Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Letter BoCC response to PNPTC Tribes Aug 15 2024 Letter - FINAL
Wednesday, November 13, 2024 W. Ron Allen, Chairman Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequim, WA 98382 rallen@jamestowntribe.org Chris Tom, Vice Chairman Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 31912 Little Boston Rd NE, Kingston, WA 98346 ctom@pgst.nsn.us Re: Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Report - Preliminary Plat Application, DCD File No. SUB2023-00025 Dear Chairman Allen and Vice Chairman Tom: Jefferson County values the cordial and productive relationships that have been developed and nurtured with your tribes and the PNPTC, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Skokomish Indian Tribe, and other area tribes have had a cordial and productive relationship for many years on this project and others. We value this relationship and commit to continuing it as far into the future as we can see and beyond. With this report we are responding to the August 15, 2024 letter to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on behalf of the Jamestown S’Klallam (JST) and Port Gamble S’Klallam (PGST) Tribes, and their consortium, the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) (collectively, your tribes). We apologize again that we were not able to get this response to you sooner. This project has a decades-long history and input from tribes that have helped shape it to protect tribal treaty rights and the environment. Numerous changes made to both the development regulations and the development agreement after the 2015 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) was published that address tribal concerns and came from meaningful. government-to-government consultations. The following report provides the necessary background for our responses to your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter. To facilitate the use of this report, we have added a table of contents. Most of the significant decisions already have been made in county ordinances in 2008, 2018, and 2019 that have passed legal challenges; these decisions are final and they set the parameters for future decision-making. Nevertheless, the county believes there are future decisions that would benefit from tribal input, including the decision on the pending preliminary plat application, the later final plat application(s), and the annual review of best management practices (BMPs), and others that may be identified. See section X, below. The county commits to continuing the Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page ii productive discussions we have had with tribes on this project, including the continuing staff-to- staff discussions and regular status reports to your tribes. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii I. THE LOCATION OF THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT ON BLACK POINT. ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. RELEVANT HISTORY BEFORE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHMPR AT BLACK POINT. ................................................................................................................................................... 7 A. Native American tribes have lived in the area for thousands of years. ................................ 7 B. The Point No Point Treaty is signed. ................................................................................... 8 C. Non-native settlers arrived. .................................................................................................. 9 D. The Olympic National Park was designated. ....................................................................... 9 E. Washington Became a State. ................................................................................................ 9 F. Federal recognition. ........................................................................................................... 10 G. The Point No Point Treaty Council was established. ........................................................ 10 H. The timber industry peaked, then died out......................................................................... 10 III. SHORT SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE TREATY RIGHTS. ............................................. 10 A. The Point No Point Treaty applies. .................................................................................... 10 B. Fishing Rights. ................................................................................................................... 11 C. Hunting and Gathering Rights. .......................................................................................... 11 IV. HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE PHMPR PROPERTY AT BLACK POINT. .... 13 A. Pleasant Harbor (former NACO) Campground. ................................................................ 13 B. 1982-2004: The Brinnon Subarea Plan .............................................................................. 15 C. Article II of Title 17 JCC, the development regulations and the development agreement.17 D. The approved Development Regulations and Development Agreement have extensive requirements to protect the environment and preserve tribal treaty rights. ...................... 18 E. The Preliminary Plat Application. ..................................................................................... 19 F. Your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter references the preliminary plat application. .............. 19 G. History of government-to-government communications on this project. .......................... 21 1. Government-to-government contacts up to the preliminary plat application. ...... 21 2. Government-to-government contacts after the preliminary plat application. ....... 21 H. Jefferson County has had a limited ability to require changes to the project. ................... 22 V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................ 23 A. No discharge performance standard. .................................................................................. 26 Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page iii B. Other performance standards in the Development Agreement. ......................................... 27 C. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N) to the Development Agreement requires necessary monitoring. ....................................................................................................... 28 D. Stormwater. ........................................................................................................................ 29 1. Chapter 18.30 JCC in effect at the on the date of the Development Agreement requires control of stormwater. ............................................................................. 29 2. The Development Agreement Requires Utilization of Best Management Practices. ............................................................................................................................... 29 E. The June 11, 2024 best management practices for the PHMPR (including the pleasant harbor marina) further protect the environment. ............................................................... 29 VI. PRIOR COMMENTS FROM JST, PGST AND PNPTC. ...................................................... 38 A. PNPTC COMMENT 1 (“Tribes’ past comments have not been addressed”). .................. 38 1. PNPTC COMMENT 1A. ...................................................................................... 38 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 1A. ..................................... 39 3. PNPTC COMMENT 1B. ...................................................................................... 40 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 1B. ..................................... 40 5. PNPTC COMMENT 1C. ...................................................................................... 40 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 1C. ..................................... 41 VII. PNPT AUGUST 15, 2024 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS. ........................................... 42 A. PNPTC COMMENT 2A (“Shellfish Resources Protection and Management”). .............. 42 1. PNPTC COMMENT 2A. ...................................................................................... 42 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 2A. ..................................... 42 3. PNPTC COMMENT 2B. ...................................................................................... 45 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 2B. ..................................... 45 B. PNPTC COMMENT 3 (“Water Quality Protection and Management”). .......................... 46 1. PNPTC COMMENT 3A. ...................................................................................... 46 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 3A. ..................................... 47 3. PNPTC COMMENT 3B (“Revisions to project management plan”). ................. 47 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 3B. ..................................... 47 5. PNPTC COMMENT 3C (“Urbanization … will increase the prevalence of toxic heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and other contaminants of emerging concern in this rural area.:) . ................................................................................. 47 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 3C. ..................................... 48 C. PNPTC COMMENT 4 (“Wildlife Protection and Habitat Management Plan”). .............. 49 1. PNPTC COMMENT 4A. ...................................................................................... 49 Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page iv 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 4A. ..................................... 49 3. PNPTC COMMENT 4B. ...................................................................................... 49 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4B. ................................................... 50 5. PNPTC COMMENT 4C. ...................................................................................... 50 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 4C. ..................................... 50 7. PNPTC COMMENT 4D. ...................................................................................... 50 8. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4D. ................................................... 50 9. PNPTC COMMENT 4E. ...................................................................................... 50 10. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4E. ................................................... 51 D. PNPTC COMMENT 5 (“Cultural Resources Protection and Stewardship”). ................... 51 1. PNPTC COMMENT 5A. ...................................................................................... 51 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5A. ................................................... 51 3. PNPTC COMMENT 5B. ...................................................................................... 52 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5B. ................................................... 52 E. PNPTC COMMENT 6 (“Development Agreement does not Incorporate Tribal Comments/Revisions”). .................................................................................................... 59 1. PNPTC COMMENT 6A. ...................................................................................... 59 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6A. ................................................... 59 3. PNPTC COMMENT 6B. ...................................................................................... 60 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6B. ................................................... 61 5. PNPTC COMMENT 6C. ...................................................................................... 61 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6C. ................................................... 61 VIII. FUTURE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRIBAL PARTICIPATION ....................................... 61 IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 65 Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 1 I. THE LOCATION OF THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT ON BLACK POINT. The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) is located on the Hood Canal on the Black Point Peninsula in Brinnon, Jefferson County, Washington, along U.S. Highway 101, just North of the Mason County line, shown on Figure 1, below. The PHMPR lies between the estuaries of the Dosewalips and Duckabush Rivers, which we recognize as important resources to the tribes. See The Olympic Peninsula Environmental News (March 18, 2024, https://olyopen.com/tag/black- point/, Accessed November 11, 2024. Figure 1, Aerial View of the Black Point Peninsula, Brinnon, WA Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 3 There are two other marinas, in Pleasant Harbor, Home Port Marina at Pleasant Harbor and the Pleasant Harbor State Park Marina (overnight mooring only), shown on Figure 3. See Home Port Marina at Pleasant Harbor, http://www.brinnonmarina.com/, Accessed November 10, 2024 and Pleasant Harbor State Park Marina website, https://parks.wa.gov/find-parks/state- parks/pleasant-harbor-state-park-property, Accessed November 10, 2024. Figure 3, Three Marinas at Pleasant Harbor Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 6 To the West of the PHMPR on the Black Point Peninsula are homes on Lackawana Beach, shown on Figure 7. Figure 7, Lackawana Beach and residential development. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 7 To the South of the PHMPR on the Black Point Peninsula are homes nearer to the mouth of the Duckabush River, as shown on Figure 8. II. RELEVANT HISTORY BEFORE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHMPR AT BLACK POINT. A. Native American tribes have lived in the area for thousands of years. We recognize and honor the native American tribes who have flourished in the Hood Canal regions before the arrival of explorers and settlers to the Pacific Northwest. This includes your tribes, the Chemacum Tribe,1 the Lower Elwa Klallam Tribe, the Skokomish Indian Tribe, and others. Each 1 See Chemacum Tribe website, https://www.chemakum.org/our-history, Accessed November 13, 2024. The Chemacum Tribe has not receive status as a federally recognize Indian tribe. Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 8 (January 12, 2023), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/12/2023-00504/indian-entities-recognized-by-and- eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of, Accessed November 13, 2024. Figure 8, Residential development on South side of Black Point near the Duckabush River. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 8 tribe has its own unique history and culture.2,3,4 Many tribes have their own tribal historic preservation officers (THPO) appointed under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470 et. seq. Your tribes, the and the Skokomish Indian Tribe are listed by the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) as having THPOs.5 The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe does not have a THPO listed on the DAHP web site.6 B. The Point No Point Treaty is signed. According to the “History & Culture” page on the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s website: Unfortunately, in 1855, the Point No Point Treaty was signed. In the agreement, tribes ceded the right to three-quarters of a million acres of land to the United States government. In return, they reserved their rights to hunt, fish, and gather shellfish and plants in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations.” The S’Klallams— along with other tribes—specifically sought to preserve their right to hunt and fish as they had always done. Unfortunately, the Treaty ceded their access to the land in favor of the ownership of white settlers as the S’Klallams were assigned to the Skokomish Reservation, over 100 miles away from their ancestral home in and around Hood Canal. See Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s website. https://pgst.nsn.us/history-culture/, Accessed on November 10, 2024. The S’Klallam, Skokomish, and Chemacum tribes ceded or surrendered about three quarters of a million acres of land to the federal government under the Point No Point Treaty, but reserved their aboriginal right to fish, hunt, and gather. The Point No Point tribal treaty rights are quoted below: ARTICLE IV. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United States; and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed land,. Provided, however, That they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens. (Emphasis added.) 2 JST web site, https://jamestowntribe.org/https-library-jamestowntribe-org-home-culture/, Accessed November 13, 2024 and PGST web site, https://pgst.nsn.us/history-culture/, Accessed November 13, 2024. 3 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe website, https://www.elwha.org/culture-history/historical-village-sites/,Accessed November 13, 2024. 4 Skokomish Indian Tribe web site, https://skokomish.org/culture-and-history/, Accessed November 13, 2024. 5DAHP web site, https://dahp.wa.gov/dahp-tribal-contact-info, Accessed November 13, 2024. 6 Id. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 9 C. Non-native settlers arrived. On December 22, 1852, Thurston County was divided into Pierce, King, Island and Jefferson counties by the Oregon Territorial Legislature.7 Washington was split into its own territory from the Oregon Territory in 1853. Washington Legislature, History of the State Legislature.8 In 1854, Jefferson County assumed its current boundaries when the Territorial Legislature removed the northern half of Jefferson County to create Clallam County. See Jefferson County website: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/287/History, Accessed November 13, 2024. Non-native settlers arrived to the Hood Canal region as early as 1859. See Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002) at 7. “The first settler known to log the Brinnon area was Tom Pierce in 1859, and most early settlers were associated with the logging industry.” McClary, Jefferson County—Thumbnail History (2005), History Link.org, https://www.historylink.org/file/7472, Accessed November 13, 2024. “Logging company railroads were constructed along the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys down to Hood Canal. The roads along these valleys were built in the late 1800s.” See Id. at 93. The logging industry “initially brought new settlers to work in Brinnon and provided their income. The industry continued to be a strong part of Brinnon’s economy until its collapse in the 1980s.” See Id. at 74. D. The Olympic National Park was designated. “In 1897 the area received its first national designation, as Olympic Forest Reserve, by President Grover Cleveland in response to concern about the area's disappearing forests. Eight years later, in 1909, President Teddy Roosevelt designated a part of the reserve as Mount Olympus National Monument to protect the habitat of Roosevelt Elk, whose population was in steep decline.” U.S. National Park Service Website for the Olympic National Park, “History and Culture” web page, https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/historyculture/index.htm, Accessed November 10, 2024. See also Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002) at 7. “Eight contemporary tribes of the Olympic Peninsula - the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, Quinault, Skokomish, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, and Lower Elwha Klallam - have lived in this area since time immemorial and continue to maintain strong relationships to the lands and waters now within Olympic National Park.” U.S. National Park Service Website for the Olympic National Park, “History and Culture” web page, https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/historyculture/index.htm, Accessed November 10, 2024. E. Washington Became a State. On November 11, 1889, Washington became a state. Washington Legislature, History of the State Legislature.9 7 Reinartz, History of King County Government 1853 – 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20090325074033/http://www.metrokc.gov/kc150/historical%20overview.pdf, Accessed November 13, 2024. 8 https://leg.wa.gov/History/Pages/default.aspx, Accessed October 13, 2024. 9 https://leg.wa.gov/History/Pages/default.aspx, Accessed October 13, 2024. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 10 F. Federal recognition. The Point No Point Treaty was signed in 1855. But most Tribes did not receive Federal recognition until after 1900. See Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002) at 6-7. G. The Point No Point Treaty Council was established. The PNPTC was established in 1974, shortly after the federal court decision in U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (Boldt Decision). The Treaty Council was originally organized by area tribes who were signatories to the Treaty of Point No Point (1855) to cooperatively manage resources, protect tribal treaty rights, and efficiently and effectively meet resource management responsibilities. The original members of the Point No Point Treaty Council were the Lower Elwa Klallam Tribe, the JST, the PGST and the Skokomish Indian Tribe. The PNPTC currently serves as a tribal consortium for the Port Gamble S’Klallam and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes by providing natural resources management services. See the “History” page of the PNPTC’s web page, https://pnptc.org/about-us/history/, Accessed November 10, 2024. H. The timber industry peaked, then died out. In the 1970s, the timber industry peaked due to the export market but began to decline in the early 1980s. Olympic Peninsula lumber mills and local cedar shake mills went out of business due to over-harvesting, poor market conditions, and increasing environmental restrictions that limited logging in the National Forests. See Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002) at 44. III. SHORT SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE TREATY RIGHTS. We will attempt to summarize the relevant history of the region as it pertains to tribal treaty rights, and we recognize that some aspects of the region’s history may be interpreted differently by the parties involved. A. The Point No Point Treaty applies. The Treaty of Point No Point applies. The relevant portion of the treaty states to the tribes are reserved: The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United States; and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided, however, That (sic) they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens.i Point No Point Treaty, Art. 4 (emphasis added). Point No Point Treaty rights were preserved when Washington was admitted as a state to the Union under Washington’s enabling act, 25 Stat. 676 (1889). State v. Buchanan, 138 Wn.2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070 (1999). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 11 B. Fishing Rights. The Point No Point treaty reserved to tribes, “The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United States …, provided, however, That (sic) they shall not take shell-fish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens” Point No Point Treaty (1855), Art. 4 In 1974, U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (“Boldt”) decision upheld treaty tribe’s fishing rights, including those on the Hood Canal. In a series of decisions beginning with the Boldt decision, “federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court, held that this treaty language entitles the Tribes to take fifty percent of the salmon.” United States v. Washington, 157 F.3d 630, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1998). Fishing rights are broad and reserve to the tribes whose predecessors-in-interest were parties to the treaty (including PGST and the Skokomish Tribe), fishing rights on a co-equal basis with citizens of the United States, even if off the tribe’s reservation. However, shellfish rights are limited to beds not cultivated “by citizens.” Id. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that, except for this limitation, “the Tribes’ usual and accustomed grounds for shellfish are co-extensive with the Tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing grounds.” United States v. State of Wash., 157 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 1988). This shellfish right includes the right to harvest shellfish on privately owned tidelands. Id. at 647. On a proper showing of the need for land access, tribes would be entitled to cross private property to exercise their fishing rights. Id. at 646-647. C. Hunting and Gathering Rights. The Point No Point treaty (1855) reserved to tribes, “the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands.” Point No Point Treaty, Art. 4 (emphasis added). Unlike tribal fishing rights, hunting and gathering rights reserved to the tribes were limited to “open and unclaimed lands.” United States v. State of Wash., 157 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 1988). The meaning of “open and unclaimed lands” is disputed between tribes and the State of Washington. In 1999, State v. Buchanan, 138 Wn.2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070 (1999) was decided by the Washington Supreme Court. The court held that “the treaty hunting right, by its terms, is of a temporary and self-limiting nature. The right was intended to diminish as lands became settled, without the need of congressional action.” Buchanan, 138 Wn.2d at 206, 978 P.2d at 1080 (citing United States v. Hicks, 587 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (W.D. Wash. 1984), holding that the Olympic National Park is not subject to the hunting treaty right). In other words, “hunting and gathering rights reserved to the tribes were limited to “open and unclaimed lands.” United States v. State of Wash., 157 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 1988). Hunting and gathering rights were intended to diminish as lands became settled, without the need for congressional action. Buchanan, 138 Wn.2d at 206, 978 P.2d at 1080. Hunting and gathering rights are limited to the areas historically used by the tribe for hunting and gathering but only so long as the lands remain open and unclaimed. Id. at 207. “The minutes of the Treaty Council leave no doubt that both parties thought the Indians were getting the right to hunt on lands near the reservation not actually occupied by white settlers.” Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Maison, 262 F.Supp. 871, 872 (D. Or. 1966). “[A]s settlement by non-Indians Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 12 occurred, lands upon which the Indians could exercise their hunting privilege would diminish.” United States v. Hicks, 587 F.Supp. 1162, 1164-65 (W.D. Wash. 1984). The treaty hunting provision was self-limiting. Id. “There was no representation in the Treaty that any areas would be retained as ‘open and unclaimed,’ or that any areas would be reserved from non-Indian use and occupancy.” Id. There is an unresolved dispute between some of the tribes and the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife whether private industrial timberland is “open and unclaimed.” However, the PHMPR is not now and will not be private industrial timberland in the future. The land on all of Black Point is privately owned and developed. A locked gate secures the PHMPR. The MPR is zoned MPR and is not private industrial timberland, so it cannot be “open and unclaimed land” within the meaning of the treaty. We recognize the tribes do not agree with the holding in Buchanan, which relies on Hicks. We may agree that Hicks was wrongly decided. See Article: Can Indians Hunt in National Parks? Determinable Indian Treaty Rights and United States v. Hicks., 16 Envtl. L. 207 (Winter 1986). But as a Washington Supreme Court decision, Buchanan remains the law in Washington and is binding on Jefferson County. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 15 B. 1982-2004: The Brinnon Subarea Plan In 1982, a Community Plan for Brinnon was adopted by Jefferson County. See Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002) at 11. “In 1991, Jefferson County began conducting public outreach meetings to begin its Growth Management Act (GMA) comprehensive planning phase. A large number of Brinnon residents participated, suggesting their desires for Brinnon’s future, which were reflected in the eventual Community Plan of 1995 and the current Subarea Plan.” See Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002) at 11. In 1994, a local Brinnon planning group “determined that stores and shops should remain primarily located in the three commercial areas previously identified in the 1982 Community Plan. The three areas were the Highway 101 intersections near Right-Smart Cove (WaWa Point), Brinnon Flats, and Black Point.” Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002), at 12. In 1999, county began the planning process develop a sub-area plan for Brinnon. In 2002, after significant public input, Jefferson County adopted Ordinance No. 13-1213-02, which approved a Brinnon Subarea Plan. Ordinance No. 13-1213-02 at 2. After approximately two years of litigation, the Brinnon Subarea Plan was amended in Ordinance No. 11-1004-04 in October 2004. In 2002, the Brinnon Subarea Plan was adopted in Ordinance No. 13-1213-02, where a proposed MPR was contemplated. The 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan states: Providing additional tourism and recreational opportunities on the former NACO RV Park site, such as a golf course and hotel with conference and health facilities, could take advantage of an existing site previously developed for tourist and recreational uses, but currently idle. This would also help to diversify the local tourism market by creating a unique “destination resort” not typically found anywhere else on the west side of Hood Canal and one supported by—but not dependent upon—the marina tourist traffic. Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002), at 45. The 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan provided a conceptual vision for a master planned resort at Black Point: Conceptual Master Planned Resort Land Use Plan The recommendation of this Subarea Plan is to generally support the idea of an MPR at the Black Point. Since a project-specific application for an MPR has not yet been made, approval and adoption of this Subarea Plan by Jefferson County will not, in and of itself, result in the approval of a Master Planned Resort for Black Point. Actual designation of an MPR district can only be accomplished through a site-specific MPR application consistent with the requirements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (including the Brinnon Subarea Plan) and the Unified Development Code. The following is the vision for a conceptual Black Point MPR. A conceptual MPR boundary is shown on Figure BR-11 for planning purposes only. The conceptual Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 16 MPR depicted contains approximately 305 acres. An MPR at Black Point could include these types of uses, though an actual application may include uses not listed here and/or not include the uses listed here: Resort—could be comprised of the former NACO Campground and RV Park property; an 18-hole golf course, with clubhouse facilities and hotel/inn with conference and health/athletic facilities; with on-site advanced stormwater and wastewater treatment systems integrated into the golf course. Recreation—could include the 30 acres of land owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at the southwestern end of Pleasant Harbor with beach access and a potential boat launch site, dock and day park facilities and the existing dock at Pleasant Harbor State Park at the northeastern edge of the harbor; may facilitate the acquisition of funding to improve the boat launch, dock, and beach access and create new trails and an improved park and recreational area and potential interpretive center for the community. Marina—approximately 20 acres, including the two existing marinas and commercial and residential uses in Pleasant Harbor; would allow for limited infill of associated visitor-supported commercial, recreational, and residential uses. Single-Family Residential—envisioned to be located on the southern high bank boundary of Black Point; an area of approximately 20 acres for potential development of 20-25 single-family residential homes in a low density setting adjacent to the golf course. Mixed Use—could characterize the 19-acre site across US 101 from the existing intersection with Black Point Road; already cleared and graded and portions of which are subject to pre-existing vested development applications; could provide for placement of water reservoir for the resort and to allow for mixed use development, including visitor-oriented short- term accommodations such as townhouses or condominiums and employee housing as well as associated visitor support for commercial uses and services. Tourist Commercial—could characterize the seven (7)-acre area along the immediate eastern side of US 101 on either side of its intersection with Black Point Road; already cleared and graded and portions of which are subject to a pre-existing vested development application; the area contains an existing office building (Coldwell Banker Settlers Real Estate) and seasonal roadside food stands; could provide retail and commercial uses and other services to meet the needs of resort visitors and community residents, including a motel/inn, restaurant/lounge, visitor center, and other visitor- supported commercial and retail uses. This conceptual area would also Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 17 include the 6.7-acre parcel containing the existing Mt. Jupiter Auto Repair located on the west side of Highway 101 at the intersection with Mt. Jupiter Road. Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002), at 46-47 (emphasis added). Based on the county’s records of comments it is tribes participated in this process. C. Article II of Title 17 JCC, the development regulations and the development agreement. In 2004, the Developer purchased the property. On March 1, 2006, the Developer submitted a Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) Amendment, application number MLA06-87, to re-zone for MPR zoning. In May 2006, Scoping was conducted for Initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), identifying probable significant adverse impacts. In December 2006, MLA06-87 was carried over to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Cycle because a separate environmental impact statement was deemed necessary, and this work could not be completed in 2006. In March to October 2007, the Planning Commission formed an MPR committee an met on seven occasions in Brinnon, on the following dates: March 27, 2007; April 10, 2007; May 1, 2007; September 11, 2007; September 18, 2007; September 25, 2007; and October 30, 2007. In addition to the Planning Commissioners, in attendance at the meetings were DCD Staff project lead, various representatives from Statesman (including A.W. “Sandy” Mackie, and Perkins Coie, legal counsel), and every meeting was well-attended by Brinnon citizens, who had diverse opinions about the proposal. Also, during that period work was done to prepare the EIS. The draft EIS was published on September 5, 2007 and was noticed for public comment through October 24, 2007. From October 31, 2007 to November 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing and conducted deliberations on MLA06-87, reviewing the growth management indicators, findings, and conclusions relative to Chapter 18.45 JCC (Comprehensive Plan and GMA Development Regulations Amendment Process). On November 27, 2007 the required FEIS is published to comply with SEPA. From December 3, 2007 and December 6, 2007, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (Board) held a duly-noticed public hearing where the final DCD Staff recommendation was presented to the Board during the public hearings in which the Planning Commission recommendations were also presented. On January 28, 2008, MPR zoning designation in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 was adopted, after extensive public comment from tribes and project opponents. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 contains 30 conditions that must be satisfied—mostly to protect the environment, including the massive Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 18 shellfish beds on either side at the mouths of the Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers. But also to makes sure services are provided by various impacted government agencies. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 requires developer to establish baseline conditions in surface water prior to applying for the first development permit. JCC 18.10.040 (2006) in effect on June 4, 2018 when the development agreement was approved by the BoCC defines “development permit” as “any permit issued by Jefferson County allowing the physical alteration of real property including, but not limited to, building, construction, road construction, grading, filling or excavating. Approval of a short subdivision, long subdivision, or boundary line adjustment is not considered a “development permit: for the purposes of Chapter 18.35.JCC. (See “Project permit.”)” JCC 18.10.040 (2006). After the public hearing on Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, county staff informed the BoCC in a PowerPoint presentation that MPR development would occur in five phases.” Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cty., 159 Wn. App. 446, 459, 245 P.3d 789, 795-96 (2011). 1. “In phase one, the County would amend the comprehensive plan and create environmental impact statements (EISs).” Id. This phase ended in 2011, with the court of appeals decision above. 2. “In phase two, the County would adopt relevant zoning regulations and development agreements, including land use and density requirements.” Id. 3. “In phase three, the County would process development permit applications.” Id. 4. “In phase four, the County would record plats and allow infrastructure construction.” Id. 5. “In phase five, the County would issue building permits.” Id. D. The approved Development Regulations and Development Agreement have extensive requirements to protect the environment and preserve tribal treaty rights. Work to prepare a project-level EIS began and resulted it the compleation of the FEIS in December 2015. Then, work required for adoption of development regulations and a development agreement began. This inculded negotiations between the Developer and the county to ensure complince with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, including the 30 individual conditions listed in Condition 63, the 2007 FEIS, and the 2015 FSEIS. Ultimately an over 1,000 page development agreement was negotiated for the PHMPR, which includes multiple exhibits and appendices. On June 4, 2018, Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 adopted the master planned resort regulations for the PHMPR that are codified in Article II of Title 17. Various amendments to title 18 JCC also were adopted. Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 was approved by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, after an appeal by the project opponent, the Brinnon Group. Ordinance No. 03-0604-18, authorizes enforcement of the conditions in Ordinance No. 01-0128- 08, the 2007 FEIS, the 2015 FSEIS, and the Development Agreement. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 19 JCC 17.60.060 states: 17.60.060 Requirements. In addition to the requirements of this division, the provisions of JCC Titles 15 and 18, as currently enacted or as hereafter amended or as may be vested, shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must also comply with the applicable development standards and requirements of: (1) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08; (2) The mitigation measures required in the November 27, 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort (2007 FEIS), and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and (3) The terms and conditions of any development agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the developer. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this division and other applicable code provisions, applicable mitigation measures, or applicable provisions of a development agreement between Jefferson County and the developer, the more restrictive shall apply. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)] Per, JCC 17.060.110, Violations of these requirements are enforced under title 19 JCC (Code Compliance). Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 also was adopted on June 4, 2018, approving the development agreement. On March 28, 2019, the Kitsap County Superior Court mostly affirmed the adoption of the development agreement; but required the county to amend the phasing plan. Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, No. 18-2-01758-18 (March 28, 2019). The phasing plan was amended on July 22, 2019, when Ordinance No. 08-0722-19 was adopted. After that, we understand the Developer worked on water system and sewer permits, that are approved at the state level. E. The Preliminary Plat Application. On November 20, 2023, the Developer submited the preliminary plat application. F. Your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter references the preliminary plat application. Recall that: Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 20 In 2008, county staff broke down the project into five phases:10 1. “In phase one, the County would amend the comprehensive plan and create environmental impact statements (EISs).” Id. This phase ended in 2011, with the court of appeals decision above. 2. “In phase two, the County would adopt relevant zoning regulations and development agreements, including land use and density requirements.” Id. 3. “In phase three, the County would process development permit applications.” Id. 4. “In phase four, the County would record plats and allow infrastructure construction.” Id. 5. “In phase five, the County would issue building permits.” Id. Currently, the project is in the beginning of Phase 3. But so far, the only development permits issued so far are for demolition of old campground structures. On November 20, 2023, the Developer submited a preliminary plat application, identified as DCD File No. SUB2023-00025. This is not a development permit and future development, including the building of any permanent structures, depends upon its approval and other future permits. A description of the preliminary plat application and Jefferson County’s response to it is important to understanding the current status of the project. A preliminary plat application is not an application for a development permit. The definition of “development,” which is the current definition and the definition in effect on June 4, 2018. “Development” is about activity on land. However, a “preliminary plat” does not concern activity on land. A “preliminary plat” is defined as “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets, lots, blocks (if applicable) and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the provisions of this code.” JCC 18.10.160 (emphasis added). The current definition in JCC 18.10.160 also was in effect on June 4, 2018. See Ordinance No. 08-071-06. The preliminary plat application is a type III application that requires a hearing after the application is complete. The hearing is before the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. JCC 18.40.240 and JCC 18.40.280. During review of the application materials for the prelimnary plat, Jefferson County identified a number of items to be aware of for future permit submittals. A letter dated December 3, 2023 provided the Developer “courtesy comments” on the items needed for final plat approval, including: “Group A Water System Plan Approval. Condition 63(n) of Ord. No. 01-0128-08 requires that the Group A Water System must be approved by the Washington Department of Health (DOH). While not required for the preliminary plat application, documentation of DOH 10 See Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cty., 159 Wn. App. 446, 459, 245 P.3d 789, 795-96 (2011). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 21 approval, including the approved Group A Water System materials, must be submitted prior to or concurrently with the final plat application.” “Evidence of Sewer Approval. In its October 6, 2022 letter approving the Pleasant Harbor General Sewer Plan/Engineering report, the Department of Ecology requires plans and specifications to be reviewed and approved before the start of construction. Evidence of such approval is required before issuing construction permits.” As of October 7, 2024, the developer had not obtained required state permits for either the required water system or the required sewer system. G. History of government-to-government communications on this project. 1. Government-to-government contacts up to the preliminary plat application. Jefferson County agrees with the statement in your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter that “Beginning in 1997, the PNPTC and our Tribes have provided comments to Jefferson County and participated in discussions and hearings to review this project.” We have reviewed the history of communication between Jefferson County and your tribes about this project and also agree that topics of concern listed in your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter mostly are not new. Your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter also states, “Yet, for over 20 years now, our comments have not been addressed” and “to date, we feel that these concerns have not been adequately addressed.” We hope your tribes will agree that while your tribes feel their concerns have not been adequately addressed, Jefferson County has responded to all the comments made by your tribes over the years. County staff reviewed prior comments by your tribes and the county’s responses and concludes that Jefferson County’s responses to your tribes’ prior comments have been comprehensive and respectful of the tribes and their treaty rights. And, the project has been modified to address comments made by tribes, including those of your tribes. That said, we understand that the results of the process so far may not be satisfactory to your tribes. 2. Government-to-government contacts after the preliminary plat application. Most recently, Jefferson County received a request to meet with JST, PGST and PNPTC on May 10, 2024. The request was for “a technical meeting with staff to better understand [the preliminary plat] proposal and get up to speed on the current status of the project background, timeline, scientific review of the development, any changes to the proposal, meaningful opportunities for tribal engagement and proposal review, and discussion of environmental concerns for this project. Subsequent comment letters outlining JST, PGST and PNPTC concerns were provided to Jefferson County that followed the comment period guidelines for the preliminary plat Notice of Application. Jefferson County hosted a virtual meeting with the JST, PGST and PNPTC on June 11, 2024, to fulfill this request, and scheduled follow-up meetings on July 23, 2024, and August 15, 2024. Prior to each meeting, DCD staff circulated an agenda or staff report and requested input, comments, and questions from meeting attendees. Another meeting was scheduled for September 19, 2024. DCD staff anticipates additional monthly meetings on an ongoing basis. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 22 H. Jefferson County has had a limited ability to require changes to the project. Like all Washington counties, Jefferson County operates under specific enabling state legislation that allows Jefferson County to meet social, economic, environmental, geographic, and other challenges at the local level. Examples of state enabling legislation include the Local Project Review Act, the Planning Enabling Act, the Growth Management Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The county takes very seriously its responsibility to comply with these laws; both substantively and procedurally, including extensive review by affected tribes, other government agencies, and the public. In doing so, the county is locally responsive and locally accountable to affected tribes and to all public and private groups and individuals. As the requirements in Washington law and in Jefferson County ordinances for development of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort have been satisfied over the last 20 years, Jefferson County has had a limited ability to require changes to the project. The Developer has vested rights in the development agreement. RCW 36.70B.180, states: Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part of the build-out period specified in the agreement, and may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. A permit or approval issued by the county or city after the execution of the development agreement must be consistent with the development agreement. (Emphasis added.) Detailed regulations promulgated by the Washington Department of Ecology in Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) implement SEPA. The SEPA responsibilities include acting as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, preserving important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of the national heritage, and achieving a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. RCW 43.21C.020. SEPA integration with agency activities must be at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems. WAC 197-11-055(1). Articles I through VI of chapter 18.40 JCC implement the provisions of chapter 36.70B RCW (the Local Project Review Act) regarding compliance, conformity, and consistency of proposed projects with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. JCC 18.40.860(4) states, “Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent with the agreement.” Section 9.3 of the development agreement states: To the fullest extent allowed by RCW 36.70B.180, all development proposed on the Property shall be vested to and governed by the terms of this Development Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 23 Agreement, the Pleasant Harbor MPR chapter of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, and the Unified Development Code, now codified at Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code including, but not limited to, those code standards attached to this Agreement effective on the date of this Agreement and attached as Appendices A- I). Appendices A to I to the development agreement are the development standards that were in effect on June 4, 2018, when Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 was adopted. The project is vested to the following standards in effect on the date the Development Agreement was executed: stormwater management standards in JCC 18.30.070 (Appendix B), critical areas standards in chapter 18.22 JCC (Appendix C), land division standards in chapter 18.35 JCC (Appendix D), shoreline master program standards in chapter 18.25 JCC (Appendix F), and development standards in chapter 18.30 JCC to the extent that they do not conflict with the Development Agreement (Appendix G). Furthermore, the development agreement has an adaptive management component that both Jefferson County and the development must follow. On June 5, 2023, Jefferson County and the developer agreed to a Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement. The Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement established certain billing, fee assessment, and review requirements for future land division and development applications related to the PHMPR. The Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement also identifies a 60-day review timeline for the surface water quality baseline and report of Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the development agreement in order to avoid a violation of water quality criteria. A June 28, 2024, report from Jefferson County’s environmental consultant, Thomas Mergy, the county’s environmental consultant at LHG, determined that these requirements had been or would be satisfied by a draft amendment to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement. Amendment 1 to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement was approved in open session of the Board of County Commissioners on July 1, 2024. Appendix 1 to Amendment 1 to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement contains a list of best management practices for the entire term of the development agreement and all phases of the project. Appendix 1 adopts the BMPs. An annual review of the BMPs is required. The list of BMPs (with their footnotes) in Appendix 1 is quoted in full in section V.D., below: V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Protection of environment is required by the master planned resort regulations in Article II of title 17 JCC (adopted on June 4, 2018), the applicable development regulations in title 18 JCC in effect on June 4, 2018, the 2019 Amended Development (Development Agreement) and the best management practices listed in the 2024 amendment to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement. These requirements are enforceable by Jefferson County through title 19 JCC (2020), and its regulations for code compliance. JCC 19.10.010(6) & (7). The county’s enforcement authority includes: Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 24 Stop work orders—JCC 19.10.045(1). “Stop work orders should be issued promptly upon discovering a violation in progress.” Notices of voluntary compliance—JCC 19.10.045(1). “[T] the director may issue a written warning, in the form of a notice of voluntary compliance, to the person determined to be responsible for code compliance.” Denial of permits—JCC 19.10.075. “The director shall not issue any permit or other development approval on a property subject to a stop work order, notice of violation, or notice of violation and order of abatement as long as the civil code violation or nuisance that is the subject of the stop work order, notice of violation, or notice of violation and order of abatement remains uncorrected, except that the director may issue such permits necessary to correct the violation or permits to preserve life or property.” Suspension or revocation of permits—JCC 19.10.080(1). “The director may suspend or revoke any permit issued by that director whenever: (a) The director has determined that permit holder has committed a found civil code violation or nuisance, as defined in JCC 19.10.015(14) or 19.10.015(36) in the course of performing activities subject to that permit; or (b) The permit holder has failed to comply with the provisions of a notice of violation, notice of violation and order of abatement, stop work order, or voluntary compliance agreement. Notice to title—JCC 19.10.090(1). “If the director finds that an owner has failed to comply with the requirements of this title, the director, after consultation with the prosecuting attorney, may record a notice of potential uncorrected violation finding on the title of the property with the Jefferson County auditor.” Daily monetary penalties—JCC 19.30.010. Daily monetary penalties may be assessed up to a daily maximum of $500 for the first violation and up to a daily maximum for subsequent violations of $1,000. “Each violation shall constitute a separate civil violation for each and every day or portion thereof during which such violation is committed, continued, or permitted.” JCC 19.30.010(1). “A violation shall be considered ongoing and daily penalties continue to accrue up to the date that the subject property has been brought into compliance with the statute, regulation, or ordinance, as determined by the director, and as evidenced by a written certificate of correction in the form of a letter issued by the director, consistent with JCC 19.10.065.” JCC 19.30.010(4). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 25 A diagram summarizing the environmental protection standards is below. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 26 A diagram showing how these environmental protection standards work with title 19 JCC is below. A. No discharge performance standard. Literally, the number one performance standard in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (2018) is: “The Resort will not cause a violation of any water quality criteria.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.1. (emphasis added). Section 6.2 of the Development Agreement (Developer’s Agreement to Address Impacts of the Pleasant Harbor MPR on Nearby Natural Resources) says: “The Developer agrees to address demonstrated impacts of the Pleasant Harbor MPR to water quality both on-site and off-site ... The Developer will operate the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix N and the Neighborhood Water Supply Program attached as Appendix O.” Development Agreement, Section 6.2. (emphasis added). The no discharge performance standard mirrors the Washington State antidegradation policy contained in RCW 90.48.080: Discharge of polluting matter in waters prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 27 inorganic matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter. Chapter 173-200 WAC implements RCW 90.48.080 for groundwater. Chapter 173-201A WAC implements RCW 90.48.080 for surface water: The purpose of this chapter is to establish water quality standards for surface waters of the state of Washington consistent with public health and public enjoyment of the waters and the propagation and protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW. All actions must comply with this chapter. WAC 173-201A-010(1) (emphasis added). “Performance standards will meet Washington State Ecology requirements in WAC 173-201A and 173-200 as appropriate and as may be revised.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.2. (emphasis added). B. Other performance standards in the Development Agreement. The performance standards in section 8 of the Development Agreement also require: “Prior to the date of application of the application for the first development permit, the Resort must provide a report to the Jefferson County Public Health's Water Quality Division (JCWQ) of the best management practices to be applied so that when all appropriate combinations of individual best management practices are utilized, the Resort will not cause a violation of water quality criteria.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.2. (emphasis added). This performance standard was satisfied by the 2024 Amendment to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement. “Best management practices for the Resort established in pursuant to this Water Quality Monitoring Plan permits, orders, rules, or directives of Ecology or JCWQ shall be reviewed annually and shall be modified, as appropriate, so as to achieve compliance with water quality criteria.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.3. (emphasis added). “If the Resort is applying all best management practices appropriate or required by the Washington Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) or JCWQ and a violation of water quality criteria occurs, the Resort shall notify JCWQ within 48 hours.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.4. (emphasis added). “For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.5. (emphasis added). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 28 “If any violation of water quality criteria occurs, the Resort shall modify existing best management practices or apply further water pollution control measures, selected or approved by Ecology or JCWQ, to achieve compliance with water quality criteria.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.6. (emphasis added). “Activities which potentially contribute to nonpoint source pollution shall be conducted utilizing best management practices to prevent violation of water quality criteria.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.7. (emphasis added). “Activities which potentially cause pollution of stormwater shall be conducted so as to comply with the water quality criteria. The primary means to be used for requiring compliance with the water quality criteria shall be through best management practices required by Ecology or JCWQ for activities which generate stormwater pollution.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.8. (emphasis added). “Methodology and Quality Assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the best management practices for this program are approved.” Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section VI.10. (emphasis added). This performance standard was satisfied by the 2019 Amendment to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement. C. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N) to the Development Agreement requires necessary monitoring. Environmental monitoring from before construction and through construction and operations is required by sections VII, VIII, IX, X of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. If sampling results show three consecutive increases in concentrations of any one of the water quality parameters sampled under this Agreement the Developer shall take steps to identify the cause of the increase. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the increase in the water quality parameters, including but not limited to inspecting, sampling, or testing to determine the cause, nature and extent of the increase. JCWQ may require the Developer to provide a plan for investigation within the time determined by JCWQ as necessary to address the increasing concentrations in the water quality parameters. Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section X.A. (emphasis added). Under the direction of the JCWQ, THE (sic) Developer shall eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential threat to human health or the environment posed by increasing concentrations that are caused by the construction or operations of the Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 29 Resort, including taking steps to eliminate, or modify the source to insure applicable groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section X.A. (emphasis added). D. Stormwater. 1. Chapter 18.30 JCC in effect at the on the date of the Development Agreement requires control of stormwater. “BMPs from the currently adopted Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMM) (see JCC 18.30.070) or as specified by the county engineer shall be employed in the control of erosion and sediment during construction, to permanently stabilize soil exposed during construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems.” JCC 18.30.060(3) (December 18, 2017, emphasis added). PHMPR “must conform to the standards and minimum requirements set by the most current version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMM) and obtain a stormwater management permit.” JCC 18.30.070 (December 18, 2017) PHMPR “shall be required to control erosion and sediment during construction and to permanently stabilize soil exposed during construction.” Id., subsection (3) (emphasis added). “Stormwater site plans shall be developed to the standards of Volume I, Chapter 3 of the SMM.” Id., subsection (4) (emphasis added). 2. The Development Agreement Requires Utilization of Best Management Practices. “In all future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR the Developer shall utilize best management practices (“BMP”) and be subject to the County Stormwater Management requirements, JCC 18.30.070. A copy of JCC 18.30.070 is attached in Appendix B.” Development Agreement, Section 8.3.1. E. The June 11, 2024 best management practices for the PHMPR (including the pleasant harbor marina) further protect the environment. On July 1, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement with Appendix 1 to Amendment 1, which states: The following is a full list of best management practices (BMPs) PHMPR shall implement. Some BMPs are not water quality related and are included for convenience of a single document that outlines all BMPs. The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP (PHMPR) shall use the BMPs listed in this document at the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. There are three phases in which the BMPs shall be used: Pre-construction, Construction, and Operation. Some of the BMPs apply to all three phases. Some BMPs apply to specific phases. PHMPR shall follow all of the BMPs listed in this Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 30 document. Many BMPs are required by the JCC or Development Agreement (including the Appendices). References to existing BMPs is for convenience only and nothing in this list shall be construed to alter, amend or otherwise modify the requirement in the JCC or Development Agreement. BMPs that Apply During All Phases 1. PHMPR shall comply with the requirements of all permits issued by any federal, state or local agency that require environmental sampling or BMPs to protect the environment, including but not limited to the 2010 Water Rights Certificate (Provisions) and the 2022 Superseding Water Rights Permit (Provisions). 2. PHMPR shall comply with all requirements of the applicable development regulations, including but not limited to JCC 17.80.020. 3. PHMPR shall comply with all requirements of the Development Agreement, as amended,11 including but not limited to those in the listed in: a. The Water System Plan, Appendix H to the Development Agreement; b. The Wastewater Treatment Plan, Appendix I to the Development Agreement; c. The Vegetation Management Plan, Appendix L to the Development Agreement; d. The Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix N to the Development Agreement, as amended (WQMP). e. The Neighborhood Water Supply Plan, Appendix O to the Development Agreement, as amended; 11 JCC 18.40.860(4) (“Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent with the agreement.”) and JCC 17.60.060. (“Any regulated land use or development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must also comply with the applicable development standards and requirements of: (1) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (2) The mitigation measures required in the November 27, 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort (2007 FEIS), and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and (3) The terms and conditions of any development agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the developer. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this division and other applicable code provisions, applicable mitigation measures, or applicable provisions of a development agreement between Jefferson County and the developer, the more restrictive shall apply.”) Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 31 f. The Groundwater Monitoring Plan, attached as Appendix A to Neighborhood Water Supply Plan, Appendix O to the Development Agreement; g. The Wildlife Management Plan, Appendix P to the Development Agreement, as amended; h. The Cultural Resources Management Plan, Appendix Q to the Development Agreement; i. The Tunicate Monitoring Plan, Appendix R to the Development Agreement, as revised; j. The International Dark Sky Plan, Appendix S to the Development Agreement; and, k. The LEED Narrative, Appendix T to the Development Agreement. 4. PHMPR shall comply with all conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01- 0128-08.12 5. PHMPR shall comply with all mitigation measures required in the November 27, 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort (2007 FEIS), and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS).13 6. PHMPR shall preserve Kettle B by preventing it from being used for any stormwater storage.14 7. For any violation of water quality criteria, PHMPR shall: a. Take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the MPR;15 and, b. Modify existing best management practices or apply further water pollution control measures, selected or approved by the Washington Department of Ecology or JCQW, to achieve compliance with water quality criteria.16 8. PHMPR shall conduct all environmental sampling and testing pursuant to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated May 21, 2024, modified to add 12 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 13 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 14 See Section 4.1 of the Development Agreement. 15 Development Agreement, WQMP, Section VI. 16 Development Agreement, WQMP, Section VI. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 32 the requirement in Section IX of the WQMP that requires that “Sampling results must be reported to JCQW immediately, but no later than within 48 hours after receipt by the Resort.” QAPP, Section IX.17 BMPs that Apply During the Pre-Construction Phase 9. As required by JCC 17.80.020, the southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal has been put into a permanent conservation easement from the ordinary high-water mark to 200 feet landward.18 10. Though located between these two public beaches, access to the public beaches on the trail from the Property has been prohibited and will continue to be prohibited permanently.19 11. Surface water sampling shall be conducted on a quarterly basis until construction begins for the proposed south development.20 12. Buffers and setbacks are required by Division II of title 17 JCC or under title 18 JCC apply to the MPR-OSR zone.21 Setbacks and buffers (as well as conservation easements) will be marked and double-fenced (with a silt fences and land disturbance barrier) prior to the start of the construction phase. BMPs that Apply During the Construction Phase 13. PHMPR shall provide erosion and sedimentation control during construction consistent with an approved Stormwater Permit issued by Jefferson County and a Construction Stormwater General Permit issued by the Washington Department of Ecology. Any conditions attached to either permit shall be followed and TESC measures shall be inspected regularly and maintained for the duration of construction.22 14. PHMPR shall comply with the county Stormwater Management requirements in JCC 18.30.070.23 15. The construction period work shall follow the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) with 2022 errata, including development of project specific stormwater pollution prevention planning (SWPPP) requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 17 Development Agreement, WQMP, Section XA. 18 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 19 See Section 4.1 of the Development Agreement. 20 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. (Krazan & Associates, Inc. are the environmental consultants for PHMPR.) 21 JCC 17.70.010 (Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR). 22 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 23 See Section 8.3.1 of the Development Agreement. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 33 (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP) issued by the Washington Department of Ecology.24 16. Land clearing and grading shall be performed in accordance with the drainage report and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan, dated Fall and Winter 2013 to 2014 (as may be modified by agreement of Jefferson County and PHMPR), as required for all land disturbing activities requiring a clearing and grading permit. Some items required to be in the TESC Plan may not be known during the design phase and shall be added to the TESC plan or site log book after the pre-construction meeting or as needed during construction.25 17. Surface water sampling shall occur during a monthly basis during construction and shall continue on a monthly basis after construction until modified by the county.26 18. Source control BMPs shall be established 90-days prior to close-out of the Construction Stormwater Permit issued for the MPR.27 BMPs that Apply During the Operation Phase 19. Permanent control of stormwater runoff from the MPR will be developed through selection of appropriate BMPs and other measures to reduce and control the on-site and off-site impacts of the MPR.28 20. Kettle B shall be preserved and, per Section 5 of the Development Agreement, shall be managed with the required Kettle Management Plan. Marina Operation BMPs 21. All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated according to the BMPs for the redevelopment of the marina. Any change in marina operations that results in additional stormwater discharges must be addressed consistently with the most current edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington before discharge.29 22. There shall be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina.30 24 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 25 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 26 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 27 See Section 5 of the Development Agreement. 28 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 29 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 30 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 34 23. Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times.31 24. Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the marina.32 25. All project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines.33 26. The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel moored at its docks.34 27. The marina shall develop and manage an active boater education program appropriate to the marina setting to supplement any Jefferson County program developed as part of the shellfish protection district.35 28. New or significant expansions to existing fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats, docks, piers, and storage lockers 36 29. No storage of oily rags, open paints, or other flammable or environmentally hazardous materials except emergency equipment as approved in the emergency service MOU shall be permitted on the docks.37 30. Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be limited to minor repairs when in the water, which do not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor.38 31. Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier that prevents debris from entering the marine waters.39 32. Shellfish harvesting notices and information will be available at the resort at specific locations, such as the marina, maritime village and at the conference center.40 33. The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements consistent with Jefferson County’s shellfish protection plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a marina public education plan, which shall be 31 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 32 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 33 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 34 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 35 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 36 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 37 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 38 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 39 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 40 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 35 implemented and maintained for so long as the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan.41 34. The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from state sources so long as available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with Jefferson County in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or maritime village.42 35. The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with Jefferson County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the maritime village.43 36. Runoff from the drive and parking area immediately adjacent to the Marina building will be collected in catch basins and conveyed to a StormFilterTM manhole where replaceable cartridges will provide filtration. This filtered runoff will be combined with roof runoff and drainage from behind the building retaining wall and discharged through an existing point discharge to Pleasant Harbor.44 37. The Stormwater Site Plan, prepared for the Pleasant Harbor Marina in June 2013 and attached as Appendix E to the Development Agreement, describes the permanent stormwater control plan for those operations. Stormwater from the impervious asphalt surfaces enters two catch basins that drain into one manhole that is fitted with a StormFilterTM. This BMP calls for an annual check and replacement of the filters per the manufacturer’s specifications.45 Main Resort Operation BMPs 38. PHMPR shall ensure that golf course operations comply with the best practice standards of the King County Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation (1993), or their substantial equivalent, including, but not limited to, American Golf Association standards.46 39. PHMPR shall ensure that golf course and resort facilities will participate in any adaptive management programs required by Jefferson County, 41 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 42 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 43 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 44 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 45 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 46 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 36 consistent with the WQMP and any changes caused by the resort operations.47 40. Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero discharge into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and installing stormwater management, infrastructures and techniques that allow no stormwater run-off into Hood Canal shall be used.48 41. PHMPR shall ensure that golf course shall implement as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of the golf course a requirement to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the MPR, and this information shall be made available to the public.49 42. PHMPR shall collaborate at least annually with the Climate Action Committee or its successor to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the Pleasant Harbor MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods.50 43. In keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the maritime village, the buildings in the MPR should be constructed and placed in such a way they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like green belts between buildings.51 44. Construction of buildings within the MPR boundaries shall strive to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An arborist will be consulted and the critical root zone shall be staked and flagged to ensure the roots and surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (i.e., 10 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh)) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery projects.52 47 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 48 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 49 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 50 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 51 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 52 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 37 45. All development within the MPR shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR.53 46. PHMPR shall, at its expense, incur all costs for stewardship of the conservation easements including but not limited to removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101.54 47. For the main Resort development, source control BMPs will be selected to provide permanent (or operational) stormwater controls that comply with Minimum Requirements of the2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) with 2022 errata. For the new and replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. These areas may include surface water runoff and infiltration to groundwater through retention swales or ponds, this is required if new development creates 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, or converts ¾ acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas (such as the golf course).55 48. PHMPR shall operate the MPR in accordance with the Wastewater Treatment Plan, Appendix I to the Development Agreement.56 49. PHMPR shall operate the MPR in accordance with the Vegetation Management Plan, Appendix L to the Development Agreement.57 50. PHMPR shall operate the MPR in accord with Water Quality Management Plan, Appendix N to the Development Agreement, as amended (WQMP).58 51. PHMPR shall operate the MPR in accord with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix N and the Neighborhood Water Supply Program attached as Appendix O to the Development Agreement. This includes the protection of groundwater.59 52. PHMPR shall operate the MPR in accord with Neighborhood Water Supply Program, Appendix O to the Development Agreement.60 53 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 54 JCC 17.80.020 (Required mitigation measures during development and operations). 55 From Section 5.3 of June 5, 2024 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Report. 56 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 57 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 58 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 59 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 60 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 38 53. PHMPR shall operate the MPR in accord with the Groundwater Monitoring Plan, attached as Appendix A to Neighborhood Water Supply Plan, Appendix O to the Development Agreement.61 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the parties shall review and modify as necessary the BMPs that apply during the operation phase. BMPs for Annual Review and Adaptive Management 54. The BMPs shall be reviewed annually by PHMPR.62 A report discussing PHMPR’s annual review with any recommendations for change shall be provided to JCQW on or before January 1, of each year. JCWC shall comment on the recommendations and propose any revisions on or before March 1 of each year. JCWC and PHMPR shall agree on any modifications by March 30 of each year. If there is no agreement by March 30 of each year on proposed modifications, the parties shall submit issue for dispute resolution pursuant to this Agreement. 55. Adaptive management shall be applied during all phases63 to prevent or remediate discharges from the MPR that may result in a violation of the Washington State antidegradation policy reflected in RCW 90.48.080, as implemented in chapter 173-200 WAC for groundwater and in chapter 173- 201A WAC for surface water.64 We hope the tribes will consider this list of best management practices in its assessment of how Jefferson County has addressed your tribes’ concerns. Regardless, Jefferson County will continue to address on-going comments from the tribes. We certainly understand that the tribes have the right to comment on upcoming permit decisions and to seek review of those decisions before the hearing examiner or the courts. We turn now to the the comments in your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter and respond to each of them in turn. VI. PRIOR COMMENTS FROM JST, PGST AND PNPTC. A. PNPTC COMMENT 1 (“Tribes’ past comments have not been addressed”). 1. PNPTC COMMENT 1A. “Our Tribes, the Jamestown S’Klallam (JST) and Port Gamble S’Klallam (PGST) Tribes, and our consortium, the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) want to express our many concerns regarding the Application for the Pleasant Harbor Plat, Case No. SUB2023-00025. Beginning in 61 JCC 17.60.060 (Requirements). 62 Development Agreement, WQMP, Section VI. 63 JCC 17.80.020; Section 8.86 of the Development Agreement; and, Section II of the WQMP. 64 JCC 17.80.020. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 39 1997, the PNPTC and our Tribes have provided comments to Jefferson County and participated in discussions and hearings to review this project. Yet, for over 20 years now, our comments have not been addressed, especially now in the current project proposal, plat application, and associated documents.” 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 1A. The PHMPR project has been planned, discussed, and authorized at various planning levels, starting in 1982. The first regulatory action by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) was when it adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan adopted in 2002 and amended it in 2004. After several years of work to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement following the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW and its regulations in the Washington Administrative Code, chapter 197-11 WAC, a Comprehensive Plan amendment was included in Jefferson County’s 2007 annual amendment docket. On January 28, 2008, BoCC approved and adopted a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment via Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 establishes a Master Planned Resort on approximately 237.88 acres of property on the Black Point peninsula in the unincorporated Brinnon community. This approval came after the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on November 27, 2007. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 enumerated 30 conditions of approval, including a requirement to negotiate and execute a development agreement. The Ordinance was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) and was validated by the GMHB. The GMHB decision was appealed through the Thurston County Superior Court and then the Thurston County Court of Appeals, and the appeal process concluded in 2011. The courts affirmed the GMHB decision. In the intervening years, project design advanced and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015. Development regulations to implement the PHMPR project were prepared and adopted on June 4, 2018, via Ordinance No. 03-0604-18. This ordinance was appealed to the GMHB and was upheld. The required development agreement was negotiated and approved for execution and recording on the same date as the ordinance approving the development regulations, via Ordinance No. 04- 0604-18. As adopted on June 4, 2018, the development agreement included Amendment 1, which amended the Wildlife Management Plan attached in Appendix P and the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached in Appendix N. This ordinance adopting the Development Agreement was separately appealed to the Kitsap County Superior Court under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) and the ordinance was reversed because the phasing plan lacked information to determine compliance with state requirements for master planned resorts and Phase 1 of the project lacked the necessary amenities required for the master-planned resort. Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement addressed the phasing requirements and was approved for execution on July 22, 2019, via Ordinance No. 08-0722-19. After Ordinance No. 08-0722-19 was adopted in 2019, the developer focused on State permits for the required wastewater treatment system and Group A water system, required by the development Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 40 agreement. The county is not aware of the details of the interaction between State agencies and the developer during this period between the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-0722-19 and sometime in early 2022. We agree your tribes have provided comments from the earliest stages of this project through final adoption of the development agreement in 2019 and now, with the initial implementing applications. Jefferson County appreciates the prior and ongoing participation of your tribes in the many opportunities to provide comments throughout the decades-long history of this project. We hope your tribes will agree that while the tribes feel their concerns have not been adequately addressed,65 Jefferson County has responded to all the comments made by your tribes over the decades of this project. That said, we understand that the results of the process so far may not be satisfactory to your tribes. And, we understand that your tribes are most concerned with “the current project proposal, plat application, and associated documents.” 3. PNPTC COMMENT 1B. “Our Tribes have commented on the proposed MPR at each step in the review process. We have repeatedly commented on the potentially harmful effects and the impacts to important Treaty reserved resources that could be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. Again, to date, we feel that these concerns have not been adequately addressed.” 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 1B. Jefferson County agrees that your tribes have repeatedly commented on the potentially harmful effects and the impacts to important treaty reserved resources that could be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. We understand that your tribes do not believe their concerns have been adequately addressed. 5. PNPTC COMMENT 1C. “Over the years we have provided comments from our organization and our Tribes (2001, 2006, 2007, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2024) regarding this project, and we are deeply concerned about the potential adverse effects on our cultural resources and Treaty Rights. These concerns stem from the loss of wetlands and rare kettle ponds, increased traffic affecting fisheries access, intensity of land use for commercial and residential development, significant alteration of hydrology, clearing and grading, increased impermeable surface, wildlife impacts, use of persistent pollutants, impacts to shellfish, storm water impacts, wastewater issues, and other project effects.” 65 We are using the “adequately addressed” language used in Comment 1B, below because we think it is more accurate. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 41 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 1C. On November 20, 2023, the Developer submited a preliminary plat application, identified as DCD File No. SUB2023-00025. But a preliminary plat application is not an application for a development permit. The definition of “development” is: “Development” means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; any grading, excavation, mining, landfill; or any extension of the use of land; dredging, drilling, dumping, filling, earth movement, clearing or removal of vegetation, forest practice activities that are being conducted as a part of a conversion from forestry to non-forestry use, storage of materials or equipment in a designated floodway, or other site disturbance, which either requires a permit, approval, review, or authorization from the county or is proposed by a public agency, JCC 18.10.040. A “preliminary plat” application does not authorize any of the activities described in the definition of “development.” And, a preliminary plat is a permit but it is not a “development permit,” as that term is defined in JCC 18.10.040. (“Development permit” means any permit issued by Jefferson County allowing development.”) Instead, a “preliminary plat” is defined as “a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets, lots, blocks (if applicable) and other elements of a subdivision consistent with the provisions of this code.” JCC 18.10.160 (emphasis added). Prior decisions in ordiances adopted by the county changed the zoning on the PHMPR to MPR zoning (Ordinance No. 01-0128-08), adopted deveopment regulations for PHMPR (Ordinance No. 03-0604-18), and approved a development agreement for PHMPR (Ordinance No. 04-0604-18), set development limitations and environmental mitigation and protection standards. The preliminary plat is one step in implementing these prior decisions, but will not itself result in any ground-disturbing activity. Further review and verification of compliance with applicable standards and conditions of approval will occur for each development permit. The preliminary plat application is a type III application that requires a hearing after the application is complete. The required hearing will be before the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner. JCC 18.40.240 and JCC 18.40.280. An approved preliminary plat application does not authorize construction. Building permits for each structure must be submitted for review and approval prior to beginning construction. Renderings, conceptual plans, and construction drawings are not required elements of a preliminary subdivision pursuant to Article IV, chapter 18.35 JCC. But they are required after approval of a preliminary plat. For example, JCC 18.35.570 requires: All improvements shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the development standards contained in this article, as well as chapter 18.30 JCC and any standards incorporated therein. Prior to construction of any improvements, as approved upon the preliminary plat or binding site plan, the subdivider shall furnish construction plans. These plans must be prepared, signed, dated and stamped by a Washington State licensed civil engineer and shall be in accordance with the standards contained in chapter 18.30 JCC. The construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the county prior to construction. (Emphasis added.) Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 42 VII. PNPT AUGUST 15, 2024 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS. Your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter says, “A summary of some of the major concerns and deficiencies in the current application follows, which still contains many issues we have commented on over the years.” A. PNPTC COMMENT 2A (“Shellfish Resources Protection and Management”). 1. PNPTC COMMENT 2A. “The Pleasant Harbor MPR (PH MPR) will be located between two public beaches on the Duckabush and Dosewallips, which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/ subsistence harvest opportunities to Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area. The two delta flats are among the most important intertidal areas to the tribal harvesters based on acreage available, healthy habitats available, and existing natural manila clam and pacific oyster production.” 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 2A. The county believes the protections described in section V. of this Report (Environmental Protections and Enforcement) are more than sufficient to mitigate the risk. We discussed the sufficiency of the protection of the environment in detail in our June 20, 2018 letter, which is in the Appendix to this letter. Your tribe’s August 15, 2024 letter says the County did not adequately address comments in the April 9, 2018 letter from the PGST on this and other subjects. We respectfully disagree, having considered the value of the resources and the amount of protection being provided. First, the county does understand the value of these shell fish beds significant commercial, ceremonial, and subsistence harvest opportunities to tribes with usual and accustomed tribal fishing rights in the area. As Jefferson County said in its Jefferson County Clean Water District Water Quality Monitoring Plan (2015) at 10:66 Shellfish are a local treasure. Tribes have depended on shellfish harvest for generations and shellfish are a major part of the cultural identity of Skokomish, the Jamestown S’Klallam and Port Gamble S’Klallam, amongst others. Jefferson County is a major producer of farmed shellfish. More than 50 commercial shellfish businesses are licensed to operate within the county and they are the largest source of private employment in the south county. This includes a broad range of operations, from large hatcheries to small “mom and pop” growers. Jefferson County shellfish products are shipped around the world. 45 recreational shellfish beaches attract hundreds of recreational harvesters every year. Monitoring 66https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/1430/Clean-Water-District-Water-Quality-Monitoring- Plan-2015-PDF, Accessed October 12, 2024. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 44 In addition, Jefferson County Public Health is involved with other water quality related monitoring that is not funded through the Clean Water District. The following programs are funded through consolidated contracts with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH): Shellfish biotoxin monitoring BEACH program These two programs are not covered by this plan. Id. at 6. Along with the PGST and the Skokomish Indian Tribe, Jefferson County has participated actively on the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s (HCCC) Board of Directors.67 Commissioner Kate Dean of Jefferson County was elected as the new Chair in January 2024.68 “On the HCCC Board of Directors, county commissioners and tribal council representatives from across Hood Canal work together to craft and help implement a regional vision for clean water, healthy forests, abundant wildlife, and prosperous communities.” Id. A number of HCCC’s activities advance water quality improvements in Hood Canal, including habitat restoration, addressing storm water runoff, and effective wastewater treatment that reduces bacterial contamination and nitrogen loading. In Hood Canal, where the majority of developed properties rely on on-site septic systems (OSS), it is very important that OSS are well designed, regularly inspected, and properly maintained to prevent septic pollution from reaching our waterways. We can all help to decrease pollution by limiting fertilizer use and managing pet and animal waste. We can help protect salmon and improve water quality by retaining natural vegetation along shorelines. Id.69 Beyond Jefferson County’s participation in these programs: [The Washington State Department of Health (DOH)] is responsible for evaluating commercial shellfish growing areas to determine if shellfish are safe to eat. They monitor more than 100 shellfish growing areas throughout Puget Sound and along the coast. DOH classifies shellfish growing areas based on ambient monitoring of marine water quality and evaluation of potential fecal pollution sources to protect public health. DOH manages commercial shellfish by geographic “growing areas” named by waterbody. 67 HCCC’s website. https://hccc.wa.gov/board, Accessed October 12, 2024. 68 HCCC’s website. https://hccc.wa.gov/content/hccc-board-directors-elects-new-officers, Accessed October 12, 2024. 69 https://hccc.wa.gov/water-quality-protection, Accessed October 12, 2024. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 45 Id. at 11. Second, Jefferson County has taken protecting shellfish beds at the mouth of the Duckabush River very seriously. The protections discussed in section V. of this report prove that. Pursuant to the requirements in Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix N to the development agreement, PHMPR has been collecting data since December 2022. Jefferson County’s environmental consultant, Thomas Mergy at LHG, determined in June 2024 that baseline water quality had been established nearby PHMPR, using data collected by Jefferson County and PHMPR. Shellfish impacts were analyzed in the EISs and no adverse impacts were identified, especially if the water quality mitigation is appropriately implemented. Impact from the PHMPR to the areas near the mouth of the Dosewallips River are highly unlikely, given the distance to the North. In your tribes’ 2018 comments expressed concern about improper harvesting. As the county’s response letter noted at the time, harvesting is the purview of WDFW. Further, Jefferson County noted that the PHMR must operate under the assumption that people will follow stated rules and regulations, rather than assuming people will harvest with poor technique or take more shellfish than allowed. Finally, we urge your tribes to assert their tribal treaty rights directly with the Developer as the County had exhausted its options for requiring further mitigation 3. PNPTC COMMENT 2B. “Any increase in visitors and recreational use is expected to increase the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Additionally, any system overflows into the Duckabush or contaminated storm water runoff from the increase in impervious areas could result in poor water quality in the rivers leading to problems with shellfish on the tidelands. Obviously, a closure of these tidelands by DOH due to water quality issues would have severe cultural and economic impact on the S’Klallam Tribes.” 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 2B. Jefferson County is aware of the risks described in Comment 2B. See the county’s response to Comment 2A. These risks have been assessed in the EIS for the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan, the 2007 FEIS and the 2015 FSEIS, as required by SEPA. The risks have been mitigated by the measures described in section V. of this report, including the development regulations in Article II of title 17 JCC and by the development agreement. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 46 After the county carried out the SEPA process, there was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the 2007 FEIS that ended in 2011.70.The Growth Management Hearings Board reviewed the 2007 FEIS in its 2008 decision approving it under SEPA.71 [The Brinnon Group] alleges that the SEPA analysis is inadequate with respect to stormwater management to be able to determine if it might be possible to reach zero discharge from the golf course site. Further, they allege that the FEIS fails to analyze water quality impacts of the anticipated traffic associated with the development.72 The Growth Management Hearings Board decided as to the FEIS: “The environmental impacts of this project were studied at an appropriate level of detail, with provision for further environmental review at the project level stages of development.”73 This decision was affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court and Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals. The court of appeals specifically mentioned in its decision some of the concerns listed in the PGST’s August 8, 2017 letter copied into the bullets above. Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 480-2 (2011) (“Although the final EIS contemplates greater environmental impacts than Statesman’s proposal in some respects—for example, increased impervious surfaces and increased development intensity west of Highway 101—our Supreme Court has approved EIS alternatives that “present greater impacts in some areas, and fewer impacts in others.”) Subsequently, the development agreement approved on Jun 4, 2018 by Ordinance Ordinance No. 4-0604-18 and amended by Ordinance No. 08-0722-19 on July 22, 2019, provided even more protection. B. PNPTC COMMENT 3 (“Water Quality Protection and Management”). 1. PNPTC COMMENT 3A. “Our Tribes would like Jefferson County to require a water quality and shellfish protection plan with adaptive management measures so that we are reassured the treaty resource is retained over time. We would expect and be pleased to review the required plans and suggest that they incorporate, at a minimum, the following: Water quality monitoring in waters connected to tribal fisheries and shellfish harvesting areas, including monitoring for pollutants, An evaluation of alternatives for constructing additional swales and contours near roadways to redirect storm water runoff away from Hood Canal, particularly in 70 Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 245 P.3d 789 (2011). 71 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460 (2008) 72 ,Id., 2008 WL 4618460, at *20 (2008) 73 Id., 2008 WL 4618460, at *26 (2008). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 47 the areas of Phase 1 construction.” 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 3A. There already is such a plan—the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix N) to the Development Agreement. See the discussion in section V. of this report about the standards and testing required by the Water Quality Management Plan. 3. PNPTC COMMENT 3B (“Revisions to project management plan”). “Revisions to the project management plan are also needed to eliminate the use of persistent pollutants and replace them with substances allowed for use under the agricultural national organic program. We request that the draft revised management plan be provided to tribal natural resources staff for review and comment.” 