauniquemasterplanned cmamunityof%riugalifestyle for re Mationand.socialization.With over 300 dar of sunshine this premium Icx -atlon has tremendous ap- peal being surfoumled by shopping and restaurants within the Desert Ridge Marketplace as well m tracking outothe Nick Paldo. Championship 'Wildfire, Golf Course. The VitimiteAddressf Slti and Boa $amp Day (4,D3) &27-9499 www p in eridgemtnres ort.COM Puget Sound Res on Village Washington (4-15) 890-1654 www.,ple-asaiitharbordev.com PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & GOLF RESORT: Sound approximately 2 hours welt ofSeaule Washington.Pnloy the serene beautiful surroundings in one of the condominium j town home stvie unks.Relax Your body and restore sT,ur senses at the Link, style 78 hole golf course with Conference Center/ Spa. Be one with nature as you take a stroll along the marina prome- nade and through the MaritimeVillage as the sun sets. PINE RIDGE MOMAIN RESORT: Piste - -Ridge I fountain Resort over Lake Windermere is a 700 -unit Resort Community located within -Ehe boundaries of the District of luvermere.This unique location; being developed in the play- ground of Invennere, BC, offers residents and guests so much morel There is akaost perfect weather to enjoy Great Golf,Water Sports on Lake Windermere, or winter Snow Skiing at Panoranta. Over 10,000 Homeowners in the United States and Canada are automatically members of the Statesman Vacation Club Resorts. As a Statesman Purchaser you qualify for Discount Vacation Packages to: • * Toscana of Desert Ridize — Scottsdale/Phoenix, Arizona • * Pine Ridge Mountain Resort — over Lake Windermere, British Columbia • * Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort — coming to Puget Sound, Washington State. For information, contact any Statesman Sales Center. Calgary, Alberta 403.256.4151 Scottsdale/Phoenix, Arizona 888.291 -9430 Seattle, Washington 360.830 -8971 Raleigh, North Carolina 919.460.8141 Invermere, British Columbia 403.238.3313 London, Ontario 403.256.4151 c'C �. �C`7 Page 1 of 1 PC la�l`1��1 Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:04 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Blackpoint Project From: Nanneroo @aol.com[SMTP:NANNEROO @AOL.COM] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:57:01 AM To: David Sullivan; John Austin; Phil Johnson Subject: Blackpoint Project Auto forwarded by a Rule I� t i Dear Commissioners Austin, Sullivan, Sierra Club has concerns and objections to the proposed Blackpoint Project. A local branch of Sierra Club formed a number of years ago to look at issues related to the Hood Canal. We have just learned you are accepting letters until noon today and we would like to go on record objecting to the project. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Woodman Chair - Hood Canal Sierra Club Poulsbo, Wa. Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http: / /money.aol.com /special/ hot - products- 2007 ?NCID= aoltop00030000000001) 12/7/2007 cc . 1"xD o 11 Jefferson County Commissioners Dear Sirs: Decem,�„ �,CEIVED DEC 07 2001 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The proposed resort at Brinnon would be both an ecological and a sociological disaster, and probably an economic disaster for the area. It is completely out of scale. I envision years of litigation if approval is given. Environmentally the Hood Canal is already in dire straits from pollution, especially as regards oxygen content. Sociologically, the massive influx of workers and visitors will turn the Brinnon area into effectively a third world community, existing only to serve the rich invaders. Economically, the resort is not to improve the life of the inhabitants, but to fatten the wallets of the investors. Sincerely, Wesley D. Ludemann 116 Vancouver Lane Port Townsend, WA 98368 phone: 360- 385 -1232 wesludemann@earthlink.net VC, ACC DEC 0 7 2007 JEFFERSON COUN`f1C comm1SSiONERS Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson St Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Proposed Brinnon resort Dear Sirs, 116 Vancouver Lane Port Townsend WA 98368 December 7, 2007 The resort proposed for the Brinnon area is way out of scale for the area (how many boat slips? how many condominiums ?). What would this do for the quality of life of the people who live there? What would this do to the traffic level on 2 -lane highway 101? How many trucks will it take to supply the clients of the resort? What will that many boats do to the fragile ecosystem of Hood Canal? Jefferson County may like the idea of the increased tax revenue, but the deleterious effects on south county must be considered too. Yours sincerely, n G Carolyn R. Hunt Dear Board of County Commissioners: From a previous letter I sent to you and from my testimony at the public hearing, each of you know what I think about the Statesman's MPR, but if you would allow me one more request, I must urge you to re- read the letter sent to you by Donna Simmons, of the Hood Canal Environmental Council. In case you have to shuffle through too many letters to find it, I am attaching it for your convenience. I am quite concerned about the expansion recommendation by DCD outside of the MPR - because this is an open invitation to urban sprawl. My personal preference would be for you to deny the proposal to amend the county's comprehensive plan to allow such development to proceed. But IF you consider approval with multiple added conditions of your own, then I suggest that you select the recommendations made by the Planning Commission rather than the alternative selected by DCD - which will compound environmental impact. The proper and responsible steps that should be taken warrant an extension of the decision deadline so that you have more time to ponder the tremendous impact of this project on our entire county for years to come - and the destruction of a habitat that will never recover. Thank you, Connie Gallant PO Box 490 Quilcene 98376 12/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 Miranda chryver From: Connie Gallant [cg @conniegallant.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:25 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Statesman's MPR Attachments: 2330700741 -HCEC letter to Jeff. Co. Bocc 12 -6 -07[1 ].doc Dear Board of County Commissioners: From a previous letter I sent to you and from my testimony at the public hearing, each of you know what I think about the Statesman's MPR, but if you would allow me one more request, I must urge you to re- read the letter sent to you by Donna Simmons, of the Hood Canal Environmental Council. In case you have to shuffle through too many letters to find it, I am attaching it for your convenience. I am quite concerned about the expansion recommendation by DCD outside of the MPR - because this is an open invitation to urban sprawl. My personal preference would be for you to deny the proposal to amend the county's comprehensive plan to allow such development to proceed. But IF you consider approval with multiple added conditions of your own, then I suggest that you select the recommendations made by the Planning Commission rather than the alternative selected by DCD - which will compound environmental impact. The proper and responsible steps that should be taken warrant an extension of the decision deadline so that you have more time to ponder the tremendous impact of this project on our entire county for years to come - and the destruction of a habitat that will never recover. Thank you, Connie Gallant PO Box 490 Quilcene 98376 12/7/2007 HOOD CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL P.O. Box 87, Seabeck, Washington 98380 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Attn: Commissioners: The Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) has been involved in Jefferson County's approval process for the Statesman Group's proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort since the spring of 2006. HCEC submitted written and oral testimony to the Department of Community Development (DCD) during the scoping and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public input periods for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Master Plan. The following comments are based on our review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Planning Commission's conditions as part of its recent recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The HCEC has consistently expressed serious concerns about the Statesman Group's proposal for a Master Planned Resort (MPR). We believe that it would result in unacceptable environmental impacts to Hood Canal, undermine the complex research and recovery efforts currently under way to determine probable causes and possible solutions to the serious water quality problems plaguing the canal, and result in undesirable changes to the rural character of the area. These and more specific concerns, e.g. water rights, wastewater treatment method, adequacy of stormwater plans, and wetlands mitigation, were spelled out in our 10 -14 -07 letter to the DCD. Unfortunately, neither the changes outlined in the FEIS nor the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission have adequately addressed our concerns. Therefore the HCEC position remains unchanged. We continue to oppose the Statesman Group proposal and to support the no- action Alternative (A), which would allow for more locally - oriented development consistent with existing and allowed uses, offer the highest level of protection to water and related natural resources, and preserve the rural character of the local community and the Pleasant Harbor /Black Point area. At this time, there is a lack of adequate knowledge to prepare and adopt meaningful conditions which would avoid potential harm. A reading of the Planning Commission's comments makes it clear this project is not ready for making informed decisions. Following are additional comments regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that certain assumptions in the DEIS (including, but not limited to, stated rainfall projections, runoff projections, and the project's estimated impact on Hood Canal) may not be based on current conditions or Best Available Science (BAS) The FEIS does not put these concerns to rest. The recent heavy rain events certainly offer an opportunity to study actual rainfall and develop more accurate runoff projections. To make a decision with this fresh information available to use, but not even considered, would certainly not be applying BAS. • The Planning Commission recommended examining the possible ecological impact of the development's water collection and reuse plan that alters kettles for use as water storage. We agree, and urge that the examination be carried out by a responsible environmental consultant and subject to peer review, and that the impacts be known and considered before any decision is made that would allow any alteration of the now existing system of water storage. The Planning Commission recommended that the county ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. This is not just a "look nice" aesthetic matter, but an ecological concern as well. No development should be allowed that could negatively impact the natural systems on Hood Canal, and these greenbelts are an integral part of such natural systems. The Planning Commission recommended that if the plan proves to be inadequate at the project level, the Board of Commissioners should consider altering the size of the project as a way to mitigate water quality and water quantity issues and impacts. Certainly water quality and water quantity are huge issues with potential disastrous impacts on a fragile Hood Canal now on the brink of environmental disaster. Potential impacts of a development of any size on Pleasant Harbor and Black Point need to be thoroughly understood with a scientific certainty that fairly allows only one conclusion — that such development will not adversely impact the ecology of Hood Canal — before the project should be allowed. Altering (reducing) the size of the project is not an acceptable way to mitigate water quality and water quantity issues and impacts associated with the project, but only a way to possibly lessen such issues and impacts. Mitigation entails improving natural systems so as to offset the negative impacts caused by development, but BAS tells us that mitigation rarely works as a satisfactory offset and that "no net loss" is largely an unreachable goal because we cannot satisfactorily mimic natural systems, which normally take many years to evolve, by an artificial quick fix with big machinery in a sensitive environment. In addition to our environmental concerns we question whether Jefferson County has the resources necessary for the regulatory oversight required for this project. The additional burden of administering and /or ensuring compliance with multiple permit applications and resource management plans described in the FEIS, e.g. stormwater management plan, golf course aquifer protection guidelines, LID site design (with the state), habitat management plan, Shellfish Protection District requirements, and pet management plan, will undoubtedly strain already tight budgets and place extra work on staff. In summation, the HCEC strongly urges the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to deny the proposal to amend the county's comprehensive plan to allow the development of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort to proceed. Based on the Best Available Science this project is too big and too intensive for this sensitive place and, although it may provide economic benefits to some, it poses too large a risk to the natural environment and therefore should not be allowed. The HCEC appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Board of Commissioners on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort proposal. We look forward to receiving further information as part of Jefferson County's public review and involvement process. Sincerely, Donna M. Simmons, Board Member Hood Canal Environmental Council PC.D Page 1 of 1 UCC 1® Miranda Schryver From: AreTamaru @aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:21 AM To: John Austin Subject: Comment MLA06 -87 Attachments: No MPR.doc Dear Commissioner, Please accept and consider the attached letter as my public comment on MLA06 -87 Thank you, Deborah Siefert Brinnon, WA Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the _h__ottest...products and top money wasters of 2007. 12/7/2007 December 7, 2007 Dear Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: As a longtime resident of south Jefferson County, taxpayer and registered voter, I'm asking you to keep Brinnon the pleasant, pristine, and peaceful community it is and to keep it's wealth of natural resources healthy by not accepting recommendations to amend the comp plan and allow an MPR at Black Pt. What the citizens of Brinnon want are good jobs, a good school system and a healthy environment in which to live. These needs can be met without the unwelcome changes to our area and the high costs we will all likely incur for the Canadian Statesman's Group's potential profit from the proposed resort. I ask Jefferson County management to find the revenue for the county's needs elsewhere and to not spoil and complicate the lives of its citizens in Brinnon by encouraging this grandiose, unsuitable and risky project in our community. Thank you, Deborah Siefert Brinnon, WA From: WindyCrest @aol.com Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:56 AM To: John Austin Subject: MPR Public Comments Attachments: MPR.doc Dear Commissioner, Attached are my comments on the proposed MPR at Black Point. Thank you, Peter Siefert Brinnon,WA Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. 12/7/2007 PO Box 573 Brinnon, WA. 98320 December 7, 2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Port Townsend, WA. Dear Commissioner: 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 ten 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. 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. Brinnon is Brinnon. It is what it is, and that is why most of us have decided to make our homes here. Sincerely, Peter Siefert XC_ RICHARD R. HORNER, PH.D. 230 NW 55T" STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 December 6, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To Whom It May Concern: TELEPHONE: (206) 782 -7400 E -MAIL: rrhorner@msn.com I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute to review the Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR) proposal regarding the potential effects of stormwater ninoff 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 stornwater 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 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 11'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 maMIS als, such as the various metals in road runoff, is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life. The 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. CURRICULUM VITAE HORNER, Richard Ray Environmental Engineering and Science University of Washington part-time affiliations: 230 NW 55th Street Research Associate Professor, Departments of Seattle, WA 98107 Civil Engineering and Landscape Architecture Telephone: (206) 782 -7400 Adjunct Associate Professor, Center for Urban Facsimile: (206) 781 -9584 Horticulture Date of Birth: 11 -26 -43 EDUCATION 1976-78 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Ph.D. (Civil Engineering) 1965-66 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; M.S. (Mechanical Engineering) 1961 65 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; B.S. Cum Laude (Mechanical Engineering) HONORS AND AWARDS .Augustus Trask Ashton Scholarship, University of Pennsylvania, 1961 - 65 Annual Academic Honors, University of Pennsylvania, 1961 - 65 Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honor Society National Science Foundation Traineeship, University of Pennsylvania, 1965 - 66 EMPLOYMENT 1986 - Present Richard R. Horner, Environmental Engineering and Science, Sole Proprietor 1981 - Present University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1986-1990 King County, Seattle, Washington Coordinator of Puget Sound Wetland and Stormwater Management Research Program (part-time; continuing through present under contract to University of Washington) 1969-81 Northampton Community College, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Engineering Department (Coordinator, 1971 - 73 and 1978 - 79) Environmental Studies Department (Co- coordinator, 1973 - 76 and 1978 - 1981) Professor, 1978 - 1981; Associate Professor, 1973 - 78; Assistant Professor, 1969 - 73, Leave of Absence, 1977 - 78; Sabbatical Leave, 1976 - 77 1977-78 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Department of Civil Engineering Research Engineer, Highway Runoff Water Quality Project 1 1976-77 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Department of Civil Engineering and Institute for Environmental Studies Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant 1966-69 Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Florham Park, New Jersey; Project Engineer 1965-66 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Pennsylvania Department of Mechanical Engineering; Research Assistant NATIONAL COMMITTEES National Academy of Sciences Panel on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution, 2007 -2009. Technical Advisory Panel for Water Environment Federation projects on Decentralized Stormwater Controls for Urban Retrofit and Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction, 2005 -2007. Co- chair, Engineering Foundation Conference on Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems, 1996. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Costs of Damage by Highway Ice Control, 1990 -91. American Society of Civil Engineers Urban Water Resources Research Council, continuing appointment beginning in 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Wetland Research Planning Panel, 1988, 1991. RESEARCH PROJECTS * Principal Investigator. ** Co- Principal Investigator. (Where undesignated, I was a member of the faculty investigation team without principal investigator status). Ultra -Urban Stormwater Management; Seattle Public Utilities; $1,035,000; 1999 - 2007.* Roadside Vegetation Management Study; Washington State Department of Transportation; $50,000; 2004 -2005. The Ecological Response of Small Streams to Stormwater and Stormwater Controls; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, cooperating with Watershed Management Institute (Crawfordsville, FL); $579,117; 1995- 2003.* Vegetated Stormwater Facility Maintenance; Washington State Department of Transportation; $86,000; 1998 - 2000.* Roadside Drainage System Management for Water Quality Improvement; King and Snohomish (WA) Counties; $70,000; 1997 - 2000.