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 3B. The Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix N) to the Development Agreement is not subject to revision without the agreement of the developer. It is part of the Development Agreement, which was over 1,000 pages including multiple exhibits and appendices, including Appendix N that was approved by Ordinance No. 04-0604-18. While there were opportunities to comment on the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix N) during the public comment period for Ordinance No. 04-0604-18, there was no legal challenge to the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix N). The county is satisfied that the Development Agreement, along with title 17 JCC, title 18 JCC, and title 19 JCC sufficiently protects the environment. See the discussion above about the standards and testing required by the Water Quality Management Plan. Accordingly, the county is not interested in further negotiations with the Developer, outside of the annual adaptive management required by the Development Agreement. However, the county sees an opportunity to meet with your tribes and provide comments before or during the annual adaptive management discussions with the Developer. Since BMPs were adopted in early July 2024, we expect these discussions with the Developer to take place in approximately late May or early June of 2025. We suggest adding this to the periodic and ongoing staff-to-staff meetings between your tribes and the county. 5. PNPTC COMMENT 3C (“Urbanization … will increase the prevalence of toxic heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and other contaminants of emerging concern in this rural area.:) . “The urbanization of the area by the development of the proposed PH MPR will increase the prevalence of toxic heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and other contaminants of emerging concern in this rural area. The increase in the prevalence of these pollutants will likely have a negative effect on fish and shellfish resources inhabiting PH MPR and the surrounding areas, including the Dosewallips and Duckabush River Estuaries.” Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 48 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 3C. The primary goal of this Water Quality Monitoring Plan is to comply with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 Condition 63-R which is to establish the requirements for a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan to provide a means of ensuring that the Resort does not add to any existing water quality challenges. To that end, this Water Quality Monitoring Plan provides a system to verify that the no impact plan of the Resort is and will be effective in protecting sensitive natural resources. Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section I. The contaminants of concern for potential impacts to surface water are listed in Table 1 in Section V of Appendix N. Neither the 2007 FEIS, nor the 2015 FSEIS, identified any activities on the land at the PMPR that would generate “toxic heavy metals” in such quantities and negatively impact surface water. Any possible releases of “toxic heavy metals” from the marina are subject to a separate set of BMPs listed in the BMPs established in the 2024 Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement, which could not impact the shellfish beds on the other side of the Black Point Peninsula. Comment 3C also uses the term “other contaminants of emerging concern in this rural area,” without reference to any particular type of chemical, making it impossible to respond to that stated concern. Regardless, before final plat approval (in later steps of the project), PHMPR must have functioning sewer and stormwater systems that prevent any discharge from the land at PHMPR to groundwater or surface waters. The environmental monitoring required from before construction, through construction and operations required by sections VII, VIII, IX, X of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan is expected to detect increases of chemicals of concern in groundwater or surface water. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 49 If sampling results show three consecutive increases in concentrations of any one of the water quality parameters sampled under this Agreement the Developer shall take steps to identify the cause of the increase. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the increase in the water quality parameters, including but not limited to inspecting, sampling, or testing to determine the cause, nature and extent of the increase. JCWQ may require the Developer to provide a plan for investigation within the time determined by JCWQ as necessary to address the increasing concentrations in the water quality parameters. Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section X.A. (emphasis added). Under the direction of the JCWQ, THE (sic) Developer shall eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential threat to human health or the environment posed by increasing concentrations that are caused by the construction or operations of the Resort, including taking steps to eliminate, or modify the source to insure applicable groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. Development Agreement, Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N), Section X.A. (emphasis added). Again, the protections outlined in section V. of this report are more than sufficient. C. PNPTC COMMENT 4 (“Wildlife Protection and Habitat Management Plan”). 1. PNPTC COMMENT 4A. “While the recent Wildlife Management Plan’s (published 3/12/2024) goals describe an attempt to address some of the Tribes’ most significant wildlife-related concerns, the methods proposed to reduce harm to elk herds are flawed and will not accomplish the Plan’s goals. This plan only identifies one west-oriented fence, and that it is not enough to exclude elk from the premises.” 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 4A. We understand the tribes, the Developer and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife agree that flashing signage keyed to electronic collars will not be an effective deterrent to elk intrusion to the master planned resort. Elk collars are not being maintained. Instead, a greater extent of the master planned resort property should be fenced and the Wildlife Management Plan should be revised accordingly. Of course, this will require cooperation from the Developer. 3. PNPTC COMMENT 4B. “Elk should be completely excluded from the PH MPR via fencing all around the project area because elk are highly mobile. By excluding elk entirely, it could remove other issues that are not currently addressed in the Wildlife Management Plan. Some of those issues are: vehicle-wildlife collisions. damage to ornamental plantings and landscaping. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 50 changes in habitat use by the elk herd, as a response to newly created food sources. the presence of divots and elk feces on the golf course. potentially dangerous interactions between elk and visitors, residences, and their pets.” 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4B. See the Response to Comment 4A, above. 5. PNPTC COMMENT 4C. “The Wildlife Management Plan greatly underestimates how significant elk use (and damage) could be to the PH MPR site. Through the tribally led elk monitoring program, our biologists know that the Duckabush elk herd consists of up to 40 adult elk (which eat roughly the same amount of browse as 25 full grown bovine cows). The Duckabush herd crosses to the east side of Highway 101 (immediately south of the PH MPR) on a limited basis only, likely because there are few novel resources and few high value feeding areas. However, elk use will change after habitat conditions are significantly altered and novel food sources (e.g. fertilized and watered fields) are installed.” 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO PNPTC COMMENT 4C. More fencing at the PHMPR should address this comment. See also the Response to PNPTC Comment 4A, above. 7. PNPTC COMMENT 4D. “The Dosewallips elk herd (which lives roughly 5 miles north of the project) regularly crosses to the east side of Highway 101 to graze on the fields maintained by Dosewallips State Park. The elk are there for hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours each year, despite the presence of dozens to hundreds of campers/visitors and all the noise and disturbance associated with people. Once elk are accustomed to a new and high-value food source, deterring future use will be incredibly challenging.” 8. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4D. More fencing at the PHMPR should address this comment. See also the Response to Comment 4A, above. 9. PNPTC COMMENT 4E. “The Wildlife Management Plan proposes temporary deterrence techniques to be implemented if elk begin to use PH MPR site. However, the proposed flashing lights and loud noises are unlikely to deter elk use but may disturb residents and visitors.” Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 51 10. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4E. More fencing of the PHMPR should address this comment. See also the Response to Comment 4A, above. D. PNPTC COMMENT 5 (“Cultural Resources Protection and Stewardship”). 1. PNPTC COMMENT 5A. “Tribes continue to request that Kettle Ponds B and C and adjacent wetlands be preserved for traditional property evaluation and protection of cultural resources. Storm water and wastewater management plans should avoid the destruction of wetlands and use of these Kettles for storm water and treated wastewater storage.” 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5A. The Development Agreement, Vegetation Management Plan (Appendix L), Forest Report Appendix at 20, says: BP-2K Sub-Areas (11.8% of total BP area) These areas are identified as “Glacial Kettles” in historical information and in Geotech field evaluations of the site. ‘Kettle’ areas have been logged in the past as can be seen on aerial imagery (see Figure 13) and by observation on site. Skid trail evidence and tree stand regeneration status within the kettle boundaries is also visible. The county’s ability to offer additional protection of kettle ponds “and adjacent wetlands for traditional property evaluation and protection of cultural resources” is limited by prior decisions made in the development process as required by state law and the Jefferson County Code. First, in 2008, the county adopted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Condition 63 of that ordinance states: Condition 63(h): “The possible ecological impact of the development’s water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved.” (Emphasis added.) Condition 63(i): “Any study done at the project level pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) shall include a distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the impacts to the hydrology and hydrogeology of the MPR location of the developer s intention to use one of the existing kettles for water storage. Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a second scientist mutually chosen by the developer and the county. The developer will bear the financial cost of these reports.” Condition 63(j): “Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource.” Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 52 Second, these three conditions were satisfied in the 2015 FSEIS and the Development Agreement that was adopted in Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 and Ordinance No. 08-0722-19. The parties and the tribes discussed the importance of kettles on the Property to the PGST’s cultural history. The PGST has applied for including of any Traditional Cultural Properties on the National Register of Historic Places as of the date of this Agreement. If, prior to Developer applying for a grading or building permit for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the PGST applies for and receives a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Developer shall: (A) Preserve either Kettle B or C by preventing the selected kettle from being used for any stormwater storage; and, (B) Consult with the PGST to arrive at a kettle management plan where the PGST would enhance the selected kettle by removing invasive vegetation and planting it with native vegetation found at the time of its use by native people, and to develop and install an educational signs that explain the significance of the kettles to native people. This provision does not restrict or otherwise prevent Developer from exercising its right to object to any application that kettles are culturally significant. Development Agreement, section 5 (emphasis added). The Developer has applied for a stormwater permit (ZONS2024-00004). The County does not issue a separate clearing or grading permit, so preliminary grading was reviewed as part of the installation of stormwater measures. County staff does not believe this is the type of “grading permit” contemplated in section 5 of the Development Agreement. As a result, it is likely the Developer can be required by the county to consult with your tribes on a kettle management plan, up until a grading permit application is submitted to the county by the Developer. 3. PNPTC COMMENT 5B. “Contact should be made with the PGST and JST Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) (and other regional tribes) directly regarding these matters. The Kettle ponds are sacred, cultural relics, and are rare biological features and should be preserved.” 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5B. The county has had recent discussions directly regarding the Kettle ponds with the PGST, the JST, and the PNPTC. The county also has reached out to the Skokomish Indian Tribe and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. Washington State has processes in place to protect tribal culture. These processes mainly involve tribal consultation and historical investigation. We realize that as the years have passed tribes have become more and more aware of their cultural history and ceremonial sites. We Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 53 also understand the location of ceremonial sites of tribes have been kept secret in order to prevent disturbances of tribes’ sacred places. Under Washington law, the county has been required to take actions that relied on past tribal consultation and historical investigation described below. Jefferson County believes it has conducted both the required tribal consultation and historical investigation for the decisions it made in the ordinances it adopted for the zoning, the development regulations and the development agreement for the PHMPR. Nevertheless, the principle of adaptive management permeates the development agreement and its appendices and provides tribes a means of participation in future phases of the project for the purpose of protecting their cultural resources. On January 12, 2012, Cultural Resource Consultants prepared for PHMR a Cultural Resources Management Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery (“Cultural Resources Management Plan”). The Cultural Resources Management Plan states: “Subsurface investigations focused on archeologically sensitive landforms; that is, those environments most likely to contain naturally buried archaeology identified in collaboration with cultural resources staff of the Skokomish Tribe (e.g., kettles, vantage points, the bluff edge).” Cultural Resources Management Plant at 1. There were 22 probes in kettle basins and 32 probes along the kettle margins and rims. Id. On May 11, 2012, Don Coleman on behalf of PHMR wrote to Josh Wisniewski at PGST. The letter states: In order to protect known and unknown archaeological and cultural resources, and to comply with Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(k) as well as state laws governing the protection of those resources (RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44). (sic) We are submitting for your review our cultural resources management plan that includes monitoring and inadvertent discovery processes and procedures. Please review and submit any comments in writing by June 15, 2012. PGST did not respond. On January 14, 2013, the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (WDAHP) approved the Cultural Resources Management Plan. The WDAHP noted in its letter that three tribes have concurred with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and three others did not comment. The Skokomish Tribe approved the Cultural Resources Management Plan on the same day as WDAHP, January 14, 2013. WDAHP’s January 14, 2013 letter is copied to Josh Wisnieweksi, a representative PGST. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 54 Kettles are a common geological feature wherever glaciers retreat, including in Western Washington. According the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR): “Glacial kettles are depressions that form when a retreating glacier leaves a bit of ice behind which then becomes buried by sediment shed from glacial streams. When the block of ice melts, the sediment collapses, forming a kettle. Kettles can be dry or filled with water, depending on their depth and the level of groundwater in the area.”74 See Figure 13, right.75 Through the Public Records Act, we received a copy of the DAHP file and found no consultation with DNR or any expert in geology. All we found in the DAHP file discussing the kettles comes from a group who advocates on behalf of the PGST, the Port Townsend Native Connections Action Group in a piece called “Save the Black Point Kettles.” In that piece, the advocacy group claims, without any proof whatever, that: “We think they are the only kettles on the Olympic Peninsula, and they are dry except for shallow ephemeral ponds in springtime. Most kettles in Washington and across the country are kettle ponds, filled with water, so because these are deep and dry, they are much more significant.” As explained by DNR on its web page, all of the land and waterways in the Puget Lowland region, including the Hood Canal and the kettles at Black Point were shaped, at least in part, by the glacial ice of the Puget Lobe Ice Sheet.76 Kettles are found wherever glaciation occurs. The entire Hood Canal area was impacted by Puget Lobe Ice Sheet. See Figure 14, below.77 “The alpine glaciers that nest year round high in the Olympic Mountains are relicts of the recent ice age, which began about 2 million years ago. During the last ice advance about 15,000 years ago, a large sheet of ice, called the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, moved down from western Canada and into Washington. The ice sheet crept southward into the northern Puget Sound region and bumped up against the Olympics, where it split into two lobes. One lobe went out into the Strait of Juan de Fuca toward the Pacific Ocean, and the Puget Lobe moved south and filled what is now the Puget Lowland. Deposits from this glaciation can be found on the eastern and northern 74 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/glaciers#glacial-landforms. 75 See https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology-glossary#geologic-features.45. 76 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger presentations coe glacial landforms puget lowland.pdf?snr867. 77 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/explore-popular-geology/geologic-provinces- washington/olympic#geologic-history. See also Washington Geologic Society, Bulletin No. 8, Plate XXII (1913). Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 55 edges of this province.”78 Counting Whidbey Island, Black Point and Olympia alone, there are at least several dozen known kettles in the Puget Sound region. 78 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/explore-popular-geology/geologic-provinces- washington/olympic#geologic-history. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 56 Just north of the Hood Canal, on Whidbey Island, the Ebey’s Reserve features the Kettles Trail System.79 WDNR’s GM-58, Geologic Map shows kettles on Whidbey Island on Figure 15, below.80 Indeed, a large notch in the Whidbey Island bluff that is very visible from Port Townsend is a remnant of a kettle. 79 https://www.islandcountywa.gov/PublicWorks/Parks/Pages/kettles-trails.aspx. See also https://www.nps.gov/ebla/planyourvisit/upload/050514-trails-map.pdf and https://washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com/2012/12/kettles-and-dunes-on-whidbey.html. 80 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_gm58_geol_map_coupeville_24k.pdf. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 57 Another example of nearby kettles is the Budd Inlet Kettle Train, just south of Olympia, where there is a cluster of kettles where many ice blocks were buried by sediment from the receding glacier.81 In the Budd Inlet Kettle Train shown in Figure 16, below, kettles are outlined with dashed red lines.82 Glaciers covered the entire Hood Canal area during the Pleistocene era. Soil samples taken by the Washington Geologic Society prove the entire Hood Canal area, including Black Point, is covered with Pleistocene surface deposits, indicating glacial activity. Washington Geologic Society, Bulletin No. 8, Plate XXII (1913). 81 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology-glossary#geologic-features.45. 82 Id. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 58 On Black Point alone, there are at least six kettles as can be seen in DNR’s Lidar image of Black Point, in Figure 17, below.83 83 Id. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 59 E. PNPTC COMMENT 6 (“Development Agreement does not Incorporate Tribal Comments/Revisions”). 1. PNPTC COMMENT 6A. “In the letter from the Port Gamble S’Klallam tribe (dated April 9, 2018), there was a 19-page detailed list of concerns and issues that have not been remedied in the current Development Plan and its Amendments. Below are some concerns related to (but not limited to) the following areas: Concerns related to the density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, sequencing issue with the Development regulations, and failure to meet required provisions and conditions of the Ordinance 01-0128-08. Need for reduction in overall density of the PH MPR Need for conditional approval structure for the PH MPR Need for enforceability and specificity in the Development Agreement (and associated appendices) and development regulations Need for meaningful consultation between Jefferson County and the area Tribes. Need to correct for noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 of nearby natural resources including the protection of shellfish harvesting areas Need for compliance with protection of critical areas with current standards that should include standards related to 6PPD, water quality, climate change impacts, etc. Need for a closer examination of the PH MPR’s water plan and impacts to the kettle ponds for use as water storage, etc. There needs to be a thorough independent study of hydrologic function and relationship between groundwater, surface water, and runoff, aquifer recharge, contamination by pollutants related to pesticides and golf course management, or other treated surfaces. Need for a better water quality monitoring plan. The proposed plan lacks scope and sample frequency. Need for wastewater treatment plan. According to the “Fully Executed Development Agreement with appendices” this is still pending. Need for the implementation of the revisions and actions proposed by the late PGST Tribal Chair Jeromy Sullivan (from letter dated April 9, 2018) for the development agreement and amendments.” 2. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6A. The Board of County Commissioners on behalf of Jefferson County provided a detailed letter to the PGST on June 20, 2018 responding to every comment in the PGST’s April, 9, 2018 letter. The Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 60 June 20, 2018 letter broke down the PGST’s April 9, 2018 letter into 23 separate comments and answered every one of them A copy of the Board of County Commissioners’ June 20, 2018 letter is in the Appendix attached. Below are some of the key passages from the Board of County Commissioners’ June 20, 2018 letter responding in detail to each of the PGST’s 23 comments in its April 9, 2018 letter. “[W]e respectfully disagree that the PGST's concerns have not been considered. As a result of and consistent with the PGST's comments, significant improvements were made to both the development regulations and the development agreement, as approved by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) on June 4, 2018. Numerous changes have been made to both the development regulations and the development agreement since the 2015 FSEIS was published that address tribal concerns and came from government-to- government consultations. After the PGST and the Point No Point Treaty Council's most recent comments were received, additional refinements in the development agreement were made.” June 20, 2018 letter at 2. “We also respectfully disagree with this comment that insufficient consultation with the PGST occurred. A detailed record of the consultation with the PGST is posted on the Jefferson County web site.2 A Record of Tribal Communications, consultations and correspondence as of March 19, 2018 is attached as Appendix A.” Id. The county’s June 20, 2018 letter also is in the Appendix to this report. “While we believe the consultations between the PGST and Jefferson County were more than sufficient, we also realize that full consensus between the PGST and Jefferson County about all the issues discussed in the PGST's April 9, 2018 comments was not reached.” Id. “We regret that full consensus between Jefferson County and the PGST could not be achieved, but we appreciate the changes to the MPR that were achieved in response to the PGST's input. Jefferson County must abide by state law and its prior decisions made about this development.” Id. “Like all Washington counties, Jefferson County operates under specific enabling state legislation that allows Jefferson County to meet social, economic, environmental, geographic, and other challenges at the local level. Examples of state enabling legislation include the Washington State Planning Enabling Act, the Growth Management Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).” Id. 3. PNPTC COMMENT 6B. “We appreciate the County’s willingness to regularly meet with Tribal staff regarding this project. However, our concerns have not yet been adequately addressed in these meetings. The meetings themselves have been too short in duration and seem to only cover updates as to what the County’s staff and consultant have been working on, leaving little time to discuss next steps and responses to our comments and suggestions. Our tribes are deeply concerned about these issues and look forward to addressing them together before the application and project moves forward.” Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 61 4. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6B. We assure you, county staff is listening. However, the options are limited as explained in this report. County staff will continue with the meetings and staff reports for as long as your tribes believe the meetings have value. 5. PNPTC COMMENT 6C. “We are encouraged by the County’s offer to schedule recurring, quarterly meetings with our Tribes to discuss future projects as they arise. It is our hope that developing a consistent, collaborative line of communication will enable us to work effectively to address Tribal concerns related not only to the Pleasant Harbor project, but future development proposals as well.” 6. COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6C. The county is glad your tribes are encouraged. We are aware that similar staff-to-staff meetings have occurred on other development proposals to address your tribes’ concerns. We expect to leave to staff the discretion to have similar meetings in the future on specific projects or on a number of projects together. To that end, Josh Peters, our DCD director, will lead those efforts for the county. VIII. FUTURE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRIBAL PARTICIPATION For as long as your tribe would like, the county will continue the ongoing staff-to-staff meetings and status reports. In addition, the county believes there are future decisions that would benefit from input from tribal input, as follows: The decision on the pending preliminary plat application, which goes to the hearing examiner for final decision, following a formal public comment period and public hearing; The subsequent final plat application, which goes to the BoCC for final decision, following a formal public comment period and public hearing; Consultation with the Developer on a possible Kettle Management Plan; Consultation with the Developer on preserving cultural resources of your tribes on the PHMPR; and, The annual review of best management practices (BMPs) and adaptive management. IX. CONCLUSION It is our goal to continue a positive working relationship with your tribes. We regret that full consensus between Jefferson County and your tribes could not be achieved, but we appreciate the changes to the PHMPR that were achieved in response to your tribes’ input. Jefferson County must abide by state law and its prior decisions made about this development. The county’s goal is always to reach such a consensus, if that is reasonably possible. Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 62 We also acknowledge and reiterate our deep understanding and appreciation that your tribes are sovereign nations, with treaty rights under the Point No Point Treaty that exist outside the process the county is compelled to follow under state law and previously adopted local ordinances. We would be pleased to have a government-to-government meeting between our board and the tribal council of your tribes, along with the PNPTC. We would be willing to host a meeting or travel to a location of your tribes’ choosing. By this letter we are directing our staff to coordinate with your tribes’ staff about whether this is desired, and, if so, when and where you would like to have the meeting. Again, we value greatly our county’s relationship with your tribes. We expect that excellent relationship to continue into the future and beyond. (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE) Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 63 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Your tribes’ August 15, 2024 letter was copied to Amber Caldera, Chairwoman, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe; Guy Miller, Chairman, Skokomish Tribe; Joseph Pavel, NR Director, Skokomish Tribe; Frances Charles, Chairwoman, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Russ Hepfer, Vice Chair, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Hansi Hals, NR Director, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Roma Call, NR Director Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe; and Randy Harder, PNPTC Director. Accordingly, we are copying all of the persons copied on that letter. Dave Herrera, NR Policy Advisor for the Skokomish Tribe has been actively involved in this project, so we are copying him too. Cc: Amber Caldera, Chairwoman, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, 31912 Little Boston Rd NE, Kingston, WA 98346 (ambers@pgst.nsn.us) Frances Charles, Chairwoman, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 2851 Lower Elwha Road, Port Angeles, WA 98363 (Frances.Charles@elwha.org) Russ Hepfer, Vice Chair, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 2851 Lower Elwha Road, Port Angeles, WA 98363 (Russell.Hepfer@elwha.org) Guy Miller, Chairman, Skokomish Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, 80 N Tribal Center Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 (gmiller@skokomish.org) Hansi Hals, NR Director, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, 1033 Old Blyn Highway Sequim, WA 98382 (hhals@jamestowntribe.org) Randy Harder, Director, Point No Point Treaty Council, 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210, Poulsbo, WA 98370 (rharder@pnptc.org) Roma Call, NR Director Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, 31912 Little Boston Rd NE, Kingston, WA 98346 (romac@pgst.nsn.us) Joseph Pavel, NR Director, Skokomish Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, 80 N Tribal Center Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 (jpavel@skokomish.org) Dave Herrera, NR Policy Advisor, Skokomish Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, 80 N Tribal Center Rd, Shelton, WA 98584 (dherrera@skokomish.org) Cristina Haworth, Senior Planner/Project Manager George Terry, Associate Planner Josh Peters, DCD Director Report Responding to Point No Point Treaty Council’s August 15, 2024 Letter - Page 64 APPENDIX BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DRAFT MAY 1, 2002 MODIFIED FROM JANUARY 16, 2002 DRAFT RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND AUGUST 28, 2001 DRAFT RECOMMENDED BY BRINNON SUBAREA PLANNING GROUP A Chapter of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Brinnon Subarea Plan Appendix 1 Brinnon Subarea Planning Group Original Membership, 1999-2000 Linda Tudor, Chair Cedric Lindsay Lynnette Antijunti Kate Marsh, Recorder Joy Baisch Mike Matthews Richard Coone Tom McNerney Dalila Dowd Eleanor Sather John Dowd Bud Schindler Charles Finnila George Sickel Jean Johnson Lea Silsbee Stan Johnston Charles Springer Final Membership Recommending August 28, 2001 Draft Linda Tudor, Chair Cedric Lindsay Joy Baisch Kate Marsh, Recorder Dalila Dowd Tom McNerney John Dowd Bud Schindler Charles Finnila George Sickel Jean Johnson Charles Springer Jefferson County Representatives Board of County Commissioners Richard Wojt, Chair, District 3 Glen Huntingford, District 2 Dan Tittern ess, District 1 David Goldsmith, County Administrator Department of Community Development Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner Warren Hart, AICP; (former) Deputy Director W. Lauren Mark, (former) Associate Planner Special Consultant Mark Personius, AICP; Planning Director Earth Tech, Inc. The work of the Special Consultant was funded in part through the Community Development Block Grant program. Appendix 2 Appendix 3 i Table of Contents Page Vision Statement ...............................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................3 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................3 Location and Setting ....................................................................................................................................................4 Environment ..................................................................................................................................................................4 Topography ..............................................................................................................................................................4 Geology .....................................................................................................................................................................4 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................................5 Flooding ....................................................................................................................................................................6 Climate .......................................................................................................................................................................6 History ............................................................................................................................................................................6 Cultural Heritage ....................................................................................................................................................11 Community Values .................................................................................................................................................11 Government and Special Purpose Districts ........................................................................................................13 Plan Implementation and Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................14 Background .................................................................................................................................................................14 Current Effort ...............................................................................................................................................................15 Implementation .......................................................................................................................................................17 Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................................................17 Land Use and Rural Element .........................................................................................................................................18 Rural Character............................................................................................................................................................18 Rural Residential Land Use.......................................................................................................................................20 Rural Commercial Land Use ......................................................................................................................................26 Rural Commercial – Brinnon Rural Village Center (RVC)......................................................................................28 Background.............................................................................................................................................................28 Vision .......................................................................................................................................................................29 Future Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................32 Rural Commercial – WaWa Point Convenience Crossroads ...............................................................................33 History .....................................................................................................................................................................33 Land Use Considerations .....................................................................................................................................34 Vision .......................................................................................................................................................................36 Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist Overlay Zone (SRT)................................................................................36 Statutory Requirements ........................................................................................................................................38 Rural Commercial - Black Point .................................................................................................................................43 History .....................................................................................................................................................................44 Master Planned Resort ..........................................................................................................................................45 Conceptual Master Planned Resort Land Use Plan..........................................................................................46 Home Businesses and Cottage Industries ..............................................................................................................48 Future Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................50 Natural Resource Conservation Element.....................................................................................................................53 Forest Lands................................................................................................................................................................53 Mineral Lands .............................................................................................................................................................53 Agricultural Lands......................................................................................................................................................54 Aquaculture Resources .............................................................................................................................................54 Shellfish Harvesting Rights ..................................................................................................................................57 Future Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................57 Housing Element .............................................................................................................................................................60 Affordable Housing ...................................................................................................................................................60 Minimum Lot Area Requirements ........................................................................................................................61 Minimum Floor Area Requirements ....................................................................................................................61 Limitations On Multi-Family Dwellings ..............................................................................................................61 Limitations On Manufactured Dwellings ...........................................................................................................61 Appendix 4 ii Minimum Yard, Setback, and Bulk Requirements .............................................................................................61 Overzoning..............................................................................................................................................................62 Incentive Zoning/Bonuses ...................................................................................................................................62 Permit Fees ..............................................................................................................................................................62 Land Costs ..............................................................................................................................................................62 Commercial Zoning ................................................................................................................................................62 Parks & Recreation .........................................................................................................................................................64 Current Conditions:....................................................................................................................................................64 Vision............................................................................................................................................................................66 Historical and Archeological Cultural Resource Preservation ............................................................................70 Economic Development Element ..................................................................................................................................71 Historic Busines s Activity ........................................................................................................................................73 Isolation...................................................................................................................................................................73 Recreation and Tourism........................................................................................................................................74 Future Obje ctives ...................................................................................................................................................75 Natural Environment Element........................................................................................................................................80 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................80 Aquifer Recharge Potential ..................................................................................................................................80 Flooding .......................................................................................................................................................................81 Shorelines ....................................................................................................................................................................83 Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory ...................................................................................................................85 Natural Heritage Vegetation, Wildlife and Landforms ..........................................................................................85 Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities Element............................................................................88 Federal Programs for Infrastructure Assistance ....................................................................................................89 Public Safety................................................................................................................................................................91 Transportation Element..................................................................................................................................................93 History ..........................................................................................................................................................................93 Current Situation.........................................................................................................................................................94 Utilities Element...............................................................................................................................................................97 Water Utilities .............................................................................................................................................................97 Sanitary Sewer Utilities ..............................................................................................................................................98 Future Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................98 Telecommunications Utilities ....................................................................................................................................99 Future Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................99 Solid Waste Utilities ...................................................................................................................................................99 Future Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................99 Capital Facilities Element .............................................................................................................................................100 Community Centers ..................................................................................................................................................100 Future Objectives .................................................................................................................................................100 County Maintenance Facilities ...............................................................................................................................100 Future Objectives .................................................................................................................................................100 Parks and Recreation................................................................................................................................................100 Background...........................................................................................................................................................100 Future Objectives .................................................................................................................................................100 Storm Water/Flood Control.....................................................................................................................................100 Background...........................................................................................................................................................100 Tourist Road Facilities .............................................................................................................................................101 Background...........................................................................................................................................................101 Future Objectives .................................................................................................................................................101 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................................................102 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Maps (Figures BR-1 through BR-14) Appendix 2 Brinnon Historic Business List Appendix 5 1 Vision Statement Brinnon is a unique and beautiful area in southeastern Jefferson County that features 20 miles of Hood Canal shoreline; two major rivers - the Duckabush and Dosewallips - and the backdrop of the Olympic Mountains. The natural beauty and resources of the area have contributed to the desirability of Brinnon as a rural residential and recreational location. The community is comprised of long-time families and modern -day pioneers who choose to forego the luxuries of urban locations and delight in the challenges of a rural lifestyle. Brinnon is a community of many friendly people, happy to be living in this great area. They share, along with visitors, an appreciation for the sea and wildlife, significant natural beauty; and peace, quiet, clean air and clean water. Brinnon is a remote rural community, 45 miles from the urban County seat and far from neighboring communities, and must forge its own opportunities. Like the pioneers and the native inhabitants before them, the people of Brinnon value independence and freedom of enterprise. Brinnon’s innovative relationship to its economy is one aspect of its character. This is exemplified by creative home businesses and attention to resource lands. In addition to more intensive commercial zones along Highway 101, Brinnon strives for a natural balance between rural living and economic stability. One way to achieve this is to blend commercial activities and residential areas through encouragement of home businesses and cottage industries. Brinnon embraces a diversity of people with an expanse of collective experience. By adapting to and nurturing each other’s interests, both commercial and cultural, new opportunities can emerge. Because of its isolation, Brinnon must be relatively self-sustaining. Community members want to live where they work and be able to procure the basic goods and services needed to survive. Many residents commute to jobs outside the area, but it is difficult for Brinnon to function as a rural suburb, the family living one place while the wage earners commute to another. Brinnon seeks to expand in a way that the needs of senior citizens, wage earners, and children are better served within the community. The primary vision continues to be of a community that encompasses a rural, lightly populated area; an appropriate evolution of employment opportunities that replaces traditional—but no longer viable —occupations such as logging, mining and fishing; and the quality of life in beautiful, natural, rural surroundings that residents desire and expect. The goal is to maintain the dignity of Brinnon’s people, a close-knit and friendly community, a rural lifestyle, and peaceful enjoyment of daily life for generations to come. For the welfare of residents and visitors, Brinnon requires a well-balanced economy and the ongoing protection of both the physical and human environment. For over a century, Brinnon served as an outdoor recreation based retirement and tourist community. This plan serves as a road map and tool for use by residents, current and new business owners, and other interested parties to make the changes necessary for Brinnon’s future success. While the intent of this document provides a framework for the Brinnon community to retain its much-cherished rural character, at the same time the community must support economic development that allows the creation of new businesses and the modernization, expansion, or relocation of existing home and small businesses. This is essential to provide the opportunities Appendix 6 2 necessary for children and working adults who choose to work and live here, while also meeting the community’s changing needs to allow this remote rural area to thrive and flourish. The citizens of Brinnon are uniquely qualified to understand Brinnon’s current and future needs. Although not all individual desires fo r the community can be met at this time, and many of the recommendations and suggested strategies will take additional, in -depth planning, it is expected that this community plan will be reviewed and updated at least every five years. Appendix 7 3 Introduction Background Prior to 1969, Brinnon developed slowly. The economy was based primarily on logging and aquaculture, and provided a rest stop for travelers along US Highway 101 as well. Since that time, growing outdoor recreational and tourism usage, an urban population migrating to rural environments, a growing retirement population, and increased small businesses have contributed to a gradual increase in growth. Since an uncharted course for the area’s development could jeopardize the lifestyle that the people of Brinnon have come to enjoy, in 1981 members of the community asked the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to assist in establishing a community plan to address the area’s future growth and development. A product of the cooperation between Brinnon citizens and Jefferson County, the first Plan served as a written expression of community interests and desires. Adopted by the BOCC in 1982, the Community Plan became a chapter of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and a critical element in the decision-making process that affected the community. In 1990, the Legislature of the State of Washington passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) that established a statewide land use-planning framework for cities and counties. Jefferson County began to revise the Comprehensive Plan so that it would be consistent with the goals of the GMA. In 1995, following working committee and public meetings, the 1982 Brinnon Community Plan was updated and adopted by the Brinnon Planning Committee. As before, this Plan provided a statement of how the community wished to grow and develop. The goals and policies in the plan were based on performance standards, to be used as guidelines during the review of proposed public and private actions as well as projects such as land subdivisions, commercial and industrial development, open space and recreation areas, roads and transportation facilities, utilities, and other community facilities and services. The second Brinnon Community Plan was forwarded to Jefferson County in 1995, but due to the County’s initiation of work on the overall countywide GMA Comprehensive Plan, the Subarea Plan was never integrated into the Comprehensive Plan. The overall update to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan—consistent with the GMA— was completed and adopted by the County in 1998. In late 1999, the Jefferson County BOCC requested that the citizens of Brinnon form a planning group and craft the county’s first Subarea Plan in relation to the new 1998 GMA Comprehensive Plan. The scope of this effort covers what is known as Planning Area 11 (the Brinnon Planning Area) as shown in Figure BR-1. The 1995 Brinnon Community Plan served as the guiding document, and inconsistencies with the County’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan were examined in the lig ht of current planning goals. The Brinnon Subarea Plan, when adopted by the BOCC, will amend the County Comprehensive Plan as applicable to Brinnon. It is however, a plan that recommends certain land use designations and policy direction regarding land and shoreline development in Brinnon alone—it does not authorize any specific development or constitute any land use approval for a specific piece of property. Any proposed land use development or project in Brinnon must undergo the applicable project permi t review and approval process required by the Unified Development Code (UDC) and consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP). Appendix 8 4 Location and Setting Brinnon is an unincorporated community lying at the mouth of the Dosewallips River, situated on the eastern slopes of the Olympic Mountains and the western shores of Hood Canal. Brinnon lies astride US Highway 101 about equal distance between Shelton (approximately 40 miles) to the south and Port Townsend (45 miles) to the north. The Brinnon planning area is bounded on the north by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service’s Rainbow campground on Mount Walker, and on the south by the Jefferson-Mason County line near Triton Cove, and includes all land areas from Hood Canal west to the boundaries of the Olympic National Park. Although the area consists of approximately 120 square miles (including commercial forest lands), it is characterized more by its 20 miles of shoreline along Hood Canal and its two major rivers, the Duckabush and Do sewallips, which flow from west to east through the area and drain into Hood Canal. Much of the land in the area is owned by the Federal and State governments, as well as major timber corporations. Throughout the years, the Brinnon area developed slowly, maintaining a remote rural character. Overall, it is relatively lightly populated (see Figure BR-2). In recent times, however, the area has experienced a significant increase in population growth—from 260 residents in 1970 to approximately 1,200 in year 2000. The settlement pattern is relatively dispersed throughout the planning area. Home sites dot the shoreline of Hood Canal and the Duckabush and Dosewallips River Valleys. Residential lots also exist in several subdivisions in the area that contain single - family dwellings, occupied by full-time residents or by those who use these properties for weekend and/or recreational purposes. Environment Topography Except for several small areas or narrow corridors, the Brinnon area contains pronounced topographic features. Areas where slopes less than 15 percent occur are rare. Elevations exceeding 400 feet within 2,500 feet from Hood Canal are common. Beyond 2,500 feet from the Canal, elevations rise sharply, particularly in the areas of Mount Walker, Mount Jupiter, and Mount Turner. Along Hood Canal, low banks are rare; most waterfront areas are characterized by banks rising from 30 to 70 feet. Exceptions to steep topography occur along the Duckabush and Dosewallips River Valleys. The Duckabush River Valley is a relatively flat corridor with a width of approximately 2,500 feet extending from its mouth for a distance of about three miles. The Dosewallips River Valley contains two relatively flat areas of smaller width than the Duckabush; however, these flat areas lie in the floodplains. Geology The geologic characteristics of the Olympic Peninsula and Hood Canal play an important role in planning both public and private developments. Tens of thousands of years ago, vast sheets of ice began moving south from Canada, carving out the Puget Sound Basin. For hundreds of years the ice advanced and retreated, each time carrying tons of rock and sand dredged from it course. Between each advance, lakes and rivers were formed and sediments from these were later covered by gla cial deposits. When the last glacier retreated some ten thousand years ago, it left East Jefferson County and Hood Canal as we know it today. Generally speaking, glacial deposits consist of two types, outwash and till. Outwash consists of unconsolidated sand, gravel, and rock as a result of run-off from advancing or retreating glaciers. Appendix 9 5 Till consists of unsorted clay, sand, gravel, and rock that has been compacted into a highly impervious cement-like material commonly called hardpan. Due to the advance and decline of some several separate periods of glaciations, faulting, and bending of the earth’s crust, these layers of outwash and till may overlap one another and run in different directions. The surficial geology of the southeast portion of Jefferson County consists mainly of Vashon Lodgment Till. This till is a compacted assortment of clay, silt, sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Because of its compactness and high clay content, Vashon Lodgment Till is non- compressible, impermeable, and is not prone to landslides. Near shorelines, erosion has exposed Vashon Advance Outwash and Pre -Vashon Stratified Sediments. Vashon Advance Outwash is a loose assortment of sands and gravels with some clay and silt. This deposit is highly permeable, slightly compressible, will not maintain a steep slope, and is landslide prone, especially when saturated with water. Pre -Vashon Stratified Sediments are a group of glacial deposits that were laid down before the period of the Vashon Glacier and consist of outwash, lake and river sediments, and alluvium. This deposit is generally permeable, slightly compressible, and has poor natural stability. Some of the rock outcroppings in the Brinnon area consist of basalt, or soils of cemented gravel. The other major formations are Po ssession Till, Ice-Contact Drift, and Double Bluff Till. These deposits have been exposed by erosion and are found sporadically along the shoreline. Both till and outwash deposits are used for domestic water sources together with the outflow of rivers and steams from the Olympic Mountains. It is not uncommon that pockets of outwash are found within till deposits. Where this is the case, wells are tapping perched water tables either above or within the till. In many cases, wells that tap perched water table s are not dependable, especially during the late summer months when rainfall does not recharge the aquifers. Where large deposits of outwash are found below till deposits, greater ground water supplies can be expected. These larger deposits are usually found in older geologic formations and, therefore, at greater depths. Interpretive maps on the surficial geology countywide, including the Brinnon Planning Area, have been developed and are available for inspection at the Jefferson County Department of Commu nity Development (DCD). Soils The soils of Jefferson County were formed by the various forces of water, heat, time, vegetation, and animal life, all acting on the geologic parent material. In the county, the principal parent material consists of the sands and gravels associated with glacial till and outwash. Most of the soils were developed in a moist, marine, climate under a rich cover of plant life. In 1968, soil scientists from the US Soil Conservation Service completed a soil survey of Jefferson County that was published in 1975. This survey named, categorized, and classified some 101 specific soil types in the 10 major soil associates found in the county. From this survey and other publications, the Jefferson County Planning Department (now DCD) developed a number of interpretive maps, including suitability for septic tank and drain fields, slope, depth to seasonal water table, ponding and flooding, aquifer recharge potential, agricultural suitability, and woodland suitability. Knowledge of soil, characteristics and capabilities can assist in wise public and private investments, and can be useful in determining suitability of land for various uses. These soil interpretive maps are not to be substituted for specific on-site field inspections that may produce Appendix 10 6 findings somewhat different from these more general accounts. It should also be noted that even some of the most severe soil limitations can be overcome by engineering techniques. Soil interpretive maps for the Brinnon area are available for inspection at the Jefferson County DCD. Flooding The Brinnon area contains the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers, two of the four major river systems in eastern Jefferson County that are subject to flooding. When heavy rains combine with warm temperatures, the rapid melting of snow in the Olympic Mountains can produce local flooding. Flooding conditions can be further compounded during periods of high tides and low barometric pressure during winter storms. Jefferson County is a participant in the National Flood In surance Program (NFIP), which provides low cost flood insurance to property owners living in floodplain areas. A floodplain is the normally dry land area adjacent to a stream or river channel that is susceptible to being inundated by water. The 100-year floodplain has a one percent chance per year of being covered with water. The NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) show the general delineation of the 100-year flood boundary and floodway fringe. Flooding and floodplain issues related to the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers are discussed in detail in the Natural Environment Element. Climate Although Jefferson County is located within the West Coast Marine Climatic Region, there are five distinct climatic zones within the county that vary with elevation, topography, rainfall, and position with respect to bodies of water and wind patterns. The Brinnon area and Hood Canal are influenced by the Olympic Mountains, which receive some of the nation’s heaviest rains. Area records indicate that the average annual rainfall is approximately 50 to 60 inches, with more than eleven inches per month falling during November, December, and March. These heavy rains, and high tides, contribute to flooding in some are as. By contrast, June, July, and August reflect rainfalls less than two inches per month. The lack of rainfall during the summer season results in a number of dry wells and springs in some isolated areas. Daytime temperatures range from the middle 60s to the high 70s in summer months, dropping to the middle 50s at night. Winter daytime temperatures are usually in the middle 40s with the nighttime temperatures in the low 30s. The lower elevations of Brinnon do not receive an abundance of snow during the win ter months. History Brinnon’s history rests on the interconnections between families and community, subsistence on what the land provides, and honor for deep historical roots. O’Wota Brinnon, wife of Ewell Brinnon for whom the community is named, was of royal blood. Also known as Kate Brinnon, O’Wota was the sister of Chief Chetzamoka, daughter to Lach-ka -him and Qua-tum-a-low, leaders of the S’Klallam nation. O’wota Brinnon was dedicated to nature and to caring for children. She and her husband often help ed the community settle differences. Before the arrival of explorers and settlers to the Pacific Northwest, ten thousand native people thrived in the Hood Canal regions. The moderate climate and blend of forest, rivers and shoreline produced ample salmon and other fish, shellfish, berries, roots, whales, seals, birds, and game sufficient to support numerous thriving communities. Each individual community was identified by Appendix 11 7 differences in language and by kinship ties. During Hood Canal’s colder months, October through March, temperatures can drop to freezing and bring snow and copious rain. The native people lived mostly from the saved food gathered in summer, and wove intricate baskets, mats, and clothing, carved huge canoes, and created elaborate masks for ceremonies. Dyes were made from Oregon grape roots (yellow), hemlock bark (red), marsh mud (black and gray), and other native plants and roots. Though Treaties were signed in 1855, most Tribes did not receive Federal recognition until after 1900. For a timeline of events from the time of the Stevens Treaties to the present, consult Jerry Gorsline’s 1997 book, Shadow of Our Ancestors. It was tall timber that brought some of the earliest European-American settlers to the Brinnon area. Tom Pierce was logging the Dosewallips flat in 1859. Then the promise of 160 acres of land brought the homesteaders. The panic or depression of the late 1880s brought many. As soon as most could prove up on their homesteads or timber claims, the land was sold to the Forest Reserve or the logging companies. (In 1897, the president declared two million acres of the Olympic Peninsula to be National Forest.) The railroad boom that never materialized here brought craftsmen looking for work, and land speculators. Towns were laid out that never came into being. Ewell Brinnon came to the area at an early date and settled at the mouth of the Duckabush River. His Indian wife, Kate, was afraid of the flooding, so in 1868 he sold his property to Thomas Pierce and moved to the Dosewallips, where he bought homestead rights and property. He soon owned most of the flats. He donated an acre of land each for the school and cemetery. Early view of the Brinnon Flats after a winter snowstorm. Appendix 12 8 Original Brinnon Store and Settlement located south of the Flats near the present day Geoduck Restaurant. Early records show this area called Quagaboor and Du caboos. Julius Macomber applied for a post office in 1886. It was granted, and he was appointed as the first postmaster in 1888. His wife, Jessi, was his assistant and it was she who named the area Brinnon in honor of Ewell Brinnon. She said Quagaboor and Ducaboos were too hard to spell. There was a Duckabush post office established in 1891 with George Solwold postmaster. This post office was discontinued in 1926. Like other villages springing up along Hood Canal, Brinnon was for years served only by boat. Early steamers were the “Josephine,” “Delta,” “Pedita,” “State of Washington,” and the “Potlatch.” There wasn’t a dock at Brinnon until about 1900, when Julius Macomber bought property on the hill to the south of Walker Creek where he built a dock out to deep water. Here he built a store -hotel building. Previously he had a store and the post office near the present day Brinnon Store. The store and post office continued to operate on the hill until 1952 when the second store burned. At that time C.V. Dorothy was the owner, and he built the present-day store back on the flat. Shortly before 1900, Brinnon was finally getting roads to Quilcene and up the two rivers. By 1913 work was being done on a road south of the Ducka - bush towards Lilliwaup, In 1918 the first state road was completed along the Canal, which later became US Highway 101. The Brinnon School District was established in 1881. School was first held at Pleasant Harbor, probably so that Duckabush students could attend too. Later, school was moved to a cabin on the Storey place just south of the Seal Rock Forest Camp. In 1894 a log schoolhouse was built on the property donated by Ewell and Kate Brinnon, in the location where the Brinnon school stands today. In 1892 a second school was granted five miles upriver. The school district was established on the Duckabush in 1908. Prior to that the Pierces had a private school for their children, and for a short time, a school was held some miles up the Duckabush River. In 1935, the Duckabush and Brinnon Schools were consolidated. There were also schools at Triton Cove – Fulton Creek, Jackson Cove, and for a short time, at Bee’s Mill. The existing school on School House road was completed in 1952. The gym was added in 1956. Early ferry dock. Appendix 13 9 Timber has always been a valuable resource in the Brinnon area. Many methods were used to get the logs out of the woods. Loggers started with hand methods, then came ox teams, then horse teams, then the railroad and finally they started using logging trucks. There was a log chute at Pleasant Harbor, a splash dam on the Dosewallips, and the C.B. and M. incline on Mt. Turner. This ingenious set-up brought the logs to water on railroad cars with no locomotive. A donkey engine was at the top with a cable, each end of which was attached to a railroad car. There was a double track halfway down where the cars passed. The loaded car rumbled down, crossing on a trestle over the highway while the empty traveled back to the top. Shortly after the turn of the century, James Izett built the first logging railroad at Brinnon on the south side of the Dosewallips. His daughter, Janet Worthington, lives on WaWa Point. E.K. Hjelvik first had a store at Right Smart Cove, near where it is now. In the early twenties he built a new store at Pleasant Harbor near the ferry dock. When the highway was changed in that area, he had his store building sawed into eight-foot sections and moved it by road to his property at the Cove. “Ma” Hjelvik continued the business until her death in 1988. The old store burned in 1974. Son, Eivind built a new store and moved his mother into it. In the early days there was a store owned by Frank Robinson across from the school. When the Olympic Highway was built, Dr. Davies built a store where the Senior Center is now. It was known as “The Maples.” Early settlers, male and female alike, enjoyed outings into the hills, mountains, and waters of Hood Canal to explore, climb, picnic, hunt, fish, horseback ride, prospect, or just adventure. As early as the turn of the century, campers from other areas of the State were attracted to the startling descent from mountain peak to water’s edge. Most camped in tents, but some built small shelters or cabins and spent the entire summer enjoying the beauty of the area. Just as the native people had before them, families from Seattle, Tacoma, and elsewhere set up summer camps in the coves and harbors, while other early families homesteaded and made the area their year-round residence. Often the women and children stayed the summer, and the men came up for the weekend. During the early part of the 1900s, trips to the “great outdoors” were so popular that it wasn’t long before Brinnon residents came up with the idea of what we’d now call a Bed and Breakfast, as well as lodges and res orts. Entertainment was based on the surrounding areas: swimming, clamming, oystering, horseback riding and hay rides, hiking, and fishing, while in the evening, by candlelight, the groups created theatrical productions or played charades and other interactive group games common at the time. Brinnon had two hotels in the early days. The one on the hill at the dock, and one called the “Riverside Hotel” on the south side of the river near the early bridge site. In the early 1900s one of the Pierce sons started a resort on the family farm on the Duckabush. It became one of the best- known summer resorts on the Canal. Hjelvik’s Original Store at Right Smart Cove. Appendix 14 10 Brinnon had ferry service to Seabeck running from 1917 to 1941. The first ferry was a scow which was shoved up onto the beach and planks laid fo r the cars to drive off. Later regular ferryboats made the run. Among them were the “Clatawa,” “Lake Constance” and the “Airline.” The only tract of acreage originally used as a camp that remains undivided today is Camp Parsons, the third oldest Boy Scout Camp in the United States. Originally 280 acres, occupying most of Jackson Cove, the Camp has subsequently been gifted with an additional 240 acres that cover most of Pulali Point. This is the only wildlife corridor to remain in the Brinnon area that links the Olympic National Park to Hood Canal, and includes shoreline on Dabob Bay as well as Jackson Cove. Although the area had earlier served as a logging and work camp, as well as summer camp spot, Camp Parsons officially opened as a Boy Scout Camp on July 7, 1919. Though campers now arrive by car, in the early years Scouts traveled to Camp Parsons on boats, including the historic Virginia V. Many Washington state civic leaders, as well as locals, credit their experience at Camp Parsons as a life -changing event. Several members of the current community of Brinnon discovered the area as the result of their original Boy Scout experience. After World War II, the shorelines and forests of Hood Canal became haven to veterans and their families who sought a simp ler lifestyle, and the area experienced a small population increase. Through fishing, gardening, hunting, shellfish harvest, seasonal work in logging, fire fighting, brush picking, or the mills, Brinnon continued its “rugged individualist” reputation. As before, members of the community looked to each other for companionship and help rather than expect it to be provided from outside agencies. Other families, new and old, continued the tradition of making Brinnon a summer retreat, with wives and children retreating to the wilderness when school was out, and husbands driving up for weekends. Thanks to the efforts of the Brinnon Community Club, electric power came to Brinnon in May of 1949. This club later became the Brinnon Booster Club. Now there is little to remind us of the early settlers. Logging trucks have replaced locomotives and now even they are few. Oyster and clam farming has become an industry of the area. US Highway 101 is a major arterial over which thousand of vehicles travel each year. Ferrie s are gone, replaced by the Hood Canal Bridge. Many of the old homesteads have become residential or recreational developments, yet Brinnon remains as it was in the early days: a small community of friendly folks, proud of its past and concerned with its future. Just as they always have, occupations of local residents include a range of