* Standardization of Wet Weather Protocols for Stream Impact and Treatment Technology Performance Assessments; Water Environment Research Foundation, cooperating with 2 Water Research Center (Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania) and University of Illinois; $125,000; 1996 -97. Road Shoulder Treatments for Water Quality Protection; Washington State Department of Transportation and King County Roads Division; $90,000; 1995 -96. ** Control of Nuisance Filamentous Algae in Streams by Invertebrate Grazing; National Science Foundation; $193,691;1994 -96. Criteria for Protection of Urban Stream Ecosystems; Washington Department of Ecology; $230,000; 1994 -96. Region - Specific Time -Scale Toxicity in Aquatic Ecosystems; Water Environment Research Foundation, cooperating with Water Research Center (Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania) and University of Illinois; $670,000; 1994 -96. Establishing Reference Conditions for Freshwater Wetlands Restoration; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; $75,000; 1993 -1997. Stormwater Management Technical Assistance to Local Governments; Washington Department of Ecology; $115,000; 1992 -93.* Center for Urban Water Resources Management; Washington Department of Ecology; $336,490; plus $157,400 matching support from seven local governments; 1990 -93.* University of Washington Cooperative Unit for Wetlands and Water Quality Research; King County, Washington; amount varied by year; 1987- 1995.* Assessment of Portage Bay Combined Sewer Overflows; City of Seattle; $132,676; 1990 -91 •* Water Quality Impacts of CMA, An Alternative Road Deicing Agent; Graduate School Research Fund; $3,945; 1989 -90.* Velocity - Related Critical Phosphorus Concentrations in Flowing Water, Phase 3; National Science Foundation; $108,332; 1988 -90. ** Design of Monitoring Programs for Determining Shellfish Bed Bacterial Contamination Problems; Washington Department of Ecology; $12,000; 1988 -89.* Puget Sound Protocols Development; Tetra Tech, Inc. and Puget Sound Estuary Program; $10,144; 1988.* Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion/ Pollution Control, Phase 2; Washington State Department of Transportation; $97,000; 1987 -89.* Wetland Mitigation Project Analysis; Washington State Department of Transportation; $74,985; 1987 -89.* Lake Chelan Water Quality Assessment; Harper -Owes, consultant to Washington State Department of Ecology; $42,977; 1986 -88. Quality of Management of Silver Lake; City of Everett; $67,463; 1986 -88. 3 Effectiveness of WSDOT Wetlands Creation Projects; Washington State Department of Transportation; $42,308; 1986 -87.* Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion/Pollution Control; Washington State Department of Transportation; $41,608; 1986 -87.* Management Significance of Bioavailable Phosphorus in Urban Runoff, State of Washington Water Research Center and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; $32,738; 1986 -87. ** Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA); National Academy of Sciences; $199,943; 1985 -87.* Conceptual Design of Monitoring Programs for Determination of Water Quality and Ecological Change Resulting from Nonpoint Source Discharges; Washington State Department of Ecology; $49,994; 1985 -86. ** Development of an Integrated Land Treatment Approach for Improving the Quality of Metalliferous Mining Wastewaters; Washington Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute; $4,000; 1985 -86.* Preliminary Investigation of Sewage Sludge Utilization on Roadsides; Washington State Department of Transportation; $6,664; 1984 -85.* Source Control of Transit Base Runoff Pollutants; Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; $26,867; 1984 -85. ** Lake Sammamish Future Water Quality; Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; $28,500; 1984- 85. Implementation of Highway Runoff Water Quality Research Results; Washington State Department of Transportation; $13,998; 1984 -85.* Performance Evaluation of a Detention Basin and Coalescing Plate Oil Separator for Treating Urban stormwater Runoff, Washington State Water Research Center; 1984 -85; $11,724. ** Velocity - Related Critical Phosphorus Concentrations in Flowing Water, Phase 2; National Science Foundation; $99,088; 1983 -85. ** Development of a Biological Overland Flow System for Treating Mining Wastewaters; Washington Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute; $6,030; 1983 -84.* Nutrient Contributions of Agricultural Sites to the Moses Lake System; Moses Lake Conservation District; $15,039; 1982 -84.* Planning Implementation of Runoff Water Quality Research Findings; Washington State Department of Transportation; $12,735; 1982 -83. ** Transport of Agricultural Nutrients to Moses Lake; Brown and Caldwell Engineers; $22,725; 1982-83.** Investigation of Toxicant Concentration and Loading Effects on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates; University of Washington Graduate School Research Fund; $3,788; 1982.* L, Sampling Design for Aquatic Ecological Monitoring; Electric Power Research Institute; $542,008; 1981 -86. Velocity - Related Critical Phosphorus Concentrations in Flowing Water; National Science Foundation; $70,310; 1980 -82. Highway Runoff Water Quality; Washington State Department of Transportation; $461,176; 1977 -82. BOOKS Shaver, E., R. Horner, J. Skupien, C. May, and G. Ridley. Fundamental of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, 2 °d Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., in press. Azous, A. L. and R. R. Horner. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 2000. Horner, R. R., J. J. Skupien, E. H. Livingston, and H. E. Shaver. Fundamental of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. Terrene Institute, Washington, D. C., 1994. REFEREED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK CHAPTERS Horner, R. R. et al. Structural and Non - Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Protecting Streams. In Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impact Mitigation, B. K. Urbonas (ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 60 -77, 2002. Comings, K. J., D. B. Booth, and R, R. Horner. Storm Water Pollutant Removal by Two Wet Ponds in Bellevue, Washington. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126(4):321 -330, 2000. Anderson, E. L., E. B. Welch, J. M. Jacoby, G. M. Schimek, and R. R. Horner. Periphyton Removal Related to Phosphorus and Grazer Biomass Level. Freshwater Biology 41:633- 651, 1999. Horner, R. R., D. B. Booth, A. Azous, and C. W. May. Watershed Determinants of Ecosystem Functioning. In Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems, L. A. Roesner (ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 251 -274, 1997. Horner, R.R. Toward Ecologically Based Urban Runoff Management. In Urban Runoff and Receiving Systems, E.E. Herricks (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 365- 378, 1995. Walton, S. P., E. B. Welch, and R. R. Horner. Stream Periphyton Response to Grazing and Changes in Phosphorus Concentration. Hydrobiologia 302:31 -46, 1994. Reinelt, L. E. and R. R. Horner. Pollutant Removal from Stormwater Runoff by Palustrine Wetlands Based on a Comprehensive Budget. Ecological Engineering 4:77 -97, 1995. Horner, R.R. and M.V. Brenner. Environmental Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate for Highway Deicing Applications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 7:213 -237, 1992. Brenner, M.V. and R.R. Horner. Effects of Calcium Magnesium Acetate on Dissolved Oxygen in Water. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 7:239 -265, 1992. Reinelt, L.E., R.R. Horner, and R. Castensson. Nonpoint Source Water Quality Management: Improving Decision - Making Information through Water Quality Monitoring. Journal of Environmental Management 34:15 -30, 1992. Horner, R.R., M.V. Brenner, R.B. Walker, and R.H. Wagner. Environmental Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate. In Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA): An Emerging Bulk Chemical for Multi purpose Environmental Applications, D.L. Wise, Y.A. Lavendis, and M. Metghalchi (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., The Netherlands, pp. 57 -102, 1991. Horner, R.R., E.B. Welch, M.R. Seeley, and J.M. Jacoby. Responses of Periphyton to Changes in Current Velocity, Suspended Sediments and Phosphorus Concentration. Freshwater Biology 24:215 -232, 1990, Horner, R.R. Long -Term Effects of Urban Stormwater on Wetlands. In Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, L.A. Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen (eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 451 -466, 1989. Welch, E.B., R.R. Horner, and C.R. Patmont. Phosphorus Levels That Cause Nuisance Periphyton: A Management Approach. Water Research 23(4):401 -405, 1989. Butkus, S.R., E.B. Welch, R.R. Horner, and D.E. Spyridakis. Lake Response Modeling Using Biologically Available Phosphorus. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60(9):1663 -1669, 1988. Reinelt, L.E., R.R. Horner, and B.W. Mar. Nonpoint Source Pollution Monitoring Program Design. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 114(3):335 -352, 1988. Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby, R.R. Horner, and M.R. Seeley. Nuisance Biomass Levels of Periphytic Algae in Streams. Hydrobiologia, 157:161 -168, 1988. Reinelt, L.E., R. Castensson, and R.R. Horner. Modification of an Existing Monitoring Program to Address Nonpoint Source Pollution, A Case Study of the Svarta River Basin, Sweden. Vatten 43:199 -208, 1987. Mar, B.W., R.R. Horner, J.S. Richey, D.P. Lettenmaier, and R.N. Palmer. Data Acquisition, Cost - Effective Methods for Obtaining Data on Water Quality. Environmental Science and Technology 20(6):545 -551, 1986. Horner, R.R., J.S. Richey, and G.L. Thomas. A Conceptual Framework to Guide Aquatic Monitoring Program Design for Thermal Electric Power Plants. Rationale for Sampling and Interpretation of Ecological Data in the Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, Special Technical Publication 894 of the American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 86 -100, 1986. Welch, E.B., D.E. Spyridakis, J.I. Shuster, and R.R. Horner. Declining Lake Sediment Phosphorus Release and Oxygen Deficit Following Wastewater Diversion. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 58(1):92 -96, 1986. 0 Richey, J.S., B.W. Mar, and R.R. Horner. The Delphi Technique in Environmental Assessment, Part 1: Implementation and Effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Management 21:135 - 146, 1985. Richey, J.S., R.R. Horner, and B.W. Mara The Delphi Technique in Environmental Assessment, Part 2: Consensus on Critical Issues in Environmental Monitoring Program Design. Journal of Environmental Management 21:147 -159, 1985. Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. Assessing Impacts of Operating Highways on Aquatic Ecosystems. Transportation Research Record 1017:47 -55, 1985. Horner, R.R., E.B. Welch, and R.B. Veenstra. Development of Nuisance Periphytic Algae in Laboratory Streams in Relation to Enrichment and Velocity. In Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems, R.G. Wetzel (ed.), Dr. W. Junk BV, the Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 121 -134, 1983. 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. Horner. A Pollutant Loading Model for Highway Runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE 108:1193 -1120, 1982. Horner, R.R. and E.B. Welch. Stream Periphyton Development in Relation to Current Velocity and Nutrients. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:449 -457, 1981. REVIEWED PROCEEDINGS PUBLICATIONS May, C.W. and R.R. Horner. 2002. The Limitations of Mitigation -Based Stormwater Management in the Pacific Northwest and the Potential of a Conservation Strategy Based on Low - Impact Development Principles. Proc. 2002 ASCE Stormwater Conference, Portland, OR. Horner, R. R. and C. R. Horner. Performance of a Perimeter ( "Delaware ") Sand Filter in Treating Stormwater Runoff from a Barge Loading Terminal. Proc. Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conf.; Auckland, New Zealand; February 1999, pp. 183 -192, 1999. Horner, R. R. and C. W. May. Regional Study Supports Natural Land Cover Protection as Leading Best Management Practice for Maintaining Stream Ecological Integrity. Proc. Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conf.; Auckland, New Zealand; February 1999, pp. 233 -248, 1999. Horner, R. R. Constructed Wetlands for Urban Runoff Water Quality Control. Proc. National Conf. on Urban Runoff Management; Chicago, Illinois; March 1993, pp. 327 -340, 1995. Horner, R. R. Training for Constriction Site Erosion Control and Stormwater Facility Inspection. Proc. National Conf. on Urban Runoff Management; Chicago, Illinois; March 1993, pp. 426 -450, 1995. Horner, R. R. Overview of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Proc. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1995, pp. 141 -145, 1995. 7 Horner, R. R. and L. E. Reinelt. Guidelines for Managing Urban Wetlands. Proc. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1995, pp. 171- 178, 1995. Taylor, B. K. Ludwa, and R. R. Horner. Urbanization Effects on Wetland Hydrology and Water Quality. Proc. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1995, pp. 146 -154, 1995. Reinelt, L.E. and R.R. Horner. Urban Stormwater Impacts on the Hydrology and Water Quality of Palustrine Wetlands in the Puget Sound Region. Proc. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1991; pp. 33 -42. Horner, R.R. Environmental Effects of Calcium Magnesium Acetate, Emphasizing Aquatic Ecosystem Effects. Proc. Conf. on Environmental Impacts of Highway Deicing, Institute of Ecology Publication No. 33, University of California, Davis; 1990; pp. 97 -119. Stockdale, E.C. and R.R. Horner. Using Freshwater Wetlands for Stormwater Management: A Progress Report. Proc. Wetlands 1988: Urban Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Symposium; Oakland, California, June 1988. Horner, R.R. Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control: Recent Research Results. Proc. 39th Annual Road Builders' Clinic; Moscow, Idaho; March 1988; pp. 37- 54. Horner, R.R., F.B. Gutermuth, L.L. Conquest, and A.W. Johnson. Urban Stormwater and Puget Trough Wetlands. Proc. 1st Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research; Seattle, Washington; March 1988; pp. 723 -746. Weiner, R.F., R.R. Horner, and J. Kettman. Preliminary Comparative Risk Assessment for Hanford Waste Sites. Proc. Waste Management 88; Tucson, Arizona; February 1988. Stockdale, E.C. and R.R. Horner. Prospects for Wetlands Use in Stormwater Management. Proc. Coastal Zone 87 Conf.; Seattle, Washington; May 1987; pp. 3701 -3714. Horner, R.R. A Review of Wetland Water Quality Functions, Proc. Conf. on Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding; Port Townsend, Washington; May 1986; pp. 33 -50. Bain, R.C., Jr., R.R. Horner, and L. Nelson. Nonpoint Pollution Control Strategies for Moses Lake, Washington. Proc. Fifth Annual Conf, North American Lake Management Society; Lake Geneva, Wisconsin; November 1985; pp. 170 -176. Shuster, J.I., E.B. Welch, R.R. Horner, and D.E. Spyridakis. Response of Lake Sammamish to Urban Runoff Control. Proc. Fifth Annual Conf. North American Lake Management Society; Lake Geneva, Wisconsin; November 1985; pp. 229 -234. Horner, R.R., J.S. Richey, and B.W. Mar. A General Approach to Designing Environmental Monitoring Programs. Proc. Pacific Section AAAS Sym. on Biomonitors, Bioindicators and Bioassays of Environmental Quality; Missoula, Montana; June 1985. Horner, R.R. Improvement of Environmental Impact Assessment of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. Proc. Non -point Pollution Abatement Sym.; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; April 1985. Horner, R.R., E.B. Welch, M.M. Wineman, M.J. Adolfson, and R.C. Bain, Jr. Nutrient Transport Processes in an Agricultural Watershed. Proc. Fourth Annual Conf. North American Lake Management Society; McAfee, New Jersey; October 1984; pp. 221 -228. Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. A Predictive Model for Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations and Loadings. Proc. Stormwater and Water Quality Management Model Users' Group Meeting. EPA 600/9 -82 -015; Alexandria, Virginia; March 1982; pp. 210 -224. TECHNICAL REPORTS J. W. Cammermayer and R. R. Horner. Vegetated Stormwater Facility Maintenance. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, WA -RD- 495.1, 2000. Azous, A. L. and R. R. Horner (eds.). Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, 1997. May, C. W., E. B. Welch, R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, and B. W. Mar. Quality Indices for Urbanization Effects in Puget Sound Lowland Streams. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, 1997. Livingston, E. H., H. E. Shaver, J. J. Skupien, and R. R. Horner. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Report to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Livingston, E. H., H. E. Shaver, R. R. Horner, and J. J. Skupien,. Watershed Management Institute. Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff Management: A Guide for Program Development and Implementation. Report to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. St. John, M. S. and R. R. Horner. Effect of Road Shoulder Treatments on Highway Runoff Quality and Quantity. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, WA- RD- 429.1, 1997. Horner, R. R. and C. R. Horner. Impacts on Aquatic Ecosystems and Organisms of Airplane and Airport Runway Deicing Chemicals. Report to Port of Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1996. Horner, R. R. Constituents and Sources of Water Pollutants in Urban Stormwater Runoff. Report to Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, California, 1995. Horner, R. R. Program Recommendations and Review of Submittals for Los Angeles County Stormwater NPDES Compliance. Report to Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, California, 1995. Horner, R. R. and C. R. Horner. Design, Construction, and Evaluation of a Sand Filter Stormwater Treatment System, Part II, Performance Monitoring. Report to Alaska Marine Lines, Seattle, Washington, 1995. Horner, R. R. Review of Draft Design Memorandum, Lakemont Boulevard Extension. Report to City of Bellevue, Washington, 1995. Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. and R. R. Horner. Wetpond Restoration for Water Quality Enhancement. Report to City of Bellevue, Washington and Washington Department of Ecology, 1995. City of Bellevue Utilities Department (R. R. Horner contributing author). Characterization and Source Control of Urban Stormwater Quality. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, 1995. Horner, R. R. Constituents and Sources of Water Pollutants in Highway Stormwater Runoff. Report to Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, California, 1994. 10 Horner, R. R. Program Recommendations and Review of California Department of Transportation Submittals for Santa Monica Bay Watershed Stormwater NPDES Compliance, Support Materials. Report to Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, California, 1994. Horner, R. R. Peer Review of Assessment of Potential Impacts from Sediment and Phosphorus Loading to Lewis Creek and Lake Sammamish - Lakemont Boulevard Extension Project. Report to City of Bellevue, Washington, 1994. Horner, R. R. Review of the Literature on Constructed Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Report to Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., Seattle, Washington, 1994. Engineering Technologies Associates, Inc. and R. R. Horner. Conceptual Framework for Hydrograph Classification. Report to Water Research Center, Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania, 1994. Horner, R. R. Phantom Lake Stormwater Controls Evaluation, Review of Water Quality Data and Literature. Report to CH2M -Hill, City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility, and Boeing Computer Services Corporation, Bellevue, Washington, 1993. Horner, R. R. Boeing Customer Service Training Center Stormwater Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program. Report to Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, Sverdrup Corporation, and City of Renton, Washington, 1992. Welch, E.B., R.J. Totorica and R.R. Horner. Approach to Developing Nutrient Loading Criteria for Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, 1992. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (R. R. Horner contributing author). Biofiltration Swale Performance, Recommendations, and Design Considerations. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, 1992. Horner, R.R. and P. Kalina. Water Quality Assessment of Portage Bay. Report to City of Seattle, 1991. Horner, R.R. and C.R. Horner. Transport and Fate of Metal and Organic Toxicants in Arid - Region Wetlands. Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Laboratory, 1991. King County Resource Planning Section (R. R. Horner contributing author). Development of Guidance for Managing Urban Wetlands and Stormwater. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, 1991. Horner, R.R. and C.R. Horner. Use of Underdrain Filter Systems for the Reduction of Stormwater Runoff Pollutants: A Literature Review. Report to Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., 1990. Reinelt, L.E. and R.R. Horner. Characterization of the Hydrology and Water Quality of Palustrine Wetlands Affected by Urban Stormwater. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program, Seattle, WA, 1990. Horner, R. R. Analysis of Proposed Surface Water Source Control Requirements for the Commencement Bay Nearshore /Tideflats Superfund Area. Report to Port of Tacoma, Washington, 1989. 11 Horner, R.R. and K.J. Raedeke. Guide for Wetland Mitigation Project Monitoring. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1989. Horner, R.R., J. Guedry, and M.H. Kortenhof. Improving the Cost - Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1989. Horner, R.R., J. Guedry, and M.H. Kortenhof. Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control Manual. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1989. Horner, R.R., M.V. Brenner, and C.A. Jones. Design of Monitoring Programs for Determining Sources of Shellfish Bed Bacterial Contamination Problems. Report to Washington Department of Ecology, 1989. Horner, R. R. and C. R. Horner. A Technical Review of the Sediment/Toxicant Retention and Nutrient Removal Transformation Functions of WET 2.0. Report to AScI Corporation and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, 1989. Horner, R. R. and M. Benjamin. Washington State Pulp and Paper Plant Water Treatment Effluent Limitations. Report to Technical Resources, Inc., Rockville, Maryland, 1988. Tetra Tech, Inc., University of Washington (R.R. Horner), and Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Conventional Water Quality Variables and Metals in Fresh Waters of the Puget Sound Region. Report to Puget Sound Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, 1988. Horner, R.R. Biofiltration Systems for Storm Runoff Water Quality Control. Report to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, 1988. URS Consultants, R.R. Horner, Matrix Management Group, Weston/Northwest Cartography, and Water Resources Associates. City of Puyallup Stormwater Management Program. Report to City of Puyallup, 1988. Welch, E.B., J. Oppenheimer, R.R. Horner, and D.E. Spyridakis. Silver Lake Water Quality Nutrient Loading and Management. Report to City of Everett, 1988. Horner, R.R. Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA)- -Final Report. Report to National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1988. Horner, R.R., E.B. Welch, S.R. Butkus, and D.E. Spyridakis. Management Significance of Bioavailable Phosphorus. Report to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle and State of Washington Water Research Center, 1987. Horner, R.R. and S.E. Cassatt. Effectiveness of Wetlands Creation in Mitigating Highway Impacts. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1987. Horner, R.R. and M.H. Kortenhof. Improving the Cost - Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion/Pollution Control, Phase 1. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1987. 12 Horner, R.R., B.W. Mar, L.E. Reinelt, and J.S. Richey. Design of Monitoring Programs for Determination of Ecological Change Resulting from Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in Washington State. Report to Washington State Department of Ecology, 1986. Horner, R.R., E.B. Welch, M.R. Seeley, and J.M. Jacoby. Velocity - Related Critical Phosphorus Concentrations in Flowing Water, Phase 11. Report to National Science Foundation, 1986. Horner, R.R., J.S. Richey, and D.P. Lettenmaier. Source Control of Transit Base Runoff Pollutants - -Final Report. Report to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 1985. Welch, E.B., R.R. Horner, D.E. Spyridakis, and J.I. Shuster. Response of Lake Sammamish to Past and Future Phosphorus Loading. Report to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 1985. Horner, R.R. and S.R. Wonacott. Performance Evaluation of a Detention Basin and Coalescing Plate Oil Separator for Treating Urban Stormwater Runoff. Report to State of Washington Water Research Center and U.S. Geological Survey, 1985. Cahn, D.C. and R.R. Horner. Preliminary Investigation of Sewage Sludge Utilization in Roadside Development. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1985, Horner, R.R. Highway Runoff Water Quality Research Implementation Manual, Vol. 1-2, FHWA WA -RD 72.1,2. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1985. Horner, R.R. Suggested Revisions to WSDOT Manuals for Implementing Washington State Highway Runoff Water Quality Research Results, FHWA WA -RD 72.3. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1985. Mar, B.W., D.P Lettenmaier, R.R. Horner, J.S. Richey, R.N. Palmer, S.P. Millard, and M.C. MacKenzie. Sampling Design for Aquatic Ecological Monitoring, Vol. 1 -5. Final Report on Electric Power Research Institute, Project RP 1729-1, 1985. Horner, R.R., J.S. Richey, D.P. Lettenmaier, and J.F. Ferguson. Source Control of Transit Base Runoff Pollutants, Task 1 -- Interim Report. Report to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 1984. Brown and Caldwell Engineers and R.R. Horner. Moses Lake Clean Lake Project, Phase I. Report to Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District, 1984. Mar, B.W., D.P. Lettenmaier, J.S. Richey, R.R. Horner, R.N. Palmer, S.P. Millard, and G.L. Thomas. Sampling Design for Aquatic Ecological Monitoring, Phase II -- Methods Development, Vol. 1 -2. Report to Electric Power Research Institute, 1984. Horner, R.R. Highway Runoff Water Quality Technology Transfer Workshop Handbook. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, 1983. Pedersen, E.R., R.R. Horner, and G.L. Portele. SR 528 - 4th Street Extension, Marysville, Snohomish County, Washington: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for City of Marysville, 1983. Horner, R.R., B.W. Mar, B. Chaplin, and F. Conroy. Implementation Plan for Highway Runoff Water Quality Research Results. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1983. 13 Little, L.M., R.R. Horner, and B.W. Mar. Assessment of Pollutant Loadings and Concentrations in Highway Stormwater Runoff, FHWA WA -RD- 39.17. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1983. Horner, R.R., and E.B. Welch. Velocity- Related Critical Phosphorus Concentrations in Flowing Water. Final Report to National Science Foundation for award number (CME) 79- 18514, 1982. Horner, R.R., and E.B. Welch. Impacts of Channel Reconstruction on the Pilchuck River, FHWA WA -RD- 39.15. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1982. Mar, B.W., R.R. Horner, J.F. Ferguson, D.E. Spyridakis, and E.B. Welch. Summary - Highway Runoff Water Quality, 1977 -1982, FHWA WA- RD- 39.16. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1982. Horner, 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. Mar, B.W., D.P. Lettenmaier, R.R. Horner, D.M. Eggers, R.N. Palmer, G.J. Portele, J.S. Richey, E.B. Welch, G. Wiens, and J. Yearsley. Sampling Design for Aquatic Ecological Monitoring, Phase 1. Report to Electric Power Research Institute, 1982. Portele, G.J., B.W. Mar, R.R. Horner, and E.B. Welch. Effects of Seattle, Area Highway Stormwater Runoff on Aquatic Biota, FHWA WA -RD- 39.11. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1982. Wang, T.S., D.E. Spyridakis, B.W. Mar, and R.R. Horner. Transport, Deposition, and Control of Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff, FHWA WA -RD- 39.10. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1982. Chui, T.W., B.W. Mar, and R.R. Horner. Highway Runoff in Washington State: Model Validation and Statistical Analysis, FHWA WA -RD- 39.12. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1981. Mar, B.W_, J.F. Ferguson, D.E. Spyridakis, E.B. Welch, and R.R. Horner. Year 4, Runoff Water Quality, August 1980 - August 1981, FHWA WA- RD- 39.13. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1981. Horner, R.R. and S.M. Grason. An Ecological Study of the Monocacy Creek and its Groundwater Sources in the Vicinity of Camels Hump. Report to the Monocacy Creek Watershed Association, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1981. Horner, R.R. and E.B. Welch. Background Conditions in the Lower Pilchuck River Prior to SR- 2 Construction. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1979. Horner, R.R. and B.W. Mar. Highway Runoff Monitoring: The Initial Year, FHWA WA -RD- 39.3. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1979. Horner, R.R. and E.B. Welch. Effects of Velocity and Nutrient Alterations on Stream Primary Producers and Associated Organisms, FHWA WA -RD -39.2. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1978. 14 Horner, R.R., T.J. Waddle, and S.J. Burges. Review of the Literature on Water Quality Impacts of Highway Operations and Maintenance. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, 1977. Horner, R.R. A Method of Defining Urban Ecosystem Relationships Through Consideration of Water Resources. U.S. Man and the Biosphere Project 11 Report, 1977. Horner, R.R. and R. Gilliom. Bear Lake: Current Status and the Consequences of Residential Development. Report to Bear Lake Residents' Association, Kitsap County, Washington, 1977. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS *Presented by a co- author. In all other cases, I presented the paper. Stormwater Runoff Flow Control Benefits of Urban Drainage System Reconstruction According to Natural Principles. Puget Sound/Georgia Strait Research Meeting; Vancouver, British Columbia; April 2003. Structural and Non - Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Protecting Streams. Invited presentation at the Engineering Foundation Conference on Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impact Mitigation; Snowmass, Colorado; August 2001. Performance of a Perimeter ( "Delaware ") Sand Filter in Treating Stormwater Runoff from a Barge Loading Terminal. Invited presentation at the Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conf.; Auckland, New Zealand; February 1999. Regional Study Supports Natural Land Cover Protection as Leading Best Management Practice for Maintaining Stream Ecological Integrity. Invited presentation at the Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Conf.; Auckland, New Zealand; February 1999. Watershed Determinants of Ecosystem Functioning. Invited presentation at the Engineering Foundation Conference on Effects of Watershed Development on Aquatic EcosystemsUrban Runoff and Receiving Systems; Snowbird, Utah; August 1996. Overview of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1995. Guidelines for Managing Urban Wetlands. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1995. Urbanization Effects on Wetland Hydrology and Water Quality. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1995 (prepared with B. Taylor and K. Ludwa).* Constructed Wetlands for Urban Runoff Water Quality Control. Invited presentation at National Conf on Urban Runoff Management; Chicago, Illinois; March 1993. 15 Training for Construction Site Erosion Control and Stormwater Facility Inspection. Invited presentation at National Conf, on Urban Runoff Management; Chicago, Illinois; March 1993. Toward Ecologically Based Urban Runoff Management. Invited presentation at The Engineering Foundation Conference on Urban Runoff and Receiving Systems; Crested Butte, Colorado; August 1991. How Stormwater Harms Shellfish. Invited presentation at the Pacific Rim Shellfish Sanitation Conference; Seattle, Washington; May 1991. Environmental Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate for Highway Deicing Applications. Invited presentation at Conference on Calcium Magnesium Acetate, An Emerging Chemical for Environmental Applications; Boston, Massachusetts; May 1991. Issues in Stormwater Management. Statement to State Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee; Olympia, Washington; January 1991. Urban Stormwater Impacts on the Hydrology and Water Quality of Palustrine Wetlands in the Puget Sound Region. Invited presentation at Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; January 1991 (prepared with L.E. Reinelt). The Impact of Nonpoint Source Pollution on River Ecosystems. Invited presentation at the Northwest Rivers Conference; Seattle, Washington; November 1990. Research Program Overview and Discussion of Hydrologic and Water Quality Studies. Presented at the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program Workshop; Seattle, Washington; October 1990. Control of Urban Runoff Water Quality. Invited presentations at American Society of Civil Engineers Urban Stormwater Short Courses; Bellevue, Washington; April, 1990; Portland, Oregon; July 1990. Various Aspects of Erosion Prevention and Control. Invited presentations at University of Wisconsin Erosion Control Short Course; Seattle, Washington; July 1990. Examination of the Hydrology and Water Quality of Wetlands Affected by Urban Stormwater. Presented at the Society of Wetland Scientists Annual Meeting; Breckenridge, Colorado, June 1990 (prepared with L.E. Reinelt).* Analysis of Plant Communities of Wetlands Affected by Urban Stormwater. Presented at the Society of Wetland Scientists Annual Meeting; Breckenridge, Colorado; June 1990 (prepared with S. S. Cooke).* Environmental Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate. Invited presentation at the Symposium on the Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing; Davis, California; October 1989. Application of Wetland Science Principles in the Classroom and Community. Invited presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning; Portland, Oregon; October 1989. 16 Structural Controls for Urban Storm Runoff Water Quality. Invited presentation at the Northwest Regional Meeting of the North American Lake Management Society; Seattle, Washington; September 1989. The Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Invited presentation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workshop on Wetlands and Stormwater; Seattle, Washington; September 1989. An Overview of Storm Runoff Water Quality Control. Invited presentation at the American Water Resources Association Workshop on Forest Conversion; LaGrande, Washington; November 1988. Progress in Wetlands Research. Invited presentation at the Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; October 1988. Long -Term Effects of Urban Stormwater on Wetlands. Invited presentation at the Engineering Foundation Conference on Urban Stormwater; Potosi, Missouri; July 1988. Highway Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control: Recent Research Results. Invited presentation at the 39th Annual Road Builders' Clinic; Moscow, Idaho; March 1988. Urban Stormwater and Puget Trough Wetlands. Presented at the 1 st Annual Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Research Meeting; Seattle, Washington; March 1988 (prepared with F.B. Gutermuth, L.L. Conquest, and A.W. Johnson). Preliminary Comparative Risk Assessment for Hanford Waste Sites. Presented at Waste Management 88; Tucson, Arizona; February 1988 (prepared with R.F. Weiner and J. Kettman). * What Goes on at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? Invited presentation at the Northwest Association for Environmental Studies Annual Meeting; Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA; November 1987. The Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Invited presentation at the Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting; Spokane, Washington; October 1987. Design of Cost - Effective Monitoring Programs for Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Problems. Invited presentation at the American Water Resources Association, Puget Sound Chapter, Annual Meeting; Bellevue, Washington; November 1986. A Review of Wetland Water Quality Functions. Invited plenary presentation at the Conference on Wetland Functions, Rehabilitation, and Creation in the Pacific Northwest: The State of Our Understanding; Port Townsend, Washington; May 1986. Nonpoint Discharge and Runoff session leader. American Society of Civil Engineers Spring Convention; Seattle, Washington; April 1986. Prevention of Lake Sammamish Degradation from Future Development. Invited presentation at the American Society of Civil Engineers Spring Convention; Seattle, Washington; April 1986. 17 Design of Monitoring Programs for Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Problems. Invited presentation at the American Society of Civil Engineers Spring Convention; Seattle, Washington, April 1986 (prepared with L.E. Reinelt, B.W. Mar, and J.S. Richey).* Nonpoint Pollution Control Strategies for Moses Lake, Washington. Presented at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North American Lake Management Society; Lake Geneva, Wisconsin; November 1985. (prepared with R.C. Bain, Jr., and L. Nelson). Response of Lake Sammamish to Urban Runoff Control. Presented at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North American Lake Management Society; Lake Geneva, Wisconsin; November 1985 (prepared with J.I. Shuster, E.B. Welch, and D.E. Spyridakis).* A General Approach to Designing Environmental Monitoring Programs. Invited presentation at the Pacific Section AAAS Symposium on Biomonitors, Bioindicators, and Bioassays of Environmental Quality; Missoula, Montana; June 1985 (prepared with J.S. Richey and B.W. Mar). Panel Discussion on the Planning Process for Non -point Pollution Abatement Programs. Non - point Pollution Abatement Symposium; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; April 1985. Nutrient Transport Processes in an Agricultural Watershed. Presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Lake Management Society; McAfee, New Jersey; October 1984 (prepared with E.B. Welch, M.M. Wineman, M.J. Adolfson, and R.C. Bain Jr.).* Nutrient Transport Processes in an Agricultural Watershed. Presented at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Annual Meeting; Vancouver, British Columbia; June 1984 (prepared with M.M. Wineman, M.J. Adolfson, and R.C. Bain, Jr.). Factors Affecting Periphytic Algal Biomass in Six Swedish Streams. Presented at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Annual Meeting; Vancouver, British Columbia; June 1984 (prepared with J.M. Jacoby and E.B. Welch).* A Conceptual Framework to Guide Aquatic Monitoring Program Design for Thermal Electric Power Plants. Presented at the American Society for Testing and Materials Symposium on Rationale for Sampling and Interpretation of Ecological Data in the Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; November 1983 (prepared with J.S. Richey, and G.L. Thomas). Panel Discussion. Public Forum: Perspectives on Cumulative Effects; Institute for Environmental Studies; University of Washington; Seattle, Washington; August 1983. A Guide for Assessing the Water Quality Impacts of Highway Operations and Maintenance. Presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting; Washington, D.C.; January 1983 (prepared with B.W. Mar). Assessment of Pollutant Loadings and Concentrations in Highway Stormwater Runoff. Presented at the Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting; Vancouver, British Columbia; November 1982 (prepared with B.W. Mar and L.M. Little). Phosphorus and Velocity as Determinants of Nuisance Periphytic Biomass. Presented at the International Workshop on Freshwater Periphyton (SIL); Vaxjo, Sweden; September 1982 (prepared with E.B. Welch and R.B. Veenstra).* The Development of Nuisance Periphytic Algae in Laboratory Streams in Relation to Enrichment and Velocity. Presented at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Annual Meeting; Raleigh, North Carolina; June 1982 (prepared with R.B. Veenstra and E.B. Welch). A Predictive Model for Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations and Loadings. Presented at the Stormwater and Water Quality Model Users' Group Meeting; Alexandria, Virginia; March 1982 (prepared with B.W. Mar). Stream Periphyton Development in Relation to Current Velocity and Nutrients. Presented at American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Winter Meeting; Corpus Christi, Texas; January 1979 (prepared with E.B. Welch). A Comparison of Discrete Versus Composite Sampling of Storm Runoff. Presented at the Northwest Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting; Victoria, British Columbia; October 1978 (prepared with B.W. Mar and J.F. Ferguson).* A Method of Defining Urban Ecosystem Relationships Through Consideration of Water Resources. Presented at UNESCO International Man and the Biosphere Project 11 Conference; Poznan, Poland; September 1977. GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT (University of Washington) Landscape Architecture 590, Urban Water Resources Seminar; 3 quarters. Landscape Architecture 522/523, Watershed Analysis and Design; 15 quarters. Engineering 260, Thermodynamics; 1 quarter. Engineering 210, Engineering Statics; 2 quarters. Civil Engineering /Water and Air Resources 453, Water and Wastewater Treatment; 1 quarter. Civil Engineering/Water and Air Resources 599, Analyzing Urbanizing Watersheds; 1 quarter. CONTINUING EDUCATION SHORT COURSES TAUGHT (University of Washington;' multiple offerings) Infiltration Facilities for Stormwater Quality Control Wetlands Ecology, Protection, and Restoration Storm and Surface Water Monitoring Fundamentals of Urban Surface Water Management Applied Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning Techniques Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control Problems and Planning Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control Practices WE Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector Training Inspection and Maintenance of Permanent Stormwater Management Facilities Biofiltration for Stormwater Runoff Quality Control Constructed Wetlands for Stormwater Runoff Quality Control LOCAL COMMITTEES Technical Advisory Committee, City of Seattle Environmental Priorities Project, 1990 -91. Environmental Toxicology Graduate Program Planning Committee, University of Washington, 1990. Habitat Modification Technical Work Group, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1987. Underground Injection Control of Stormwater Work Group, Washington State Department of Ecology, 1987. Nonpoint Source Pollution Conference Advisory Committee, 1986 -87. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Committee, 1986 -90. Accreditation Review, University of Washington Department of Landscape Architecture, 1986. Planning Committee for University of Washington Institute for Environmental Studies Forum on Perspectives on Cumulative Environmental Effects, 1983. CONSULTING Smith and Lowney, PLC, Seattle, Washington; Technical assistance in Clean Water Act legal cases; 1996, 2002- present. U. S. Federal Court, Central District of California; Special master in Clean Water Act case; 2001 - present. Orange County Coastkeeper and Lawyers for Clean Water; Assistance with legal cases involving construction site pollution control and monitoring; 2001 - present. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, City of San Diego; Advising on response to municipal stormwater NPDES program; 2001 -2002. San Diego Baykeeper, San Diego, California; Technical and program analysis and testimony on potential legal cases involving municipal and industrial stormwater NPDES permit compliance; 1996. Clean South Bay, Palo Alto, California; Technical and program analysis and testimony on potential legal cases involving municipal and industrial stormwater NPDES permit compliance; 1996. Resource Planning Associates, Seattle, Washington; Assistance with various aspects of monitoring under Seattle - Tacoma International Airport's stormwater NPDES permit; 1995 -97. Watershed Management Institute, Crawfordsville, Florida; Writing certain chapters of guides for stormwater program development and implementation and maintenance of stormwater facilities; 1995- present. Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles, California; Technical and program analysis and testimony on legal cases involving municipal and industrial stormwater NPDES permit compliance; 1993- present. King County Roads Division, Seattle, Washington; Teaching two courses on construction erosion and sediment control; 1995. Snohomish County Roads Division, Seattle, Washington; Teaching a course on construction erosion and sediment control; 1995. Alaska Marine Lines, Seattle, Washington; Performance test of a sand filter stormwater treatment system; 1994 -95. Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., Bellevue, Washington; Assessment of the potential for water quality benefits through modifying existing stormwater ponds; technical advice on remedying operating problems at infiltration ponds; 1994 -96. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington; Teaching courses on construction erosion and sediment control; 1994. City of Bellevue, Washington; Peer review of documents on potential erosion associated with a road project; analysis of stormwater quality data; 1993 -95. City of Kelowna, B. C., Canada; Teaching short courses on constructed wetlands and erosion and sediment control; 1993. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon; Technical review of Willamette River Basin Water Quality Study reports; 1992 -93. Whatcom County, Bellingham, Washington; Mediation on lakeshore development moratorium among county, water district, and local community representatives; 1993. Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, Renton, Washington and Sverdrup Corporation, Kirkland, Washington (at request of City of Renton); Review of stormwater control system design; design of performance monitoring study for system; 1992 -94. Golder Associates, Redmond, Washington; Technical advisor for study of stormwater infiltration; 1992. Smith, Smart, Hancock, Tabler, and Schwensen Attorneys, Seattle, Washington; Technical advice on a legal case involving a stormwater detention pond; 1992. PIPE, Inc., Tacoma, Washington; Teaching a course on the stormwater NPDES permit; 1992. CH2M -Hill, Inc., Bellevue, Washington and Portland, Oregon; Technical seminar on constructing wetlands for wastewater treatment; literature review on toxicant cycling in 21 arid- region wetlands constructed for waterwater treatment; literature and data review on lake nutrient input reduction; expert panel on TMDL analysis for Chehalis River; 1989- 1995. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., Seattle, Washington; Watershed analysis in Washington County and Lake Oswego, Oregon; literature review in preparation for stormwater infiltration system design; literature review and contribution to design of constructed wetland for municipal wastewater treatment; 1989 -1995. Woodward -Clyde Consultants, Portland, Oregon and Oakland, California; Analysis of wetland capabilities for receiving urban stormwater; design of a constructed wetland for urban stormwater treatment; technical advisor on Washington Department of Ecology and City of Portland stormwater manual updates; 1989 - present. R.W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, Washington; Assessment of pollutant loadings and their reduction for one master drainage planning and two watershed planning efforts; 1989 -92. Boeing Computer Services Corporation, Bellevue, Washington; mediation among Boeing, citizens' group, and City of Bellevue on stormwater control system design; 1990. Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, Washington; Review of Kitsap County Drainage Ordinance; 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth Laboratory; Review of certain provisions of WET 2.0 wetland functional assessment model; 1989. King County Council, Seattle, Washington; Review of King County Surface Water Design Manual; 1989. Port of Tacoma, Washington; Assessment of stormwater control strategies; 1989. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, Washington; Assessment of land treatment systems for controlling urban storm runoff water quality; 1988 -1992. Impact Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, California (contractor to Washington State Department of Ecology); Socioeconomic impact assessment of the proposed high -level nuclear waste repository at Hanford, Washington; 1987. Technical Resources, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (contractor to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency); assessment of water treatment waste disposal at pulp and paper plants; 1987 -88. Dames and Moore, Seattle, Washington; analysis of the consequences of a development to Martha Lake; 1987. Harper -Owes, Seattle, Washington; project oversight, data analysis, and review of limnological aspects for Lake Chelan Water Quality Assessment Study; 1986 -88. URS Corporation, Seattle, Washington and Columbus, Ohio; presentation of a workshop on nonpoint source water pollution monitoring program design; analysis of innovative and alternative wastewater treatment for Columbus; development of a stormwater utility for Puyallup, Washington; watershed analysis for Edmonds, Washington; 1986 -88. Entranco Engineers, Bellevue, Washington; environmental impact assessment of proposed highway construction; technical review of Lake Sammamish watershed management project; technical review of Capital Lake wetland development; 1981 -82; 1987 -88; 1990. 22 Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington; review of literature on wetland water quality, preparation of conference plenary paper, and leading discussion group at conference; analysis in preparation for a Shoreline Hearing Board case; 1986 -87. Richard C. Bain, Jr., Engineering Consultant, Vashon Island, Washington; analysis of watershed data and development of a policy for septic tank usage near Moses Lake, Washington; 1984 -87. University of Washington Friday Harbor Laboratory; analysis of adjacent port development and preparation of testimony for Shoreline Hearing Board; 1986. Washington State Department of Transportation and Morrison- Knudsen Company, Inc./H.W. Lochner, Inc., Joint Venture, Mercer Island, Washington; environmental assessment of disposal of excavated material by capping a marine dredge spoil dumping site; 1984. Foster, Pepper, and Riviera Attorneys, Seattle, Washington; analysis and testimony on provisions to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from a site proposed for development; 1983. Williams, Lanza, Kastner, and Gibbs Attorneys, Seattle, Washington; collection and analysis of water quality data to support a legal case and preparation of testimony; 1982. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington; lake data analysis and report preparation; 1982 -83. Brown and Caldwell Engineers, Seattle, Washington; data collection and analysis for watershed study; 1982 -83. City of Marysville, Washington; environmental impact assessment of proposed bridge construction; 1982 -83. F.X. Browne Associates, Inc., Lansdale, Pennsylvania; contributions to manual on lake restoration for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; preparation of funding proposals and permits for lake restoration; lake data analysis; literature reviews and analysis of septic tank contributions to lake nutrient loading and availability of different forms of nutrients; 1980 -83. Reston Division of Prentice -Hall, Inc., Reston, Virginia; review of and contributions to texts on environmental technology; 1978 -79. Butterfield, Joachim, Brodt, and Hemphill Attorneys, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; analysis of environmental impact statements; expert witness; 1973. 23 GEOENGINEERS December 5, 2007 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Subject: Pleasant Harbor MPR Proposed Golf Course Dear Commissioners, s Based upon a request for additional information through County Commissioner, Mr. John Austin, this letter will describe to you some facts about golf course design, operation and monitoring that, when done properly, prevent nutrient releases beyond the golf course boundary. I apologize that I cannot be there in person to present this information. This letter is based on my personal and professional experience with the design, construction, and monitoring of several western Washington golf courses. To begin, golf course design in Washington State must consider the wet weather conditions experienced here. The best golf courses are designed and constructed to promote play all year long and the design process has evolved to accommodate that factor. Drainage and stormwater controls are critical to proper golf course design when considering avoiding nutrient releases. Features commonly employed to address this issue include: Crowned fairways with bermed edges and native grass rough areas. Fairways are the largest turf area on most golf courses and demand the most effort in terms of grooming, nutrient additions and certainly generate the most runoff simply due to surface area. By gently crowning fairways, any surface runoff will be directed to the margins where it can be properly treated. Along the margins of the course, bermed edges trap water from flowing offshe and collect it in the created pocket for treatment. Treatment is by plant uptake, interaction with the soil and atmosphere, and by filtration. Sand plating the entire course with a minimum of 10 inches of plating sand. Studies by scientists across the US have proved that turf selection is very important to the climate and golf course play experience. In western WA, turf selection is closely tied to the rainfall characteristics of an area and its rooting characteristics. Most turf grass species have deeply penetrating roots. To achieve the most nutrient uptake on the course, we commonly use a sand plating layer of 10 inches (sometimes more) in order for the roots to penetrate the entire plating material. This mass of roots acts as a very effective nutrient uptake pathway. In addition, the sand plate layer acts as a sponge for stormwater and reduces surface water runoff and bleeds water into the margins where edge treatments further collect and treat for water quality. Created wetlands along the margins and "wet cells" at select locations to allow wetland vegetation to grow and assimilate nutrients. When water is collected along the edges of a course, there is opportunity to create wetlands and wet cells that are designed to specifically hold and treat runoff water for nutrient reduction. The size and shape of these features is tailored to the landscape contour and the area providing the runoff. Plants are specifically selected for their ability to absorb and store nutrients. These areas, when constructed properly, provide excellent wildlife habitats for small mammals and birds. These are commonly built between the edge berm and the fairway rough. Wider and longer rough areas (between Earth Science +TwJmtM 4;5 1�0 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2007 Page 2 10 to 20 feet in most cases) provide sufficient area to construct wet cells or man made wetlands that trap and store runoff. Once these areas do fill up with water under heavy rainfall, they percolate through the berm into the landscaped areas associated with the course. Specially designed golf cart wash areas with completely controlled wash water and water treatment systems to trap and contain grass particles and other waste from carts. One "point source" of nutrient concentration on golf courses is the cart wash areas. To get the most control and treatment of nutrients, these areas are isolated and contained for water runoff. All wash water is collected in a sump and placed through a water processing plant that filters out grass clippings and produces a recycled water product that can be reused and ultimately used back on the course for irrigation. Parking area stromwater collection and treatment using activated media filtration (e.g.: StormCeptor systems) with overflow discharge into man-made wetlands with vegetated buffers. Parking runoff can be treated conventionally but several courses have gone an "extra mile" to achieve a higher level of performance with parking lot runoff treatment. These courses have used a sequential treatment program that involves grass lined swales that discharge into a StormCeptor system with has cascading layers of activated media. These systems must be maintained annually and the media exchanges and disposes at a proper location. Discharge from the StormCeptor then goes to a man-made wetland of storm pond for final treatment, absorption or recycling. In addition to the above, there are several key operational elements to a golf course that must be completed and adhered to that maximize successful nutrient controls. Training of golf course personnel is a critical step. All course workers must understand the limits of the course, how and when to apply fertilizers, what fertilizers to use and how to record their daily actions. This is an early chapter in the Golf Course Management Plan. Based on the turf used to build the course, a fertilization schedule is established that provides just the right amount of nutrient to achieve grass establishment and maintain the course appearance. Over fertilization and poorly applied fertilizer creates an uneven and undesirable course appearance. A Pest Management and Control Plan is another key document each golf course must create and employ on a daily basis. Herbicides and pesticides are potentially dangerous chemicals and must be used with extreme care and proper knowledge. On some courses, chemical use is heavily regulated to focus on natural materials and only under extreme cases are chemicals used. The ideal setting at Pleasant Harbor provides for vegetation, which does not require chemicals and pesticides. The Tree Farm provides storage for movable shrubs and trees that are transplanted in disturbed areas. Lastly, for the purpose for this presentation, each golf course typically has a stormwater runoff monitoring program that involves sampling both surface water and groundwater for nutrient releases. It is common that properly designed, built and operated golf courses have little to no nutrient release after the grow -in period. Once turf and the root system are established, nutrient uptake is rapid and contained in the living turf, not the runoff. A properly designed monitoring plan is mandatory to investigate and document any golf course's performance regarding nutrient control. File No. 12677- 001 -03 GEOEMINEERSo +' w Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners December 5, 2007 Page 3 As the Pleasant Harbor MPR project progresses to the next step in the permitting process, these details will be defined and fully explained. At this time, the golf course has only been conceptually aligned with the structural portion of the resort plan. Many details are yet to be worked out and can be developed to achieve the desired goals and objectives for nutrient control. Thank you for this opportunity to provide some information based on real experience with western Washington golf courses. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Wayne S. Wright, P Principal — Fisheries & Wetland Scientist WSW:nb ORCH:\ 12\ 12677001 \03\Finals \1267700103L2.doc Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, tent, table, and/or figurel if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. File No. 12677- 001 -03 GEOENGINEERUrw December 5'', 2007 From: Larry and Barbara. Gauer Brinnon, WA. To: BOCC Re: Statesman Group MPR Brinnon Dear Sirs: After attending several meetings given by both the Statesman Group and the Planning Commission, I am very concerned about the future of our community. My concern is not only with the development but also with the Planning Commission, and the Advisory Committee. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the PC and the Advisory Committee, was to be an objective fact finder committee to present to the BOCC both the pros and cons of this development, so there would be the necessary knowledge to make a fair ruling on this. To my understanding, the PC ruled in favor of the project without the final EIS submitted, how can this be? How can a project of this size and potential impact on the environment be accepted, and the permit process began without full reports being reviewed by the members. Why was the FEIS not delivered to the PC by the deadline? It opens all kinds of questions as to why this wasn't in before the vote was called. Was the delay intentional? Also Mr. Werch's comments regarding his glowing feeling about his meeting with community leaders of Brinnon and their support for and assurance to him the majority of residents are in favor of the MPR. I would like the name and credentials of these community leaders posted so people know who is speaking for and representing them. As far as I know we don't have any elected officials to represent Brinnon in that capacity. I believe these are merely residents trying to hijack the permitting process and push through the project for their own agenda. Also Mr. Werch stated that in his previous experience, Chicago, developers routinely asked for bigger developments then they wanted, and then happily settled for less. Yet that said, when asked about suggesting a smaller size that would be more compatible with the area, he states he is willing to give this developer everything they ask for and would not suggest a smaller version because the plan was so well thought out and would not work as well in a smaller size. I find this kind of cheerleading inappropriate for a reviewing committee member who is charged with getting facts. While he expresses concern regarding the effect on the kettles and wetlands on Black Point he makes no mention whatsoever the effect the 3 story apartment complex will have on Pleasant Harbor when they try to cram these units onto this narrow steep strip of land between the highway and shoreline. Well I am very concerned. We have had a slip in the marina for many years and enjoy seeing the wildlife that inhabit the harbor, otters, eagles, osprey, kingfishers, herons that roost in the trees along the shoreline and right by the small marina store, plus all the marine life jellies, starfish, shellfish etc. along this western side. I am so concerned that I called the DOE and spoke to Jeffree Stewart and stated my concern, he expressed the same concerns in a letter to the county. Yet the developers dream shows all the trees cut down and three stories stack'em and pack'em apartments. When this was shown at the last PC meeting by Mr. Gallant who is also concerned, the Statesman attorney who frequents all meetings to make sure his clients interests are well protected I presume, felt the video was inappropriate and stated that the architect's drawing of the condos with only one token tree leis was so people could see the design of the buildings and this was simply the artist's vision. The architect is hired by and the renderings approved by the developer. Several comments were raised about the propriety of their attorney coaching the county board; this further illustrates the deep pockets of the developer and the inexperience of local rural counties to deal with these mega developments Also the actions and comments of Mr. Schindler, a member of both the sub - committee and Planning Commission is very troubling, especially when in a county sanctioned meeting, he calls people in Brinnon inbred. His obvious irritation when concerns are raised regarding the development's negative impact by opponents or fellow member, J. D. Gallant, and his picture on the front page of the newspaper ( Leader, I believe) shaking his finger at a local senior citizen, Mrs. Johnson for making remarks about the Statesman Group being foreign owned. (This was after the October meeting in Brinnon.) Sorry behavior for a representative of the county. There are numerous other examples, but I'm sure it's captured on tape. I am not the only one who observed this display as there have been calls for him to be removed from his position as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on this development due to his extreme partisan view, the very real belief he cannot be objective in his findings or presentation of information, and his potential conflict of interest. These are troubling issues and deserve to be addressed by our county officials. These examples occurred during public meetings and under the auspices of the Planning Commission. For the members of the reviewing committee to be cheerleading for, and the open hostility displayed when legitimate concerns are raised about a development is inappropriate and leads to speculation regarding the motives behind this behavior, and what they are afraid will come out if the MPR issues are looked at too closely. I have serious concerns regarding the quality of the information that the Advisory Committee is passing along to both the PC and BOCC. This was not voted on and passed unanimously by the PC. Some of the members voted against or had serious reservations regarding its impact on the area, but decided not to worry about the details. They would rather pass it on and let someone higher up the ladder catch any problems. This is dangerous. We have all heard of developers who, once they get their foot in the door, go ahead with the projects and don't worry about fines or litigation from rural financially strapped counties. Their motto "It's easier to ask for forgiveness then wait for a permit ". If this happens there is no going back. Damage to the environment can not be undone. It is better to begin the process with a non - partisan committee that can give the true pros and cons of any development before approval is given, not a flowery, gushy, touchy feely approach of a Mr. Werch; or the bullying, intimidating manner of Mr. Schindler. I believe, one of the reasons the school is in trouble is, not so much that young families are not here, rather (several on the Duckabush alone) would rather home school their children then send them to public school, and much of the enrollment problem is due to the failing of the public school system itself. These parents would rather have their children grow up in a rural environment and find work in the community (yes there is work to be had if a person truly wants to and is creative) or commute to higher paying jobs in surrounding areas. The option is up to them. The kind of work most resorts offer is, primarily, service type work and may not necessarily employ locals most of the resorts we have visited employ college students for their highly seasonal work loads. More then likely a great deal of the monies generated from this MPR will go back into the coffers of Canada, the home country of the Statesman Group. Would there be enough revenue generated to the county, local merchants and trades people to justify taking on the potential liabilities of a development of this size and scope. Developments of this size are more likely to use contractors from out of the area who specialize in, carry the necessary liability insurance and routinely perform this kind of (multi- storied) construction and deal with suppliers who are known to them. The expressed concern, by the EDC for local contractors and business would be better served by keeping the original Brinnon Area Plan. Look at the Port Ludlow development from its inception to present, and were the problems they are experiencing anticipated, water shortages, etc. and how profitable is the golf course and is the upkeep worth it. Has the community produced that much revenue for the county? Should have, taxes have gone up three -fold, but seems there is a shortage of funds for even a sheriff's deputy. These are hard issues that need to be addressed, plans look good and engineering designs never fail on paper. The big storm that just hit shows how vulnerable storm drains and run -off channels can be and steep hillsides that have been disturbed and the natural vegetation removed are subject to erosion and slides. Serious thought for the proposed condos at the marina area where run -off pours off the steep slopes in the rainy season, but the deeply and heavily matted roots of Salal and the various conifers and deciduous trees with their deep roots stabilize the steep hillside. PLEASE TAKE NOTE: This is the proposed area for 3 story condos just a few feet from the banks of Pleasant Harbor, and ultimately the fragile waters of the Hood Canal, if the resulting effects of the project and the disturbing of the hillside by heavy equipment and construction has the results we have seen on the news the last few days of mud and debris flowing into the waterways, there will be serious questions as to why the county allowed this to happen and certainly repercussions will follow. ADDENDUM: We understand the Planning Department is now going to recommend the BOCC not only approve the project but is enlarging the size of the rezone to include property on the West side of HWY 101 and land adjoined by the Department of Fish and Wildlife this invites further loss of habitat and increased traffic on a highway heavily traveled by semi - trucks, motor homes and tourists especially in the high peak summer season. It should be remembered Alderbrook Resort, the south end of Hood Canal, on Hwy 106, had traffic issues when they remodeled the resort and the road had to be rerouted at major costs (hearsay says Microsoft money paid for the reroute.) What is important here, is, this shows the impact a resort has on a secondary highway like Hwy 106 what's going to happen when a major north/south highway like HWY 101 gets not only increased traffic from the resort but people crossing the highway on both foot and vehicle. This is already a difficult area to turn off of and on to the highway due to a short straight away and curves and high vehicle speed. Who is going to be responsible for highway modifications and the funds to support it? I doubt the State, they are already strapped for funds. I would like to have some answers to these questions Thank you for your time, Barbara and Larry Gauer Cr G7 p 1 Q )J, Point No Point Treaty Council r Port Gamble S'Klallam • Jamestown S'Klallam December 9, 2007 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sirs: The Point No Point Treaty Council ( PNPTC) is writing to express our concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort on culturally important elk herds in the Duckabush and Dosewallips River Valleys. The PNPTC is a natural resource management organization formed in 1974 to serve the Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribes to fulfill 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. It is our opinion that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains errors, and does not adequately address the potential adverse impacts that the planned Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort will have on our elk herds. Consequently, we cannot support your proposed site - specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. Our concerns are twofold. First, we believe the FEIS vastly underestimates the potential for increased loss of elk by vehicle collisions resulting from increased traffic on U.S. Highway 101. Second, the FEIS fails to address the potential conflicts that will occur if and when foraging elk damage high -value landscaping (such as a golf course). Our fear is that this will lead to increased demands to control elk damage by lethal removal of animals from the population. The FEIS (p. 5 -21) cites a conversation with Greg Shirato of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, who stated there are no tracking data indicating elk use of the Black Point area. Mr. Shirato is correct, but the consultant asked him the wrong question. A more appropriate question would have been: Will the elk cross the highway and use the project area as development proceeds? 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 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. 7999 N.E. Salish Lane • Kingston, Washington 98346 • Kingston (360) 297 -3422 • FAX (360) 297 -3413 The FEIS suggests that there will be an ample supply of such areas east of the highway. If it can be assumed that the "pervious" areas referred to in Figure 1 -6 will be mostly lawns and other non - forested areas, it appears that more than 100 acres of new areas with suitable elk forage will result from the golf course and resort development. We also know that elk occasionally wander outside their established home ranges in search of new feeding areas. This is documented by radio - telemetry studies of elk herds on the Olympic Peninsula. Our most recent telemetry data, obtained in the year 2000, show at least eight occurrences of radio - tagged elk in T25N, R2W, 516, immediately adjacent to Black Point. On October 30 of this year, we counted 27 elk from the Duckabush herd in this section, less than 0.6 miles from Black Point. On several occasions in the past, we have observed elk in the extreme southeast corner of Section 16, east of U.S. 101. Given these circumstances, there is a high probability that the Duckabush herd will easily make the transition to foraging east of U.S. 101 on the project site. Section 3.7.3 of the FEIS appears to suggest that the low level of elk use of Black Point is due to the presence of the highway. This is erroneous. It is highly unlikely that the highway or the topography act as barriers to elk movement. Our experience with the Dungeness elk herd near Sequim has shown that elk will readily cross a major highway to gain access to good foraging habitat, even if that habitat is in a densely populated residential area. As noted above, it is much more likely that the current low quality of the foraging habitat on Black Point is responsible for the currently low level of elk use in that area. The new resort will generate 4,100 new vehicle trips per day, at least doubling the current traffic volume. This, in conjunction with the increased probability of elk crossing the highway, will vastly increase the risk of vehicle collisions. Elk are an important food and ceremonial resource for the S'Klallam Tribes. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. We believe that Jefferson County and the resort developer must do a better job in assessing and mitigating the increased risk to elk resulting from the planned resort development before the Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted. Likewise, we feel that the failure to address the potential conflicts between elk foraging and golf course /residential landscape management also puts the elk herd at risk. We do not support, and cannot accept, lethal control to reduce property damage caused by elk. If your amendment is to be adopted, and the MPR approved, Jefferson County should adopt safeguards to ensure the S'Klallam people that their wildlife resources will not be diminished to accommodate golf course management. Respectfully, Tim Cullinan Wildlife Program Coordinator PC— ���� W THE PROPOSED PLEASANT HARBOR &c MARINA GOLF RESORT FACTS FROM FICTION: This Non - Specific Environmental Impact Statement has been both praised and criticized as either a tremendous boost to Jefferson County, as well as, setting new standards of environmental protection; or a burden to the area as a stimulus towards creeping urbanism. Question: Should a Master Planned Resort be approved for Pleasant Harbor and Black Point Lands? The Developer, The Statesman Group, has a history of close to 32 years of developing properties in the United States and Canada. A privately held company, Statesman has succeeded where others have not, through hands -on management of Resort Properties in Phoenix, Arizona, British Columbia, Canada, and the proposed Pleasant Harbor location. Statesman further develops Mature Housing and Senior Retirement Complexes in Arizona, Alberta, Ontario, North Carolina and Washington State. The proposed majority of Residents and Guests visiting the Resort is anticipated to be under the "Mature Category" of 45 to 80 years young. These people are anxious to learn how to preserve and protect the ecosystems. THE LAND AREA: Since the 1950's, Pleasant Harbor and Black Point have served Southern Jefferson County as a resource for a 500 unit American Campground and a Marina Operation under the lease of the Department of Natural Resources. The land area is significantly disturbed, which has caused the planning of the Impervious Areas of the proposed development to coincide with areas of disturbance. General clean- up requirement of the existing site is required (see aerials). THE GOLF RESORT AREA: The USGA Environmental Management System as well as design criteria associated with the Audubon Certification Program are the two Best Management Practices Statesman plans to incorporate as standards. The specific engineering and operations are detailed during the approval process. -1- THE MARINA AREA: The major distribution of existing trees is planned as being retained. This includes the 100 foot setback from HWY 101, as well as, the shoreline slope area. What is being changed is: • The removal of the existing structures and sub - structures with a Maritime Village Center. • The stabilization of existing 90 degree cuts with 40 foot shoring walls. • The stabilization of the area next to the shore line. • The prevention of vehicles driving adjacent to the shoreline. • The replacement of the decaying wooden docks. • The replacement of a dated sewage pump system and septic system. A modern Sewage Treatment Plant and Lift Stations will replace this high risk issue. • The replacement of the dated delivery and storage of fuels with a modern and managed fuel delivery program. • A managed Yacht Club with "Pride ". • Return of disturbed areas within the natural stream setbacks into their natural areas. • A safe access and exit for pedestrians and vehicles. • Below grade parking for boaters and guests. • Minimum sight -line visibility of the MPR from HWY 101. WATER: The Developer is applying for full water rights to serve the needs of the MPR. The standards of Green Technology that Statesman plans to achieve, is 79gpd per unit. (Present consumption at Pleasant Tides is recorded between 300gpd to 700gpd per unit). The Aquifer balance is hydrologically established as a "Net Zero." This means in normal years that even at fall operations, the MPR will be capable of not impacting the withdrawal of potable water from the Aquifer (SEE FEIS). These conservation standards are not new technology. "Water Harvesting" and "Reclaiming Water" have been incorporated around the globe for years; including Washington State Guidelines. All Reclaimed Water must be treated to "CLASS A" standard, where captured rainwater maybe infiltrated to ground water under State Guidelines. SURFACE DRAINAGE• The Hood Canal is to be protected from turbidity and solids including nitrates, oils and chemicals. M The civil engineering design will demonstrate the capture and flow of surface waters into storage depressions called "kettles ". Between 60 to 90 million gallons of continual water storage is anticipated for re-use and aquifer infiltration. The 200 foot southerly natural treed area will be protected as a "conservation easement" with no public access to Hood Canal. TRANSPORTATION: Pedestrian access with integrated pathways is encouraged within the community. Vehicles are designed to be stored in below -grade concrete parkades, wherever possible. HWY 101 turning onto Black Point Road is to be upgraded to include: deceleration lane for left turns; layway lane for right turns; as well as, an acceleration lane for left turn to HWY 101; and right turn to HWY 101. Upgrades to Black Point Road are also required to the point of access to the Golf Resort. Speed on US HWY 101 is set by WSDOT. NATURAL RESOURCES (see FEIS): There is no direct access to shellfish grounds abutting the Resort Property. The wetlands will be protected and regulated and Wetland `B" will be replaced on -site at the plat approval process. ECONOMIC (see FEIS): Adequate services through the Resort and Brinnon are required to meet code requirements. Property Tax allocations and other considerations will alleviate pressure on the local fire district and emergency services including the MPR's Paramedical Services. Many well - paying positions are available to area residents that include the opportunity to enjoy affordable housing. The Resident Guests per unit will spend approximately $330 per day while visiting the Resort. Construction of the Resort will be in excess of 300 million dollars. (See the Profile of Anticipated Residents and Guests of the Resorts). -3- THE PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS AREA — DENSITY: If the developer can achieve these high standards and still leave 75 to 80 percent as Pervious Area, the results will be a natural integration of the MPR as a good neighbor of a Rural Environment. (Most developments in the United States use a standard of 40% pervious area) There is more disruption of land area with two acre housing sights (rural sprawl) than with the well planned MPR. Density will equate to 3.5 du/acre; which stimulates Brinnon's Rhodendrom District. Answer to the Question: Should a Master Planned Resort be approved for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point Lands? ABSOLUTELY: The downside in most peoples' minds is really a question of "change': Many people dislike "change" until they see the completed results . . . and then they understand that good development can be a substantial advantage by adding value to their lives." -Bud Schindler M oc : 3cember 6, 2007 To: Jefferson County Commissioners: John Austin Phil Johnson David Sullivan Subject: Proposed Master Planned Resort at Black Point Dear Commissioners, The purpose of this letter and my oral statement is to express my strong support for the proposed Statesman alternative for the Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Black Point (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort). The principal theme that I'd like to remind the commissioners of is that "Change is Tough" and that resistance to change is a natural phenomena that occurs throughout the life of everyone. With me it occurred mostly when I would graduated from one institute and go on to the next. I didn't like the change at first and then learned that the change was great. When I was drafted and went to Vietnam, the change was terrible yet I endured and don't regret a moment of it. Change is tough but most times people end up not regretting change. And so it is with the people of Brinnon and their resistance to the change that likely could occur as a result of the MPR. Many of us on the Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) Group experienced these same people and their passion for no change for years. We experience the nearly the same proportion 2.5:1 of people for and against the BSAP. We dealt with this resistance for years through three iterations of our planning effort. As a reminder, if you fail the Statesman proposal, this county will have a red flag to future developers that want to bring economic development and tourist related activity to Jefferson County. As a reminder, if you fail the Statesman proposal, this county will experience more of the economic train wreck that Pat Rogers warned of three years ago. As a reminder, if you fail the Statesman proposal, the community of Brinnon will experience an ever increasing amount of pollution, drug and alcohol abuse, family difficulties due to lack of economic viability and a lack of health care requiring the elderly to move to areas that can support their needs or stay and risk an earlier death. Please adopt the Statesman proposal. Sincerely, Bud Schindler 0 270 Rhododendron Lane Brinnon, WA 360 - 796 -4190 Pc 1 91 101 In company with the majority of Brinnon residents, I urge the Board to approve the MPR zone change. This environmentally oriented development will provide many important benefits for Brinnon and Jefferson County. Among these: 1. A combination school - community center, disaster center. 2. Improved fire and law enforcement services 3.The polluted, deteriorating marina cleaned, pollution stopped and rebuilt 4. The seldom - visited ugly remains of failed RV Parks replaced by beautiful site- scaping 5. Brinnon- Quilcene residents will have use of the Resorts many amenities 6 There are real economic benefits: Jobs: With 126 employees and a $5 million annual payroll, the Resort will be the County's second largest employer. Half of the jobs will be lower skill - paying up to $50,000 per year. Half will be skilled- paying $50,000 to over $100,000 per year. These employees will spend $lmilhon per year for local living expenses. Tax Revenue: The Resort will generate $1 0,700,000 per year in taxes, $2,500,000 property taxes, $8,200,000 in sales tax Visitor Revenue: Visitors will spend $20,000,000 per year at the Resort and locally. Business Opportunities: There will be 10 businesses operated by non -resort staff. Resort Purchases: Like the paper mill, the resort will buy thousands of dollars of supplies and services from Jefferson County businesses annually. Marina Expenditure: The construction budget includes $6,000,000 for the marina. It's going to be a cold day in hell when the county has $6,000,000 for the marina. During Construction: $209000,000 of building materials will be purchased from Jefferson County suppliers also generating $1,700,000 in ry sales tax. The construction payroll for 80 -126 workers will be $5,000,000 per year. Jefferson County residents will have job priority. I've highlighted the resorts' economic benefits. If the Resort would in any way damage Brinnon's great environment, no amount of money would make it worthwhile. The fact is, the resort, with its world - class ecology, will greatly enhance Brinnon's environment. C6 ns'71YVC/rd1k7 ,0 e.rs 474 t'�s /'� a- Cr s a7 !� r1 0c3/, q -s. r cc -DC � ,�C i �� 'I) GI • page 5 December 6, 2007 Jefferson Board of County Commissioners Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed Brinnon MPR December 6, 2007 In researching the State Economic Indicators from 2005 to 2007, all categories have declined over the past 2 years. State -wide Single Family Home Permits have declined 1.6% from 2005 and also Multifamily Building Permits have decreased to - 16.9 %. Since Jefferson County growth projections have not been reached, one of the criteria for allowing development is this "projected shortfall ", thus allowing large corporations to parade their assets in front of a County who has a financial deficit of nearly three - quarters of the million dollars. Is Jefferson County for sale to the highest bidder? When is enough actually enough. This is a large urban development, which according to the Planning Commissioner Bud Schlinder, Will not be seen from Highway 101" (Page 3-67 3.5.8). They have attempted to justify this "Stealth Development" as having more economic developments benefits than environmental impacts. They have also concluded that this development will not change the rural character of Brinnon, (Page 3-66 3.5.7.1)and as a result have basically fragmented Brinnon into various groups. The loss of community is very regrettable. In regard to the Final EIS: One cannot determine what has been changed from the preceding document. In researching other Final EIS (from Yakima County), they crossed out the old text and placed in bold letters the new. As a result this has taken far longer to read and try to find omissions/errors However, one statement that has not been changed, still indicates that rainfall in Brinnon is the same as rainfall in Quilcene. This statement is not correct. Yearly, Quilcene receives 30 inches of rainfall more than Brinnon. Statement regarding Pleasant Tide Water System guaranteeing water to the MPR is also not correct. Their letter is on file. This past Monday Western Washington experienced a huge rainfall event. Brinnon, even though, located on a flood plain, experienced very little flooding except in the Dosewallips State Park. Since this development plan indicates that development must take place in safe areas, what is a safe area? Even an earthquake could change the aquifer, and to disable their water system. (Page 3 -76). There are no absolutes. In researching other MPR's, many counties are now experiencing a large interest in these types of development with probably another dozen coming on line. Suncadia is probably the largest now with 12,000 acres, but with avenue of both winter and summer facilities. Cie Elum and other nearby towns have mitigated with the developers and continue to do so. As things change in the plans, so does the need to mitigate. How many MPR's do we really need? Since this development in Brinnon has the same venue as Port Ludlow, and being only 35 minutes apart, how successful will this venue going to be. How successful is Port Ludlow and the golf course there, especially when the interest in golfing has diminished. Thank you. Eleanor Sather, Brinnon (360)796 -4411 November 14, 2007 Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Proposed Brinnon MPR The attached rainfall document (Exhibit A) is from the Quilcene area (Fish Hatchery) and (Exhibit B) is from the Brinnon area by the school. The variability between the two areas is very significant, as the average annual rainfall differs by approximately 30 inches. The Black Point site may or may not be comparable to either location. That unknown must be determined before any suggestions of rezoning are mandated, especially when rainfall is such a critical issue. The information from Quilcene came from the following source. Michelle Breckner, Climatologist Western Regional Climate Center Phone: 775- 674 -7010 Fax: 775 - 674 -7016 Hours: Mon-Thurs. 8- 4:30pm Weather stats from this site go back to 1948. However, our cutoff date was 1967 to present. The Brinnon data goes back to 1995 to present. Hopefully, this rainfall comparison will be useful to all. Thank you. Sincerely, Eleanor Sather P.O. Box 170 306264 Hwy 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 (360) 796 -4411 06/21/2007 15:41 #089 P.008 /012 e 521318 3071 Botanical Name Becops Greet Blue Brachysoome mutt, vor, dllateta SL'm 3.5" 3.S Nobel bbvn bbvn $1.70 $1.70 Zn9 Profuse smaN blue fbs aN summer, gd In baskets Zn9 Lavender dawn 1" spring tip fro* -W in baslim 388118 Coleus Othello 3.5" m!q $1.70 Zn10 NEW! Scalloped, leathery purple -black foliage. 69 218 522616 Coleus Splash Lantana c. Dallas Red 3.5' Qt endq bbex $1.70 $2.85 Zn10 NEWI Vivid rm'x of reds & greens on wavy leaves. 2n10 Bright red flower dusters accented w/yellrwv & orange! 523816 Lantana c. Pink Caprice Qt bbvn $185 Zn9 Sparkling pink flower dusters 519118 51951 Minl- Petunla 8rllllant Cherry Mini- Petunla Violet Blue 3.5" 3.5" bbvn bum $1.70 $1.70 Zn9 Non-stop WWI: cherry flowers spring to trostl Zn9 Non -stop violet blue flowers spring through fan! 463518 Nicotiana Fragrant Cloud 3.5" bud $1.40 Zn7 Whha upward trumpet shape, evening fragrance 636006 Tlbouchlna urvllleane 6" bum $5.25 Zn9 Tropical accent! Electric purple flowers !tray Wage 521518 Verbena Lapis Lazuli Blue 3.5" bbvnli $1.70 Zn7 WIllant blue- purple rowers all summer 586306 Zaluzienskya ovata 6" bbvn 63.95 New! Zn8 Heady chocolate evening fragrance Grouedcovers 533818 Achillea Brass Buttons 3. 5' bbm $1.46 Zn4 GC Low mat "ferny" green foliage, gold buttoner 394018 Ajuga Black Scallop 35' vnmv $1.46 Zn3 NEW! GC Blade scalloped evergreen foliage. Blue flowers. 446818 Ajuga Ch mlato Chip 3.5" m $1.46 Zn4 GC Mioieture chocolate- colored foliage. Blue flowers. 203206 Ajuga r. Burgundy Glow 6" mlq $3.93 Zn6 GC Cream, green & red foliage 516606 Ajuga r. Catlins Giant W cdo $3.95 Zn3 GC blue Rower on large red purple foliage 906 Ajuga r. Golden Glow 6" vmw $3.95 Zn3 GC MeM Cream & green foliage 576506 JAjuga r. 3ungle Beauty Improved 6" m $3.75 Zn3 GC -Extra large bronze-prple Age Beefy! 691306 Ajuga r. Royalty 6" acre $4.25 ZZ GC Dark maroon folne, blue flwrs 691316 Ajuga r. Royalty Qt ex 1 $2.85 Zn3 GC Dark maroon fbNago, blue fiwrs 500 8 Fragaria chiloensis 3.5" Zn4 Gktssy leaved prostrate wild SVWAt@M 30 0718 Laurentia fluviatii!s 3S" zn5 GC41ck met frosty blue stars 539218 Leptl WIS perpudlla 3.5" trr$1.40 Zn5 GC -tight met of An* bronze, loot traffic ok 245018 Leptinella squalida 3.5" Zn6 GC -flne ferny green & brown not 534618 Manus ra Beans Albifiorus 3.5" Zn5 GC -whiff trumpeWcreep!ng 552318 Mazur reptans 3.5' vn $1.40 Zn5 GC Lavender flowers speckled yellow 812218 Menthe requelnll (Corsican Mint) 3.5" vn $1.40 Zn6 Mint- scented groundcover! Restricted In some areas. 542318 RubuS p. Formosan Carpet 3.5" ex $1.36 20 GC Great for slopes. Gold berries & f$Vw r& color. 346318 Saglna S. Aurea (Scotch Moss 3.5" fr $1.40 Zn4 GC Cushiary garden met of golden green) 4555&8 trailer k. Aures 3.5' rr $1.46 Zn6 GC Brt gold f0my f019 matures to lima green 356318 Soleirolia solerolii 3.5" ex $1.36 Zn8 GC (Baby Tears) bollent for shade. White flowers. 416018 Thymus c. Lemon Frost 33' bbvn $1.45 Zn6 GC Green mat, white flowers, lemony 594318 Thymus d. Bressln m 3.5" sbvn $1.46 Zn4 GC Dwarf gray -green fly Iblge pink flowers 360318 Thymus Gold Transparent 35" vn $1.46 Zn5 GC- Translucent & shimmering 361218 Thymus P. Coccineus 35" bum $1.40 Zn4 GC- Magenta flwr on gm mat. Deep red wikKer color. 351518 Thymus p. Minus 33' m $1.40 Zn4 GC-Tiny green leaves hug ground pink flowers 825618 Thymus p. Nutmeg 3.9' vn $1.40 Zn4 GC Red creeping foliage carmine -pink flowers 8 Thymus P. P9eudolarw Incurs 3.5' K $1.40 Zn4 GC Woolly Thymel Fuuy gray foliage, pink flowers 360218 Thymus x c. Archers Gold 3.5" ex 51.46 Zn5 GC- BNlllwR gold in winter line green summer 517318 Thymus x c. Doane Valley 35' bbvn $1.46 Zn5 GC -Irregular gold on greern 543018 Thymus x Pink Ripple 3.5" buvn $1.46 2n5 GC -light green w/ lemon scent 379018 Vinca m. Bowles Variety 3.5" bbac $1.36 zn4 GC•PeriwWde flowers, vine. 64$518 Vince m. Ralph Shugert 3.5" bbex $1.70 Zn4 GC Green lures edged w/ cream. Blue flowers. Evergreen. 22118 Vince me. Wojo$ Gem Ar 3.5" ex $1.70 Zn7 Bold leaves w /cream center. Violet blooms. Excellent In containers. Grasses 46184r Acorus g. Minimus AureuS RQt vn $3.25 New! Zn6 Dwarf fan shaped golden sedge. 432606 Acorus g. Oborozub 6" vn $3.95 Zn6 Deep gm acs, striped pale yellow 442306 AndrOpogon g. Lord Snowdon 6" vn $4.50 Zn4 Soft blue highlights 754706 Anemanthele lexonlana 6" vn 94.95 Zn8 Graceful grass w /narrow arching foliage. 215306 Arrhenatherum e. b. Variegatum 6" rr $3.95 Zn5 white seed heads & variegeted leaves 21102a Bamboo, Dwarf Green 2g ex $10.50 Zn6 Low, upright woody bamboo w /medlum green calms. 99006 Brachypodlum sylvaticum 6" bu $4.50 Zn5 graceful seedhead 16" tall 623306 eromus i. Skinners Gold 6" wit $4.95 ins Ribbons of gob & gran 516006 Calamagrostis a. Karl Foerster 6" bbvn $4.95 Zn5 Wonderful vertical accent rose plums 516029 Calama a. Karl Foerster 2g sbiq $11.95 Zn5 Wonderful vertical accent rose plumes 227806 Colamagrost!S brachytricho 6" bbvn $4.95 Zn5 Graceful and arching w/tsll over heads 565506 Carex birth. Vlridis 6" vn $4.95 2nn6 Light green blades w /corkscrew bops. 232806 Carex buchananii 6" rr $4.95 Zn7 Reddish -brown leaves, upright, Clumping 423606 Carat c. Milk Chocolate 6" ex $4.95 Zn7 New! Chocolate - colored, evergreen, mourncNng 494105 Carex f. fowl 6" mli $4.95 Zn7 Green with yellow highlights. Unique 228106 Carex flegelllfers 6" m $4.95 Zn7 Beautiful warm orange blades w /bronn shades. 232906 Carex M. Aureoveriegate 6" ex $4.95 Zn5 Evergreen mounding grass w /yeUOw margins 665306 Carex monowii Ice Dante 6" ex $4.95 zn5 WIllant green & white creeper. A GPP! slppmurg Nu!•ery Ins. 7 0 t t Thank you! YEAR 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 January February March April May June July 20.62 16.80 11.73 5.90 2.50 0.40 1.10 22.59 12.89 15.18 8.15 4.33 4.58 1.74 13.52 9.11 10.58 11.17 5.49 .2.04 1.59 13.67 5.09 7.43 13.89 2.82 1.20 2.45 23.34 12.81 14.83 6.21 3.90 5.04 1.04 12.92 15.51 15.38 11.46 1.01 1.49 9.33 16.29 5.90 9.72 2.94 7.43 5.47 1.14 19.91 17.45 21.86 9.26 12.45 3.14 5.42 13.43 10.89 9.61 5.14 5.68 3.02 0.43 15.70 14.91 14.23 4.32 5.35 2.75 3.43 8.26 11.22 10.82 3.88 8.87 2.10 1.92 8.20 6.52 7.37 5.54 5.66 3.47 0.67 3.64 19.13 8.39 5.41 4.00 2.58 2.18 6.30 13.10 10.52 8.11 3.15 1.85 4.69 4.49 11.03 11.66 12.65 4.80 8.50 1.43 19.34 20.30 9.10 9.71 1.55 2.39 1.53 13.67 20.11 12.97 3.91 3.81 4.08 11.02 18.27 13.77 9.79 8.89 10.56 2.83 0.55 1.22 6.90 9.33 5.19 1.86 2.43 0.36 16.11 12.74 13.09 6.79 10.92 1.48 3.45 14.05 8.20 13.37 6.95 8.52 1.74 1.39 9.39 8.45 12.83 10.87 10.68 2.28 1.80 14.65 6.22 10.03 5.57 3.31 4.52 2.36 17.09 15.85 8.68 5.51 4.59 6.47 0.95 12.88 16.45 6.89 7.88 4.31 2.27 1.28 23.99 7.19 1.84 13.90 1.27 1.72 0.43 7.88 0.87 10.96 12.25 6.83 3.67 0.98 9.87 17.97 9.74 6.50 4.42 4.00 1.70 14.14 10.96 9.23 5.98 1.21 3.31 2.45 15.56 10.23 5.17 13.33 3.27 2.20 0.75 19.48 8.23 20.32 9.99 7.07 8.50 0.77 19.19 11.73 6.82 3.15 3.54 1.26 2.07 15.03 26.20 14.10 3.90 5.89 4.33 1.45 12.44 8.34 9.66 7.04 9.32 5.69 2.80 11.16 3.50 7.27 9.73 6.99 3.69 1.28 16.32 13.09 9.50 8.31 4.57 4.29 0.89 14.47 4.43 16.26 10.13 2.83 1.24 1.68 13.56 6.57 10.10 1.78 4.12 3.72 1.30 16.84 3.42 11.31 9.75 5.87 2.35 4.69 24.02 6.37 12.74 5.83 3.14 3.01 0.97 17.40 12.54 23.23 8.96 3.04 4.57 4.38 sub 590.90 AVG 14.07 462.99 11.02 463.64 315.83 210.93 11.04 135.67 91.84 7.52 5.02 3.23 2.19 A q OIL 445AI��- Al -7- 60 From :BL00MING WRSERY 06/21/2007 15:42 #089 P.009/012 Code 6 9706 r 75382 421406 421 06 571506 Order-0ty W" Name Corex n. Variegated Carex s. Variegate Cyperus "Stacey Deschampsis C. Northern Lights Deschampsia a Schottland DeSChampa!a f. Aurea FP" 6" bbvn vn W" vn ex rr ;495 $3.05 $10.50 $4.95 54.50 $4.95 ZnS Thin gm blades edged yellow New! Zn5 Attractive variegated sedge NEWT Zn9 Grass -like foliage resembles on Umbrella Plant. Zn5 mew, Glowing green w/ white Wiped leaves. Zn4 Slender arching gm, pendulous panicles Zn4 Bright gold -green foliage, purple seed heads. 06 599006 454006 43 281706 466006 Festuca amethysdna Strperba Festuca glauca Elijah Blue Hakonechloa m. Atbostrlate MOliCtoCichOn S. Sapphire Hetidotridwn sempervirens Amus effusus Unicorn 5" 6" 6" 6" 6" " ex vn rr rr rr rr $4.50 $4.50 $.9.75 ;4.95 $4.95 $4.50 ZnS fang, slander dumps In sea-green hues. ZrA Our most popular Focus. Mounds of powder -bl ml ZnS Blades striped palest aed" Vol low tn3 Splkay blue dump more Intensely blue. GPP Zn3 Spikey blue dumps w/ tall, tan saexlneads GPPt Z0 Extra long and thick blades. Uke'Spwalis' On steroids! 519906 554106 304606 Amcus inflexuS Afro Juncus Occidental Blue Uriope m. 819 Blue 6" 6" 4" bb bbe x bbvn $4.50 $4.25 ;3.95 Zn6 NEW Powder-blue spkaBng stems. ZnS Large, iR biue4MY blades for moot sites. 7n6 Grey foliage, grape hyacirO -like firs 474706 495206 554806 311706 660106 Uriope Silver Dragon Mlllum e. Aureum Misconthus Gold and Sihrer Miscanthus o. Purpuracens Misconthus s. Adagio 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" vnlr vn vn rr rr $4.50 $4.50 $4.95 $4.95 $4.95 Zn4 Cream white striped leaves Zn6 Bright chartreuse - yellow Iva, cool, moot ZnS Golden flowers turn Over w/maturfty. zM Reddish purple blades change color best fall show Zn6 fine textured dwarf pink flowers fade to white 471106 1 hdsCanthus s. Blondo 6" rr $4.95 Zn6 Tall blonde plumes. 321706 Misconthus s. Condensatus 6" iq 54.95 Zn4 Purple bloomer to 7 -10' Bolds 588206 Miscanthus s. Flamingo 6" Iq $4.95 Zn6 TBB, jaunty sinter plumes. Good toll color. 544006 77606 659806 Mlsconthus s. Gilt Miscenthus s. Gradlilmus Misconthus s. Grosse Fontaine 6" 6" 6" vn rr rr $4.95 $4.95 $4.85 Zn7 Gold, green, white strip". Large. Zn4 F!nely- taumrred grass M orange"aoppersilver tones. ZnS Showy me plurnee w/ f m aln -Igoe Ibllage 469206 Mlsconthus s. Kirk Alexander 6" vn $4.95 Zn4 Foliage has horizontal gold bars Misconthus s. Kielne Fontaine 6" rr 54.95 ZnS Compact and graceftA early flowering Miscanth us s. Malepwtus 6" vn $4.95 Zn5 Beautiful fail color large pink- purple flowers C518181506 Mlscanthus s. Positano 3.S" b $2.05 Zn5 Striking reddish plumes, great tall color Mlmn#ws s. Pos!tano 3g kl 515.90 ZnS SMking reddish plumes, great fall color Miscanthus s. Rot5ilber 35" volq $2.35 Zn5 Silvery gm blades, reddish Rowers, fall aft 311906 Miscanthus s. Sarabande 6" rr $4.95 Zn4 Bronze plumes atop Over, FY a blades 312020 MtSwthus s. Sllberfeder 29 M $10.50 7n5 Shoat' "sliver feethero plumes MistenthuS s. SWCtus 6" rr $4.95 Zn4 upright blades w/ gold bends. Bold and exx5 ngl 577506 Miscwthus s. Variegatus 6" rr $4.95 Zn5 Lovely white striped blades wht flowers 554206 Mlscanthus S. Zebrinus 6" rr $4.95 ZnS Large arcing blades banded in yellow & Cream! 542 Miscanthus s. Zebrinus 3g kl $15.90 Zn$ large arching blades banded In yellow & crew.1 681606 Molinia c. Strahlerlquelle V. vn S4.95 Zn4 Radiating flower heads treats a nlos fbuntatn 369016 Nesseila tenuissima Qt Iq $2.85 Zn7 Fine textured grass, great for containers 668906 Panlcvm v. Cloud Nine 6" vn $4.95 Zn4 Airy golden httlorescences top blue Wades 755306 1 Ponicum v. Dallas Blues 6" vn $4.95 Zn4 V ue fW%iq plan Rowers 632506 Panic um v. Heavy Metal 6" Iq $4.95 Zn4 Alry red seed douO/reddish 16liage. 429506 Ponlcum v. Prairie Sky 6 rr $4.95 Zn4 Similar to 1*" Me& but more bluel 16206 Ponicurtn v. Rotstrohlbusch 6" rr $4.95 Zn4 A iomplata hats of red tops grassy foliage 440 Panic um v. Shenandoah 29 vn $11.95 Zn4 New! Uorius deep red Pwlcum! 604206 Pennisetum a. Cassian 6" vn $4.95 Zn6 BeautihA dark foxtafis on outstanding plant! 320306 1 PennWWm a. Moudry 5" vn $4.9S 2n5 Dwarf thick blades w/black foxtafis 32020 Pennisetum alopecuroides 6" rr $4.95 Zn6 eeautft arching faxtatls of chary- purple, green foliage. 443606 Pennisetum Kariey Rose 6" bbvn $4.95 ZnS Beautiful smokay"rose plumes. Great taxaual grass. 282706 Phormium Candy Stripe 6" vn $8.10 ZnB Wdl fink and cream streaks on blades 28274r Phormlum Candy Stripe RQt vniq $5.50 Zn8 Sold! Pink and crean streaks on blades 696306 Phormium coley -mi (cookianum) 6" Iq $4.95 Zno Broad, olive green, arching foliage Phormium colensoi (cookianum) 29 vn $10.50 ZnS Broad, olive green, orchirxJ foliage Phomium Red Sp arklers 4" vn $8.10 Zn7 Dremadc burgundy foliage 43�54206 Plelobiastus vane atus (Bamt*+) 6" vn $5.75 Zn6 GC Fabulous variegated bamboo In cream ✓k green. Pleiob!astus Variegatua (Bamboo 2g ex $10.50 Zn6 GC Fobv ouS variegated bamboo In seam & green. Sesleria autumnalis 6" Iq $3.95 Zn5 Compact dumper w /yellow green lolge 554416 Sesieria coerulea Qt vn $2.85 Zn4 Sea blue w/ green overtones. compact! Herbs 801716 Artichoke, Green Globe Qt vn $2.75 Zne wonderArl garden veggle & ornamental focal plantl 0418 Brill, Genovese 33' vn $1.46 Zn9 Succulent leaves and excelle it flavor 892306 Basil, Pesto Perpetuo 6" fmw $4.50 Zn10 NEWT Variegated basil w/ excellent flavor! $30218 Basil, Rubin 3.5" vn $1.46 ZnB Tasty herb with marvelous deep maroon leaves. ftrous. 1802006 1 Day Laurel 6" rr $8.10 Zn7 Culinary/ornamental evergreirn shrub. A OPP! Blom" Nursery Inc. 90111 Thark yes+! August September October November December Total 16.07 23.47 39.54 0.62 7.75 24.86 8.47 19.27 120.02 4.61 8.46 17.46 13.54 15.90 129.43 3.43 9.94 6.85 8.40 12.87 94.99 0.55 7.21 8.45 11.32 16.55 90.63 3.52 5.93 13.21 14.33 15.42 119.58 0.45 6.91 2.30 10.88 22.20 109.84 1.03 3.63 10.16 16.83 19.89 100.43 0.51 2.71 3.13 12.90 19.02 127.76 10.12 0.36 27.17 24.28 19.69 129.82 4.12 2.39 6.07 4.41 9.09 86.77 3.15 6.28 9.21 18.10 15.01 98.82 6.89 9.80 3.08 6.67 7.68 71.55 0.84 8.64 8.86 7.53 27.82 99.02 2.00 7.74 4.41 22.17 18.31 102.35 1.24 5.18 15.32 14.04 16.26 106.60 2.54 3.81 13.61 12.71 12.25 108.84 2.09 5.73 5.44 29.14 8.93 120.90 1.61 3.69 13.91 14.65 13.89 112.41 1.09 4.75 14.69 7.79 3.63 59.24 0.30 3.68 5.36 13.29 12.42 99.63 0.55 1.75 1.35 11.34 11.71 80.92 1.30 5.73 8.07 15.51 12.12 99.03 1.99 0.13 9.80 16.57 8.82 83.97 2.30 0.38 15.85 22.59 16.79 117.05 15.07 0.12 2.66 18.49 10.71 99.01 1.85 5.34 11.19 11.86 9.79 90.37 1.25 0.23 5.46 6.62 12.85 69.85 0.96 4.19 9.58 14.88 20.00 103.81 6.27 1.72 13.36 20.64 13.97 103.24 1.24 3.16 14.54 13.23 14.64 97.32 3.73 12.82 14.70 9.49 13.45 128.55 0.17 0.50 8.20 26.11 21.77 104.51 0.56 1.78 14.43 21.53 21.61 130.81 1.21 5.44 8.62 5.60 6.72 82.88 7.26 3.74 13.07 12.45 15.84 95.98 0.45 2.88 2.10 14.49 14.69 91.58 0.28 3.14 18.86 17.51 13.61 104.44 5.01 6.21 11.45 13.06 12.13 89.01 0.92 4.35 13.90 10.94 9.28 93.62 0.24 3.32 2.85 24.47 8.77 95.73 1.33 4.25 12.90 92.60 104.65 185.77 426.49 594.90 598.84 4,182.45 2.49 4.42 10.15 14.16 14.26 99.58 7- 14 lwoe -1-:2, 0-f Q 06/21/2007 15:43 #089 P.011/012 Code soeanl Name Size Notes Vrke DUCrkRJM 825118 Thyme, Lemon /Gold Variegated 3.5" M $1.46 Zn6 9rlght gold & grey -green leaves 825316 Thyme, Lemon /Sliver variegate! Qt bbiq $3.25 Zn5 Glossy ivory &gray green 5 3 Thyme, Ora Balsam 3.5" bbIq $1.46 Zn5 citrus w/ wht flwrs 686018 689618 Thyme, Slhrer Posle Thyme, Spicy Orange 3.5" 3.5" rr sbvn $1.46 $1.46 Zn6 Elegent & lacey. Sliver w/whlte margins. Zn5 ReM1eshing orange scent &needle foliage. Shrubs 407006 688306 55 306 490306 702606 Abell* g. Frances Mason Acanthopenax s. Varlegatus Buddleia d. Black Knight Buddlela d. Eliens Blue JW Buddleia d. Harlequin 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" Ili ex vn buex Iq $5.75 94.95 $4.25 $4.25 s4.25 Newl Zn6 Bright golden -green Iva, pink firs. Zn4 Variegated gm & wht Mayes on Nnlnq shrub Zn5 The darkest purple one of the most popular! Zn5 Large clusters of deep, truest -blue panicles Zn5 purple panicles on greenfersam varegated folgel 652306 Buddleia d. Niches Choice 6" buvn $4.2S Zn5 Vlvld rose with orange We 476006 Buddlele d. Opera 5" vnlq $4.25 Zn5 Large fuchle- Purple Pence 454906 Buddleis d. Orchid Beauty 6" rr $4.25 Zn5 Very long 20" lavender plumes 470706 375506 Buddleia Red Plume Buddela Santana 6" 6" buvn vnnw $4.25 $6.25 Zn5 Magenta -red, fragrant Zn5 NEWT Yellow leaf margins, purple -red fklwerS. 517606 6119 Buddleia x d. Lochlnch Callicarpa d. Early Amethyst 6" 3g buex vn 64.25 $16.90 Zfl6 aright $Ilvr folge violet -blue !lowers. Zn5 Clusters of bright purple berries in fall 542906 C9lotepholus brownll 6" buvn $3.95 Zn8 Wray silver accent, yellow flowers 557806 234906 Ca d. Snow Fairy Caryopteris x C. Dark Knight 6" 6" vn vn $4.25 $4.25 Zn5 Variegated Na, blue firs late season ZnS Deepest blue flowers green foliage, COMPACT! 211606 Ceinothus 3019 Phelps 5" vn $5.25 Zn7 Deep Indigo -blue flowers In spring. Evergreen. 690606 Choisya a. A2tec Pearl 6" vn $5.25 Zn7 Finely cut leaves & fragrant flowers, evergreen. 470606 Cistus Blanche 6" vngn $4.25 Zn7 Large fragrant white flowers, clean wavy green leaves 568006 Clstus corbarlensis 6" vn $4.25 Zn7 Red buds -pure white flowers, tip green foliage GPp! 706306 1 Cistus i. Creticus 6" sbfr $4.25 Zn8 WeW Silver Maven, Rose -Pink crepe paper -like firs 419206 I Cistus Silver Pink 6" ex $4.25 Zn8 Pink crepe paper -like flowers!, grWsh folge. 706406 Cletus skanbergll 6" ex $4.25 Zn8 Tough and graceful shrub with soft pink flower$ j@1506 Cistus x purpureus 6" Ir $4.25 Zna Showy! irg drk rose w/ maroon blotch 56612Q Clematis m. var. rubens Zg vn $11.95 Zn6 Deikete pink fklwer$ strong grower 648206 Corpus a. Argenteovarlegsta 6" vn $4.95 Zn2 bushler variegated redtWg 64823a Carus a. Argenteovarlegato 39 vn $15 -90 Zn2 bushier varlegsted redtwig 64742a I Comus a. EI tissima 29 Y* $10.50 Zn4 Lvs edged wht, Wrtr red twigs 4 season winner 490606 Comus s. Cardinal 6" vn $4.95 Zn4 Outstanding winter color coal to cherry red 490630 Corpus s. Cardinal 39 rr $15.90 1zn4 Outstanding winter color coral to cherry red 697206 Comus S. Midwinter Fire 6" n $4.95 Zn5 Stunning bright orange -red twigs in winter 69723a Comus s. Midwinter Fire 39 iq $15.90 Zn5 Stunning bright orange-red twits in winter 679106 Deutzla Magician 6" rr $4.95 Zn5 Large mauve -pink flwrs late spring-early summer 49083Q De!mis s, ver. corymblflora 39 bbvn 615.90 Zn5 unique dusters of white starlike flwrs 491322 Diervilla S. Butterfly It 2g bbex $9.65 Zn4 Native, fall color, yellow fwrS 678906 Haiimiocistus Merrist Wood Cream 6" vn $4.95 Zn7 Fabulous pale yellow sunrose wl maroon teflterS! 687506 Hallmlocttus sahucil 6" vn $4.25 Zn7 Lovey, pure white flowers Miry -Sept 706606 Haflmlodstus wintonensis 6" vnlq $4.25 Zoe White tops with maroon blotches at base STUNNING! 410906 Hebe Alicia Amherst 6" ex $3.95 Zn8 Amy's twin sister, purple leaves - robust growerl 275406 Hebe Amy 6" vn $3.95 Zn8 Rich burgundy leaves, violet flowers 754906 Hebe snomala purpurea Nana 6" vn $3.95 Zn7 Dark purple stems and fine, dark green Wage. 275506 Hobe Autumn Glory 6" 1 buyn $3.95 Zn8 Deep purple spfass May & Sept bronzy- purple fbige 474906 Hebe Blue Eyes 6" vn $3.95 Zn7 Tiny evergreen leaves, Icy violet blue flowers. Compadl 385406 Habe Blue Mist 5" vnnw $315 I&S Evergreen shrub w /green foliage & lavender-blue flowers. 276606 Hebe buxKdla 6" vn $3.95 Zn7 Bo wend -like foliage white flowers 688106 Hebe Coed 6" vn $3.95 Zn8 Sprays of dark jeweled, amethyst - burgundy stems 402006 Hebe franciscana Lobeloldes 6" be $3.95 NEW! Zn7 Rounded glossy gm foliage, fuzzy My -blue flwrs 675306 Hobe Great Orme 5" vn $3.95 Zn7 4 d*rk green with S" hot pink s* a 67532Q Hebe Great Orme 2g en $9.65 Zn7 4' dark green with 5" hot pink spikes 369506 Hebe Josephine 6" vn $3.95 Zn7 Bright pink flowers glossy green foliage 459706 Hebe La Favourite 6" vn $3.95 New! Zn8 Upright dark green foliage, purple flowers 460006 Hebe Lavender Spray 6" vo $3.95 Zn7 GC Green fbiage & Irwrnauve flowers In spring 277406 Hebe p. Pagel 6" vnnw $3.95 Zn8 Oval blue -pray loves and to flowers. Low-growing. M006 Hebe p. Sutherlandii 6" vnit $3.95 Zn7 Small green -Waved shrub wht ower$ 276006 Hebe Pattys Purple 6" rr $3.95 Zn8 Rich burgundy stems w/ purple flowers, green Ivs 27602Q Hebe Pattys Purple 20 ex $9.65 Zn5 Rich burgundy sterns w/ purple flowers, green Ws 426506 Hobe Purple Shamrock 6" fr $5.75 NeWi! Zne Lime green var foliage tuns purple In winter 690306 Hobe Red Edge 6" It $4.25 Zn7 Blue-gm leaves w /red n"ins beg to be touched! 77 0 Hebe S. Variegate 6" vn 64.25 Zn8 Charming varegated foliage & purple flowers 27762 Hebe s. Varegata 29 vn $9.65 Zn8 Charming variegated foliage & purple flowers eroomkg Nursery Inc. 100111 Thank youl NNNNNNNNF- F,1- H 'JJ 000000001010101010 1 C H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 w w 10 10 1 0 Z �m(na W Nt+Oloao��cn 1 1 F-'N N NF-' F-'NN I F-+N.A .AN01loU7NNOU7lo�lJ+.1 1 _l C4 W .A. .A W OD -j O OD V1 W N U7 N W 1 1 U7 F- C> O F F- (3) ­3 L1 O F-+ -.7 F� O OD O 1 1 OIWN J4- N) 0 HLnNO)WF -'WOOL O Ln .P W dD ♦✓ to .P OD O, .P L. 10 0 01 01 1 F- CO -1 N -1 ID. aV 0 OD01NNOl 1 1 N F F--' N N 1 J41N .A aD J U'i 01 ) O1 W W OU'�UtNN 1 J OIo 01 F- N) h-'O IO NU -,j W Ow -j 1 Ln 0') O U7 O to 10 Fl (n N OI OD 1 I 1 F- F, .0- N F- I--` .P d> F-+ .P W N i--` F- F- .P N .P 1 0)N U7 01 W 01(n Olio O(nwwCn N10 1 1 NUtO NNCnN01 -�t-� W NI-� W Cni-� 1 011000 N0CDtDMN�I(nN-IN100 1 O(n(-n ON JOU7(n,D. Ln .pM Cd (-n N) 1 1 1 1 •,,... ��� O A Co N N dl O O .P .A W O du F-3 F-+ l0 \' W 00 N X. m1 o00NNO.P-.1.P 1 I N W O W ONO O ONON W ONF-� I C.1 1 F-�010 O1NWMCDlO h,W H(oW W {�jl\lv1 �1(nan (n�1F- +MM1 -41- pmoJN.cn -j 1 M 1 \ 1 � HWO OOOWOOWOF - �F -BONN 1 1 (� \ W(nF� 10N(nLO (n M1 .oNWHQ0 I N 10w Ln 00 W 01(n W Io r,) -j 00.1�:.N 1 1 v 1 !-'.pO aF�O W 000000 WNF-' 1 N 1 .wN wow a . W W OD I b p \ P010 m-i Ji. W OD Ln "o CD w (n 1 N N N I cnwo wocnu,wo.n.pcnwwcn.tn 1 U7�]N OONN1DJN0WMw010OD 1 1.3 to N to Ln .P CD wfJ NOO OD .j 1 1 F�(nN N(n 0107010 (n.9. O1N 10. 1. 0 1 wo O 01 OD OD M co N.P (,n X,. O1 U7 O to W (.n t c IoODO QD.P W OD -.110 d1 W to lo0lN I t 1 NJ(n W �]10E- +d>dIJO(nU7ODU7 1 d 1 1 W F-'01 1 loF-'-101N W.P W- 7011 -1M I A U7WN 1 WW WO1- .Iw.PW011.,M 1 1 I 1 01 10 .A W M M Ln �1 (n 0 aA w OD X1 01 OD 1 M� ION�I .7�.PO�A01lpO�.1N(n0 W I-+ I FQ] �101N NN JN.P N O110(n W Ln 1 o. Old NN.PW O.P- .710010 N F- U7 1 cc R comments My name is Diane Coleman, I have lived around the Hood Canal since I was 11, and at Pleasant Harbor Marina for the past six years. Since April, I have been the manager at Pleasant Harbor Marina. For the past six years, my husband and I have owned and operated a SCUBA diving business in the marina. I am in favor of the Statesman Croup proposal for the resort / marina village for the Black Point Property. Living in, working in and now managing the marina I see first hand what is needed in the marina. The current owners have done as much as they can to maintain the marina. Fresh money is needed to make improvements necessary for boaters to continue to visit Pleasant Harbor Marina and to make the marina safe for people and the environment. These improvements are to the buildings, septic system, fuel dock, pump out facilities and the wooden docks. This proposal would give many opportunities for the local community: start a business for shuttles to Port Townsend, local casinos, BRINNON; guided nature walks or in vehicles; to name just a co-a*. Each year, I hear the visiting boaters ask for a ride into Brinnon to check out things or attend Shrimp fest, and what is there to do around here? 11110, MOE cc� DCD PC- iaillo December 6, 2007 To: Jefferson County Commissioners: John Austin Phil Johnson David Sullivan Subject: Proposed Master Planned Resort at Black Point Dear Commissioners, The purpose of this letter and my oral statement is to express my strong support for the proposed Statesman alternative for the Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Black Point (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort). The proposal by Statesman meets all of the criteria that I believe the citizens of this County desire. The proposal through its in -depth FEIS addresses all the elements that we have asked for: 1) Provides an environmentally sensitive plan that not only protects our environment but actually improves on the current conditions in the Master Plan Resort overlay area. 2) Provides a boost to our economy — not only at a local level but also at a County level. 3) Provides for employment opportunities. I have heard many people say that the project will only bring low- paying wages — this is inaccurate. All organizations have many levels of employment from top management to entry level. This project is no different, if you question this statement, I would encourage you to speak with the project proponent. 4) Provides for cooperation between Statesman and the community regarding service improvements for the Fire Department, the Brinnon School and Community Center. This proposal is a "win -win" for our local community and the greater Jefferson County community. I ask that you vote an unequivocal YES for the Master Planned Resort as envisioned in the Statesman proposal and a YES for a positive future for Brinnon and Jefferson County. If you would like to discuss my support of the Statesman project, please do not hesitate in giving me a call or sending me a note. I can be reached at 360 - 796 -3450 or at valschindlerkwindermere. com. anl'VA Val Schindler 270 Rhododendron Lane Brinnon, WA 360 - 796 -4190 CC Dc-0 - December 6, 2007 Gentlemen, My name is Lynne Sterling and my place is across the bay from Brinnon at the end of the Toanandos Peninsula. on Zelatched Point in Coyle. You can see my place from the Gooey Duck Tavern. I wish to make it clear I am not against the Resort proposed by the Statesman Group, simply the size. I feel it should be cut in half. The cost of maintenance is going to be astronomical. I read through the master plan and the costs just shriek expensive. I was the owner of the Holly Hill House Bed & Breakfast in Port Townsend for 8 years and sold in 2001. Anyone can tell you the tourist season is 5 months on and 7 months off. If we were lucky we could get 100 % occupancy for August and September. Looking at your figures you are planning much higher occupancy. Port Townsend is a tourist destination as has been for over a hundred years and have been through economic crisis, weather and transportation woes and arc still 5 months on and 7 months oft. Our 3 local golf courses have struggled for years, sometimes on the verge of bankruptcy and they are in the rain shadow with half the rain you get here in Brinnon. I can't possibly see how the resort can make enough money to keep up the maintenance. I don't know who your folks are that put together your feasibility study, but you sure didn't ask me. My suggestion is... if you want to build this full blown resort, why don't you buy the Port Townsend Paper Mill. You could probably get it for the outstanding debts, tear it down and have plenty area to build the whole thing with support from the townspeople. Sincerely submitted Lynne Sterling 23 Grant St. #D2 Port Townsend, Wa 98368 360 385 9279 14 �w 3407 Eddy Street I Port Townsend, Washington 98368 NOYtiIWeSt voice 360.385.6786 fax 360.385.2839 Watershed Institute email peter @nwwatershed.org I www.nwwatershed.org December 6, 2007 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220�, Jefferson County, WA 98368 Dear Honorable Board of County Commissioners, I would like to provide testimony on the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal on behalf of the Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI). I work as the Director and Aquatic Biologist for NWI. My qualifications include a M.S. in Fisheries Science from Oregon State University, B.S. in Environmental Studies - Biology from Middlebury College, and over 20 years experience in fish and wildlife research and management. I have been conducting watershed, salmon, and water quality assessments, conservation and restoration projects mostly in the Hood Canal region for the past ten years. NWI is a locally based nonprofit organization that provides scientific and technical support for watershed assessment and restoration in Oregon and Washington. A focus of our work is a model project to protect and restore the productivity of the Tarboo watershed and Tarboo -Dabob Bay for native salmon runs and shellfish. NWI has serious concerns with the Brinnon MPR proposal that, due to its size and location, poses a very real threat to the water quality and the sustainable resources of Hood Canal. Hood Canal aquatic life is already being seriously compromised by elevated nutrient and contaminant loading combined with slow turnover and flushing rates. If this proposal contributes to expansion of fish kills and dead zones in Hood Canal, the economic and environmental impacts will far outweigh the perceived benefits of a resort. The County Commissioners should not approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment unless the Statesman group can provide detailed solid information that clearly demonstrates that the project and its cumulative impacts will not impact the water quality of Hood Canal. After talking with state and tribal experts who commented on the Draft EIS and still have serious concerns with this proposal, I decided to get an independent assessment of the Brinnon FEIS from asked one this nation's top stormwater experts. I would like to read his letter of December 6, 2007 in full (see attached). In sum, the information in the FEIS is not sufficient for approval of a project of this scale and with the natural resources and sustainable industries of Hood Canal at risk. I agree with Dr. Horner that this Comprehensive Plan amendment should be denied unless and until sufficient information is made available for public review that demonstrates that project can be built without impacts to the aquatic resources of Hood Canal. ee , eter Bahls Director CC-- P�- ?�)CG i2�7Iv� My family has lived on the Peninsula for 4 generations. One of my grandmothers was a Grand Pioneer in Sequim. One of my grandfathers hunted with Eddie Bauer. I've hiked and backpacked the Olympics for many years. My children were born here. I've dug clams, raised children, raised chickens, goats and pigs, gardened. Always I've been surrounded by the natural beauty of the area. My daughter says you know you are a redneck when the directions to your house include the words "Look out for elk." I live about a mile from the proposed Statesman resort. Now you do have to look out for elk. Once there are 1000 condos, timeshares, and houses on Black Point, that won't be true anymore. I moved to Brinnon to retire. Sequim is developed. The area east of Port Angeles is developed. I was drawn by the rural character of Brinnon. I've seen a lot of development on the Peninsula over my life time. And certainly building a house has added to that development. I think we all expect development and certainly the county is trying to manage that development. One of our goals is to preserve the rural character of Brinnon. Looking down on acres of rooftops is not rural character. Not being able to see the stars because of light pollution is not rural character. Traffic jams and noise is not rural character. Nothing about this proposal fits into the rural character that is supposed to be planned for the Brinnon area. The natural beauty and sense of community make this a place that people want to come to live and to play. It is sad to see a plan in which both the environmental health and the community cohesiveness are being fractured. Large influxes of tourists and resort staff will utterly change our community. There are sensible ways to increase tourism that will not have such negative impacts. There are sensible ways to develop our area and to keep the rural character. I hope that at the end of this planning process I will still be telling people coming to my house, "Watch out for elk." ,� i C-D j- X11107 c- '16c - 4q 6 BUBBLE HEADS INC. GP I .erne + LaAO P 1�4 5 -bocle4 -T3 ,5H kivE(- ��L� De= "a, Cccfwj 0-0 V,& � A 5S 16 ml --0S ) \16C.a PPE K-T '"i ►�_ C' t5 P RZ 0150-- D . —74 d Pr N I d N i S �A(Zk 746 s,Z6 0T5 45 A 436 !A6n (Z- t4c3w- 4AV& u1 i L pRoc&e-'t) C i,�dZt N N WD 'OS `GELD PENT + P6 0 T' �� N C -b `�(.�E 96.V� 07 :j Gr f'(26 �'S Lt4C6 1446 ?9a fd-Se D , �cK pots fg4t� ,EGr YJLL s+4Pe--V, EVK-�o(46 Tc� "its i- Ak(Z-VA • S SE �c� -S f C-t' a62. Cot, ccRtjs A�Sa tTT --Tj�(-- t t.k( KT!!' °Tg i5 °b 6V &L6 PMT ( W i t.L AZ B GKL t c�P�Ci s' C-q Tr t r-J b 1X3 L` TU D E a AND �tSfLi S 6 7b OF t d}S 1 Tc1NC CATL Vj t2- �6 136(06 P,Pj OQ& OD PPZ�;�:s OF VWY YP65, k6 . OL) v L.D Lco VC 9T-T44& 1S Iv� uj� ,+-- NOE ,�/ x(360) 4WAS% . Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:54 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Brinnon MP Resort Dr. Horner letter Attachments: Brinnon letter 12- 06- 07.pdf From: Jeanie Orr Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:53:36 PM To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin; John Fischbach Cc: Karen Barrows; Al Scalf; Stacie Hoskins Subject: FW: Brinnon MP Resort Dr. Horner letter Auto forwarded by a Rule See attachment for letter on the MPR. Jeanie Page 1 of 1 From: Peter Bahls [mailto:peter @nwwatershed.org] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:13 PM To: Adams, Michael - MRC; Allison, Steve; Best, Peter; Brennan, Jim; Brocksmith, Richard; Cambalik, John; Daubenberger, Hans; Davis, Jeff; Detlaff, Yvonne; Ereth, Marty - Skokomish Tribe; Flores, Hugo; Grigsby, Susan; Murphy, Anne - MRC; Jeanie Orr; Rubin, Jude; Schirato, Margie - WDFW; Shipman, Hugh; Silver, Jill; Stanley, Stephen; Stewart, Jeffree; Todd, Steve; Bergstein, Al; Best, Karen; Brewer, Scott; Ciesla, Johnathon - Quinault Nation; Cook, Cyrilla; Crockett, Larry; Downey, Peter; Dublanica, Keith - Skokomish Tribe; Erickson, Aleta; Espy, Frank; Goodwin, Ross; Gorsline, Jerry; Hershelman, Sandy; Howell, Bob - Hoh Tribe; Johnson, Randy; Krueger, Sarah; Latham, Al; Mahler, Bill; McHenry, Mike; Miller, Bill - PC /Shoreline Committee; Muehlethaler, Eveleen; Muggli, Connie; Pivarnik, Jim; Radon, Ken; Rasmussen, Kitty; Roberts, David; Rot, Byron; Surber, Judy; Toews, Eric; Tuuri, Kevin; Waite, Reed Subject: Brinnon MP Resort Dr. Horner letter Folks, Northwest Watershed Institute asked Dr. Horner to review the FEIS for the Brinnon MPR proposal in terms of water quality impacts to Hood Canal. Dr. Horner is one of the nation's top experts on stormwater issues and treatment. In a nutshell, he states that the FEIS does not provide adequate information on stormwater treatment to demonstrate that it will be effective and the rezone should be denied until and unless such information is provided for public review. The hearing is tonight at 5:00 pm at Jeff Co courthouse and written comments are due on Friday Dec 7. 1 encourage you to get your comments in. 12/6/2007 f i RICHARD R. HORNER, PH.D. 230 NW 55TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 December 6, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To Whom It May Concern: TELEPHONE: (206) 782 -7400 E -MAIL: rrhorner o,msn.com 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. I21,2vol1i:=1 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 I'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 0 -1 t, 1 o Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:58 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: From: Moonhill [SMTP:MOONHILL @OLYPEN.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:54:24 PM To: John Austin Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Auto forwarded by a Rule To: Jefferson County Commissioners CC: jaustinnco iefferson.wa.us pjohnso_n_a co Jeff. rson.wa.us dsulivan @_>co.jefferson_.wa.us From: Gary P. Streid Judith C. Ashley 2134 Duckabush River Road P.O. Box 949 Brinnon, Wa. 98320 moonhillnolypen.com 12/6/07 Re: Proposed Master Plan Resort and Water Issues Page 1 of 2 We are writing to urge the County to oppose giving control of local water rights to Statesman. In the FEIS, 3.3.2.1 "Daily Water ", "Existing Water Rights ", Statesman says they expect the draw on the aquifer to be 137 acre feet per year. An astounding forty -four million gallons plus. Several paragraphs later; In the FEIS, 3.3.3, "Phased Water Demand" "the ground water right will request 239 acre feet per year, which is the maximum total quantity that will be necessary for all water use at the Master Planned Resort" That computes to 84,389,970 gallons of water. Eighty four million gallons of water per year that I ould be taken out of the aquifer. Too much water to cede to the control of a corporation of land developers. Too much water to attach to one piece of property. It's impossible to put a value on water now, because it's rapidly disappearing in less fortunate parts of the world. It's basic to the well being of all of us who live in Washington State to see that control 12/6/2007 -r, < Page 2 of 2 of our local water resources not be gifted away, but remain in the control of our communities. We ask Jefferson County to carefully consider the option of a controlling water district that would manage the required Resort water needs. PUD would be an acceptable entity to perform such management. Respectfully, Gary P. Streid Judith C. Ashley 12/6/2007 c)-7 Leslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:54 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Unpleasant harbor marina From: Buzz Roll[SMTP:BUZZROLL34 @YAHOO.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:50:48 PM To: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Unpleasant harbor marina Auto forwarded by a Rule Page 1 of 1 I was adamantly apposed to the previous plan proposed for development of the Pleasant Harbor Marina and golf course. I am now appalled by the approval of the plan and the idea to extend it on to the west side of 101 and onto Fish and Wildlife land. DO RICH DEVELOPERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESTROY OUR COLLECTIVE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE WAVING AROUND A BUNCH OF MONEY AND FALSE PROMISES? I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO FINDS REFUGE IN THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THIS WONDERFUL PLACE AND DOSE NOT WANT IT TURNED INTO ANOTHER DAMN STRIP MALL. Does the opinion of the people in the community have any basis on what happens anymore? I'm sure the slimy PR people have done a real good job of convincing people of false economic gains and benefits of this resort, I can't believe any believes this crap for a minute.THESE DEVELOPERS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MAKING LOTS OF MONEY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! My family has lived on the Puget sound for the past 35 years we have lived a quite simple life enjoying the natural beauty and being Stuarts of the land. There is nothing in this plan that myself or my community want. This plan only benefits greedy developers, and the wealthy patrons of the golf club, and will prove to destroy every other aspect of the environment and local community. we don't need a congested highway 101, higher property taxes and most of all the environmental disaster in this beautiful natural oasis. DO NOT LET THESE SELFISH MONEY GRUBBING DEVELOPERS RUIN OUR BEAUTIFUL NATURAL PLACE! ! ! thanks for reading this letter, I hope my opinion matters. Richard Cawley, life time resident and defender of the hood canal. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 12/7/2007 CC � -D -D +4167 3ecember 7, 2007 To: Jefferson County Commissioners: John Austin Phil Johnson David Sullivan Subject: Master Planned Resort Staff Recommendation Dear Commissioners, S -63NOISSIWWO3r 1�J.NnoO NOSa3i Lw L 0 330 C131\130:;?i The purpose of this letter is to comment on the staff recommendation for the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Black Point (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort). We concur with Statesman that the MPR should remain on the East side of Highway 101 for the following reasons: Maintain the Rural Character Both Statesman and many in the community have stated the importance of maintaining the rural character. By extending the MPR boundary to the east side of Highway 101, it will force the traveling public and the local community to see urban level of services. This is contrary to both to the Brinnon Subarea Plan and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan to maintain a balance between all other goals and the goal to maintain the rural character of the area. If development of the MPR on the east side of the highway can be avoided, it should. Traffic Congestion and Safety of the Public Traffic congestion at the intersection of Highway 101 and Black Point will be better controlled by keeping the MPR boundary on the west side of the highway. If the MPR were allowed to exist on both sides of the highway both foot traffic and vehicular traffic will be crossing the highway creating hazardous conditions. This would likely require a stop light which would create even more difficulties. We have no problem with the staff proposal to include the Fish and Wildlife Property within the boundary of the MPR. Sincerely, Bud and Valerie Schindler 270 Rhododendron Lane Brinnon, WA 360 - 796 -4190 c C-D I'd -1 10 HOOD CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL P.O. Box 87, Seabeck, Washington 98380 �O Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners J, P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Attn: Commissioners: The Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) has been involved in Jefferson County's approval process for the Statesman Group's proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort since the spring of 2006. HCEC submitted written and oral testimony to the Department of Community Development (DCD) during the scoping and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public input periods for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Master Plan. The following comments are based on our review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Planning Commission's conditions as part of its recent recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The HCEC has consistently expressed serious concerns about the Statesman Group's proposal for a Master Planned Resort (MPR). We believe that it would result in unacceptable environmental impacts to Hood Canal, undermine the complex research and recovery efforts currently under way to determine probable causes and possible solutions to the serious water quality problems plaguing the canal, and result in undesirable changes to the rural character of the area. These and more specific concerns, e.g. water rights, wastewater treatment method, adequacy of stormwater plans, and wetlands mitigation, were spelled out in our 10 -14 -07 letter to the DCD. Unfortunately, neither the changes outlined in the FEIS nor the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission have adequately addressed our concerns. Therefore the HCEC position remains unchanged. We continue to oppose the Statesman Group proposal and to support the no- action Alternative (A), which would allow for more locally - oriented development consistent with existing and allowed uses, offer the highest level of protection to water and related natural resources, and preserve the rural character of the local community and the Pleasant Harbor /Black Point area. At this time, there is a lack of adequate knowledge to prepare and adopt meaningful conditions which would avoid potential harm. A reading of the Planning Commission's comments makes it clear this project is not ready for making informed decisions. Following are additional comments regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. • The Planning Commission expressed concerns that certain assumptions in the DEIS (including, but not limited to, stated rainfall projections, runoff projections, and the project's estimated impact on Hood Canal) may not be based on current conditions or Best Available Science (BAS) The FEIS does not put these concerns to rest. The recent heavy rain events certainly offer an opportunity to study actual rainfall and develop more accurate runoff projections. To make a decision with this fresh information available to use, but not even considered, would certainly not be applying BAS. • The Planning Commission recommended examining the possible ecological impact of the development's water collection and reuse plan that alters kettles for use as water storage. We agree, and urge that the examination be carried out by a responsible environmental consultant and subject to peer review, and that the impacts be known and considered before any decision is made that would allow any alteration of the now existing system of water storage. The Planning Commission recommended that the county ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. This is not just a "look nice" aesthetic matter, but an ecological concern as well. No development should be allowed that could negatively impact the natural systems on Hood Canal, and these greenbelts are an integral part of such natural systems. • The Planning Commission recommended that if the plan proves to be inadequate at the project level, the Board of Commissioners should consider altering the size of the project as a way to mitigate water quality and water quantity issues and impacts. Certainly water quality and water quantity are huge issues with potential disastrous impacts on a fragile Hood Canal now on the brink of environmental disaster. Potential impacts of a development of any size on Pleasant Harbor and Black Point need to be thoroughly understood with a scientific certainty that fairly allows only one conclusion — that such development will not adversely impact the ecology of Hood Canal — before the project should be allowed. Altering (reducing) the size of the project is not an acceptable way to mitigate water quality and water quantity issues and impacts associated with the project, but only a way to possibly lessen such issues and impacts. Mitigation entails improving natural systems so as to offset the negative impacts caused by development, but BAS tells us that mitigation rarely works as a satisfactory offset and that "no net loss" is largely an unreachable goal because we cannot satisfactorily mimic natural systems, which normally take many years to evolve, by an artificial quick fix with big machinery in a sensitive environment. In addition to our environmental concerns we question whether Jefferson County has the resources necessary for the regulatory oversight required for this project. The additional burden of administering and /or ensuring compliance with multiple permit applications and resource management plans described in the FEIS, e.g. stormwater management plan, golf course aquifer protection guidelines, LID site design (with the state), habitat management plan, Shellfish Protection District requirements, and pet management plan, will undoubtedly strain already tight budgets and place extra work on staff. In summation, the HCEC strongly urges the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to deny the proposal to amend the county's comprehensive plan to allow the development of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort to proceed. Based on the Best Available Science this project is too big and too intensive for this sensitive place and, although it may provide economic benefits to some, it poses too large a risk to the natural environment and therefore should not be allowed. The HCEC appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Board of Commissioners on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort proposal. We look forward to receiving further information as part of Jefferson County's public review and involvement process. Sincerely, Donna M. Simmons, Board Member Hood Canal Environmental Council CC . C ► i t Fk-,C c- Miranda Schryver Page 1 of 1 From: Eric and Joan Hendricks [overbrookfarm @embargmaii.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:38 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: comments on last night's meeting' Dear Commissioners, I would like to comment on a couple of the points that people made during the public hearing last night. The suggestion that the EIS be put under peer review was an excellent one. This has been done somewhat by those whose comments are found in the FEIS. State Parks called the EIS "incomplete' and said it needed "additional analysis before decisions are made." Fish and Wildlife had many concerns, including the accessibility to their property on Pleasant Harbor. I wonder what they will think about your staff recommendation to add it to the subarea plan? I found Brenda McMillan's comments on the water issue interesting. Once you do the conversions, you find that the EIS states that the available groundwater is 9,116,640 gallons, while later if we take the rates of water usage mentioned in the EIS and multiply them out, commercial usage plus 600 residences will use a total of 39,000,000 gallons over the summer, a strain on the available water supply. I could bring up many more comments, but you have probably already heard them all. My advice to you is to take your time in making your decision. The gentleman who suggested you speak with other communities that had a Statesman development had a good idea! All I want is for your decision to be made in a fair manner. All through this process, the people who oppose the resort have felt that it has been shoved through in a hurry. We have seen a public meeting that was not publicized (last March), an anonymous flyer, petition sheets that were signed more than once, and some of us have been called names and intimidated. David spoke of compromise last night. However, Garth Mann and Sandy Mackie have said that they cannot make the resort pay with less than 890 units. I don't know whether the golf course is necessary to make the resort profitable. If there had to be a resort there, I would do the ecotourism idea I suggested at the public meeting at the school, and I would bring people in by boat so there wouldn't be any traffic impact. There were once four boats a day from Brinnon to Seattle! Thank you for all your time and effort on behalf of the citizens of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Joanie Hendricks BS, Biology with honors 12/7/2007 cc OCT) Page 1 of 1 Vc- `• jj Miranda Schryver From: Eric and Joan Hendricks [overbrookfarm @embargmaii.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 8:58 AM To: Miranda Schryver, Subject: Audubon International Dear Commissioners, Is an "Audubon" golf course any better? The author at http:// hillcountrywater .org/Audubonlntemational.htm says it is a farce. There are links at this site to the Audubon International site. A common problem on golf course turf are broad leaf weeds, and fungi. The only way to combat red thread fungus in grass is with fungicides or regular application of high nitrate fertilizers, and it is very common in golf course turf. It is common at Dosewallips State Park, but the state opts for large dead patches in our grass rather than use chemical treatment. As far as broad leaf weed control 2,4 -D is very widely used. This would be used on dandelions, clover,etc. along with high nitrate commercial fertilizers. Golf courses use much more fertilizers and pesticides than do commercial crops. I find it unlikely that the sand filters that are proposed for filtering out chemicals from the golf course into the aquifer would be adequate. So, as a more environmentally sound use for the area instead of the condos and putting greens, I suggest that they manage it as a commercial forest and clear cut log it. They could employ local workers to do the harvest, replanting and a pre - commercial thinning at 15 years. With the thinning at 15 years, no chemicals would have to be used to control the weeds or hardwoods. In 50 years, which is the rotation age for Douglas fir, it would be ready for harvest again. As wacky as this sounds, a clear cut would do less damage than the development. Sincerely, Eric Hendricks Park Ranger Private Forest Land Owner USDA certified Public Pesticide Operator 12/7/2007 Page 1 of 1 I C�'D C, /0-7 Miranda Schryver From: Ed Davies [bruno54321 @embargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:04 PM To: Miranda Schryver 3 Subject: Brinnon Master Planned Resort To: Jefferrson Co. Commissioners From: Elizabeth Davies, Brinnon, Wa. 796 -4083 Re: Statesman /Black Point Planned Resort If the concerns of the Planning Committee & the Commissioners for the viability of Hood Canal and the environmental issues existing in Jefferson County are outweighed by a demand for an increase in county revenue, then each committee member and each of the commissioners is obliged to go on record to state that. If the perceived demand for increased revenue is a reality, it is not likely to change with an increase in demand for services. I recall discussions at the state level that evaluated the prospect of dividing Jefferson Co. in half, as a remedy for revenue related problems. Perhaps this is the time to reintroduce that possibility, as the population continues to increase on the peninsula. If Jefferson Co. was half its size, the maybe the county officials would return to their earlier plan for slow, manageable growth, rather than opting for approval of high- density, short -term residency. 12/6/2007 December 7, 2007 &/h)r�� Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I strongly oppose expanding the MPR to the west side of Highway 101 at this time. My reasons are as follows: The Statesman project currently up for consideration far exceeds the size (in dwellings and potentially people) and scope (ten shops) from that originally envisioned in the Brinnon sub area planning. The preponderance of those opposing the Resort are doing so due to its size. We do not need the county to add to the size through west side expansion at this time. Give Brinnon time to adjust to this doubling of our population before creating the possibility for expansion again. I have respect for the individuals who wish to expand west of 101. They are good people and would bring good businesses to the area. However, the cross traffic caused by major "centers" across from each other on 101 would invite danger. I live at the now current cross traffic intersection in Brinnon, the intersection of 101 and Brinnon Lane with the Brinnon General Store on the east and the Halfway House, Post Office, and residences on the west. We have a high rate of accidents including one fatality last summer. It is dangerous to cross the street. This is where the Brinnon elk were killed trying to cross the street. By the way, there are two elk herds in Brinnon, the Dose herd routinely crosses 101, and, according to old timers, since members of the Sequim herd were introduced to it, the Dose elk have been learned to stay in town (Downtown Brinnon) year round. They do, having eaten my grapes, roses, holly, apples, and shoots from whatever small trees such as cedar or fir I plant outside my fenced yard. 1 do not know the habits of the Duckabush herd beyond what friends there tell me. I beleive it would be wrong to expect the Statesman group to absorb the traffic mitigation caused by any west of 101 development. They have come through the process first and I think it only fair that they be allowed to proceed or not independent of the possible west side expansion. I want to be very clear about this: Statesman should have t bear no part of any possible west side expansion in terms of planning, cost, permitting, or mitigation. To include the west side at this time appears to me to be adding this load onto their backs. Statesman is offering mitigation to Brinnon in the form of help for our school and emergency services. Please do not interfere with this happening by complicating their proposal. County officials have a history of meddling with our growth proposals so they fail. This appears to be another case of such meddling. The majority of the people of Brinnon have not asked for this inclusion during discussion of the Statesman project. Please do not add it now. The Statesman group will have to provide visual buffers for all of their project Expansion on the west side of the highway, since it is upland, cannot. We do not need any further disturbance to our rural feel by looking at businesses sited within view of the highway. Recent storms showed that very large amounts of water will by coming off the hills from the west side of 101. During the last strom, while driving from downtwon Brinnon to Pleasant Harbor I encounterd water running over the road at each locaton where the upland soil had been distrubed by a house or driveway. Spray went over the top of my SW and I had to drive blind until I was clear. This kind of storm run off will have to be engineered, and engineered well, so that it does not run across 101, draining into the Statesman grounds and possibly finding its way into the _C_ anal. This should be undertaken only after the Statesman project is completed, if at all. Businesses in downtown Brinnon have languished since the closure of the Dose Road into the Olympics, the shortening of shellfish seasons, and the increase in gasoline prices. Our one existing restaurant and one store are hanging on. The Statesman expansion will certainly bring business but will certainly add comptetition from their restaurant and ten shops. Adding additional shops will overload our fragile economy. Finally, expansion on the west side of 101 starts to open up urbanization of Brinnon. Once the resort in a sure thing there will be concerted to effort to turn our 14.5 mile long community into a strip city with services strung all along its length e � old Sequim I grew up with and don't want it to happen here. Our Dose downtown core can be expanded; we have a prime vacant lot across 101 from the General Store where the other Brinnon restaurant used -to be., t its land be developed first. The Statesman proposal is so large it removes the need for any fu e a 'on of Brinnon. Iff Sincerely, JEFFERSON COUNTY �'VE COMMISSIONERS Il'1. i���� DEC 0 7 2007 ames M. Watson