activities and jobs. Indeed, many present-day Brinnon area residents are descendants of original settlers, and not a few have Indian blood. Entrepreneurial activities are common, while the Internet has allowed some to commute via cyberspace to conduct gainful employment. Some still log or work in the shellfish industry, while others commute to work in Shelton, Olympia, Sequim, Port Angeles, Port Townsend, Hadlock, Bremerton, and even the Seattle area. Brinnon also has a fair share of retirees, either full-time or weekenders, who at last have the chance to enjoy their small gardens, walks on mountain paths, bingo at the Booster Club, and the fresh air and quiet. The local school, which has kindergarten through eighth grade, has fewer than one hundred children. After eighth grade, students and their families can choose to take the bus or Fishing in the good old days. Appendix 15 11 drive to Quilcene, Chimacum, or even Port Townsend to complete their education. A few go directly to area community colleges through the Running Start Program that serves Washington, while others are home - or privately -schooled. Recreation and tourism continue to be based on the exceptionally mild climate and pleasant environment. Most locals as well as visitors can choose from hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, clamming or oystering, fishing, hunting, berry -picking, diving, swimming, picnics, boating, kayaking, bird -watching, gardening, or just kicking back with a good book or video. Brinnon has never been an area of the vast Victorian mansions of Port Townsend or Seattle, as locals know that most of life in the area goes on out-of-doors, at least from spring’s arrival in April through October, when the first frost and heavy rains tend to begin. Thus most homes tend towards the modest end, with as much window space as possible directed to the mountains, forest, or sea. Cultural Heritage There are a number of families in the Brinnon area whose forebears settled here in the late 1800s, establishing this small community between the flanks of the Olympic Mountains and the shores of Hood Canal. Although very few original buildings remain, a good deal of the development of Brinnon through the decades was captured in stories and photographs. For the p ast few years, the history of the region has been reconstructed, due particularly to the efforts of Vern Bailey and his wife Ida, whose grandparents were early settlers. Our cultural heritage as a mining and logging community is a source of pride in Brinnon. Photographs depicting these activities, as well as photographs of our old schools, post offices, hotels, churches, and family and community gatherings, have been presented to the community in slide shows and lectures by the Baileys, and are usually dis played in local establishments. Newcomers to the area and Brinnon old -timers, alike, are encouraged to uncover, reconstruct, and make known to the children, the historians, and the general public, the facets of their history that will add to this rich mixture. Government agencies that manage lands in this area, and companies with timber holdings, may have land on which old buildings sit or on which artifacts of some significance may be found. All are encouraged to conserve these areas, preserve the artifacts, and bring the findings to light for all to enjoy. An idea that is in the planning stages for development in the near future is a community kiosk in one of our Brinnon area parks. It would show sites of historical significance and perhaps tell some of the story of our territory. For the present, we continue to evoke the history, and in some way capture the sites and dwellings, the tales and memorabilia which, woven together, make up the fabric of Brinnon’s heritage. Community Values During the winter of 1979 a team of Brinnon residents developed a community survey of attitudes regarding specific issues. While most questions produced mixed response from the residents, there was overwhelming agreement that the area should retain its rural characteristics and atmosphere. After the passing of the Growth Management Act in 1990, a subsequent independently -conducted survey funded by Jefferson County and conducted by EDAW, Inc., an international planning consultancy in cooperation with BROUDAW, produced similar results. During the 1994-95 process to update the 1982 Community Plan, the first such plan for Brinnon, the Planning Committee gathered survey results and comments in order to create a profile of the community. The essential theme echoed by residents wa s the importance of maintaining the rural character of Brinnon. As before, respondents favored the development or improvement of single - Appendix 16 12 family residences, convenience stores, retail and service businesses, agricultural and/or aquaculture production, marina operation and boat launches, and the expansion of parks and other public areas. Respondents leaned towards preservation of the environment, moderate growth, suggestions for multi-family or assisted care housing for seniors, and an increase in conveniences. Citizens also requested support services for those in retirement, individuals with disabilities, and for commuters; services for recreational users such as hikers and divers, including inns; and encouragement of recreation, tourism, and small, job-creating industry. The 1994 Planning Committee determined that stores and shops should remain primarily located in the three commercial areas previously identified in the 1982 Community Plan. The three areas were the Highway 101 intersections near Right-Smart Cove (WaWa Point), Brinnon Flats, and Black Point. As with previous community planning groups, the current Brinnon Subarea Planning Group does not favor strip -like development of businesses along highways and roads. Most group members seemed to have a fa irly homogeneous vision of the area, and expected that to some extent, the natural limitations of the land would limit development. In visualizing the Brinnon area fifteen years hence and addressing aesthetics, economy, and environment, the following lis ts were made during a meeting of the 1994 planning group. In the 1994 list below, those items noted with an asterisk (*) were emphasized by a majority of the group or were mentioned more than once. Aesthetics: Nicer landscaping Residential w/support services Nicer dwellings 25-30% increase in residences Moderate growth* Improved building quality Recreational use center Creative architecture No multi-family housing No more erosion of property rights Improved roads Simple marinas Multifamily for seniors* Sp ecific zoning Relatively natural Homes -vs.-condos Keep northwest atmosphere Small community Take care to develop in a way that takes care of our land Emphasis on single -family residences Single -family residences only in the valleys No great development in the river valleys Look ahead and plan — be a solid and trusting community* Economy: Larger/more parks Commuters Retirement* Cottage industries Some aquaculture Recreation/tourism Possibly a planned resort Inns as support service Job-creating industries In creased medical services/GP/DDS Services for hikers/divers* Daycare Visitor information center Rest stop Boardwalk on beach Service businesses Golf course Development of local skills Increase conveniences/large grocery* Support services for recreation/tourism Encourage small industries, cottage industries, inns, etc. More of a commercial center south of town (Black Point Road) Appendix 17 13 Environment: Status quo Keep environment safe Enough fish and shellfish Limit roads Renewable resource management Modest dwellin gs Recycling encouraged Natural with single -family only Timber to restrict land use limitations Replant two trees for every one removed Natural limitations of the land will limit what can be done Protect and preserve air and water quality and natural resources No greater Federal/State limitations Natural limitations of waterfront development Government and Special Purpose Districts Jefferson County is governed by a three-member Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), with the County seat located in Port Townsend. The Commissioners, each of whom represents one of the three districts, are elected countywide. The Brinnon Area is included in District 3. Through various boards, departments, and advisory commissions, the BOCC acts as both the legislative and executive branches of County government. The quasi-judicial function of the BOCC is performed by a Hearing Examiner. Beginning in the year 2000, Jefferson County adopted a Board/County Administrator form of government. Brinnon residents may sit on the Jefferson County Planning Commission. This commission advises the Board of County Commissioners on planning and community development matters. Brinnon is included in several special purpose districts. Jefferson County Fire Protection District 4, serving Brinnon, is supervised by three locally -elected fire commissioners who reside in the Brinnon area. Brinnon School District 46 is supervised by five elected school board members who reside in Brinnon. The Brinnon Cemetery District is governed by a three-member board of elected commissioners and is supported by a property tax levy. Jefferson County Public Utility District 1 is a water district serving the county. PUD #1 is governed by three elected commissioners. Jefferson General Hospital in Port Townsend serves as the county’s main medical facility. The Hospital District is governed by five elected commissioners. The Port of Port Townsend is the only port district in the county. Managed by three elected Port Commissioners, it is responsible for the operation of the county airport and four boat harbors and has countywide jurisdiction. The Jefferson Transit Authority is a countywide special purpose district providing public transportation throughout Jefferson County, with connections to Kitsap County and the entire Oly mpic Peninsula. Approved by the voters in 1980, the transit authority is funded by sales taxes. The Jefferson County Rural Library serves our rural community with a full-time library in Hadlock and a weekly Bookmobile service to various locations in Brinnon. The library is governed by a five- member board of trustees appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. A three-member local volunteer Flood Board was created in 1996 to work with Jefferson County on issues of flooding on the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers. It is worth noting here that a special lodging tax is levied on Jefferson County accommodations facilities, as required by the County and collected by the State. A Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommends to the BOCC the distribution of monie s returned from the State to be used to advance tourism in unincorporated areas of the county. (A separate Lodging Tax Advisory Committee serves Port Townsend for the distribution of Port Townsend lodging funds.) Appendix 18 14 Plan Implementation and Monitoring Backgro und In 1965, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners established the Jefferson County Planning Commission as a non-paid citizen advisory group. This group was charged to make ongoing recommendations regarding the overall development of the county, and to offer policy-oriented recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development, formerly the Planning Department and also known as the “Permit Center,” provides the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission with administrative and technical planning assistance. The Department of Community Development also reviews land use and building permit applications submitted by private property owners and developers whose projects fall within the jurisdiction of County plans, policies, and ordinances. The authority to carry on the County planning program is granted by the Washington State Planning Enabling Act, first adopted by the legislature in 1959, and amended a number of times since. The Planning Enabling Act governs many aspects of a county comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is defined by the Act as: policies and proposals adopted by the Board of Board of County Commissioners which serve as: (a) a beginning step in planning for the physical development of the county; (b) the means for coordinating county programs and services; (c) a source of reference to aid in developing, correlating, and coordinating official regulations and controls; and (d) a means for promoting the general welfare. The original Brinnon community planning process occurred between 1978 through 1982. This effort resulted in the 1982 Brinnon Community Plan that included maps, tables, and charts, and was reviewed and approved by Brinnon residents. A special chapter of the 1982 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan incorporated the community development plans. These community plans represent natural, homogeneous communities within distinct geographic areas to reflect unified interests concerning the growth and development of each area. Community-based plans are valuable in a number of different ways: (a) they allow citizens in various areas of the county a better means of determining for themselves what type and degree of future growth and development they want in their specific community; (b) they allow the distinct desires of one county community not to intrude on the wishes or needs of other areas; and (c) they allow participatory democracy to be exercised by involving as many citizens as possible in decision-making pro cesses. In 1991, Jefferson County began conducting public outreach meetings to begin its Growth Management Act (GMA) comprehensive planning phase. A large number of Brinnon residents participated, suggesting their desires for Brinnon’s future, which were reflected in the eventual Community Plan of 1995 and the current Subarea Plan. In 1994, Jefferson County encouraged the citizens of Brinnon to review the existing (1982) community plan in accordance with the requirements of the State’s GMA, make necessary or desired changes, and submit a revised plan for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Appendix 19 15 Beginning January 10, 1994, a volunteer group representing a cross-section of the community formed a committee and started meeting weekly in an open forum at the Brinnon School. The public was encouraged to participate, and notified by posters and weekly newspaper calendar entries until all parts of the 1982 original Brinnon Community Plan had been discussed and, as needed, revised. The committee analyzed and established or renewed goals, policies and other guidelines to maintain the rural character of Brinnon, encourage growth under appropriate conditions, and provide for independence from other County growth management actions that might adversely affect opportunities for Brinnon residents. The 1994 committee, assisted as needed by County staff and other specialists (such as in low cost housing, environmental impacts, or project funding opportunities) performed their task based on the following three beliefs: · The Brinnon area should remain as a rural, lightly populated community, maintaining much of its present quality of life and character in coming years; · The guidelines of a development plan are necessary to successfully plan for growth; · Within the bounds o f the law, common sense must be applied when regulations fail to provide appropriate solutions. Current Effort The current Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) was adopted in 1998 and describes the amendment process and rules for conformance (page 2-3). The Jefferson County Community Planning Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Revision Process (i.e., “the Blue Book”), created in the early 1990s as a handbook for community planning prior to the adoption of the GMA-compliant CP, was used as a guide in the post-1998 CP Brinnon subarea planning process. In August of 1998, Jefferson County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan (CP) and incorporated information from community plans rather than include them as special chapters (see page 1-8 of the CP). In reference to a statement in the CP that it intended to revisit the subject of Brinnon commercial areas, the Board of County Commissioners requested that the Brinnon community form a community group and create a Brinnon Subarea Plan. With funding from a Community De velopment Block Grant, a special consultant was hired by the County to assist in development and presentation of the plan. Upon adoption, the Brinnon Subarea Plan (SAP) will become a chapter of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and serve as a road map and tool for future decision-making. It contains clear and reasonable guidelines for an array of public and private activities and developments. Wherever the SAP does not propose a difference from or an exception to the countywide plan, no inconsistencies exist, and the SAP is assumed to be in agreement with the CP. Implementation of some of the policies of this Subarea Plan will require corresponding amendments to the Unified Development Code. The guidelines of this Subarea Plan are in the form of goals, policies and strategies. A goal sets direction. A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making. A strategy is a means of implementation, which ensures the goal is met. The definitions of goals, policies and strategies are further explained in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (page 2-2). The goals, policies and strategies contained in the Brinnon Subarea Plan have evolved after consideration of a number of important factors: Appendix 20 16 1. Resources of the area, such as its people, community facilities and services, businesses, history, heritage, and natural surroundings. 2. Past, present, and projected growth and development trends. 3. Desires and needs of area residents and property owners as expressed in community planning meetings and community-wid e meetings. 4. Consideration of professional planning and community development principles. Beginning in November of 1999, in twice-monthly meetings the current Subarea Planning Group members again sought to characterize their vision of Brinnon in the future and developed priorities to guide the transformation of the 1994-95 Community Plan into the current Subarea Plan. The following list was established: · Develop rationale for expanded commercial opportunities (Black Point, Brinnon Flats, and WaWa Point). · Identify locations for affordable housing. · Identify locations for assisted living housing. · Identify locations for non-polluting light industrial: Brinnon location/other. · Identify locations for increased recreational activities. · Expand resource-based industria l activity such as a) sawmills; b) quarries; c) concrete batch plant; d) aquaculture; e) nurseries of native plants and other kinds of produce. · Revisit “adjacent to forest” land use criteria/small lot owners. · Develop rationale for expanded benefits for home businesses and cottage industries similar to those permitted in the West End. · Develop promotional activities to attract visitors. GENERAL GOALS AND POLICIES The following general goals and policies apply to all aspects of community life in the area covered by this plan: GOALS : G1.0 Maintain and encourage the small town rural atmosphere of the Brinnon area. G2.0 Promote, encourage, and reinforce a sense of community identity. G3.0 Maintain a balanced community that continues to provide for and encourage a diversity of activities, interests, and lifestyles. G4.0 Protect and enhance the natural environment. G5.0 Maintain and encourage economic growth and stability. Appendix 21 17 G6.0 Ensure and protect property owners’ rights as they pertain to land use, water, minerals, agriculture use, timber, beaches, and types of deeds. POLICIES : P1.0 Natural open spaces, agriculture, aquaculture, timber production, recreation, and residential development should be the principal use of the land adjoining shorelines, subject to policies and performance standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. P2.0 Public and private community services should serve the current and anticipated needs of the community. P3.0 The Brinnon Flats should continue to develop as the main commercial and community center of the Brinnon area. P4.0 Development activities locating in the Brinnon area should be consistent with relevant policies in this plan. Implementation The Brinnon Subarea Plan provides guidance and structure for future activities in the area. Individuals and groups within the community will partner with regional organizations and County, State, and Federal government to realize the goals of the Plan. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development will use the Plan’s policies and corresponding measures in the Unified Development Code (UDC) to review land use and development proposals, in concert with other applicable regulations from the UDC, Shoreline Master Program, State Environmental Policy Act, etc. Similarly, other County departments will consult the Plan when working on projects under their purview, ranging from watershed plans to parks and recreation planning. The successful implementation of the Brinnon Subarea Plan and the achievement of its vision is a shared venture requiring continuing community support and vigilance. Private actions by individuals and/or local citizen committees may be necessary to protect and defend the rights of the individual and to enforce the vision of community development written in this Plan. The integrity and enforcement of the Brinnon Subarea Plan can be assured by the continuing support of local citizens in cooperation with our elected officials. Monitoring This plan and its progress should be reviewed every five years, or as needed, in a coordinated effort with the citizens of the Brinnon area community, so that as attitudes and conditions change the Plan can be revised accordingly. This effort is consistent with that described in the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. Appendix 22 18 Land Use and Rural Element Rural Character This Subarea Plan will utilize terms from the Growth Management Act (GMA) repeatedly in order to discuss and ensure consistency between the recommendations of this Subarea Plan and the provisions of the Act. Therefore, some definitions from the Act are important to understand and will form the basis of better understanding the rural land issues in Brinnon presented in this Plan. These definitions and the provisions of the Act relating to “limited areas of more intensive rural development” (LAMIRDs) [at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)] are central to understanding the framework within which rural land use activities can be managed under the GMA. The Growth Management Act [at RCW 36.70A.030] includes the following definitions that are of particular relevance to this Subarea Plan: (14)“‘Rural character’ refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (a)In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment; (b)That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; (c)That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities; (d)That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; (e)That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development; (f)That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and (g)That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface water recharge and discharge areas.” (15)“‘Rural development’ refers to development outside the urban growth area and outside agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. Rural development can consist of a variety of uses and residential densities, including clustered residential development, at levels that are consistent with the preservation of rural character and the requirements of the rural element. Rural development does not refer to agriculture or forestry activities that may be conducted in rural areas.” The discussion of “limited areas of more intensive rural development” or LAMIRDs will occupy some portion of this Subarea Plan. These are typically areas of commercial, industrial or other non- residential development in rural areas. It is important to understand the context and statutory requirements within which the County and the Brinnon Subarea Planning Group must work to implement these types of areas while still meeting the requirements of the Act. The Growth Management Act [at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)] includes the following selected provisions regarding the designation of LAMIRDs: (d)Limited areas of more intensive rural development . Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural Appendix 23 19 development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i)Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of (c)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection. An industrial area is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population; (ii)The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (iii)The intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small- scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and sh all be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (iv)A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection. Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low-density sprawl. Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection. The county shall establish the logical outer boundary of an area of more intensive rural development. In establishing the logical outer boundary the county shall address (A) the need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities, (B) physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and land forms and contours, (C) the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D) the ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (v)For purposes of (d) of this subsection, an existing area or existing use is one that was in existence: (A)On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter; Appendix 24 20 Rural Residential Land Use The area’s isolated location, natural resources and development constraints have molded and maintained Brinnon as a rural, lightly populated community. After forest resource lands, rural residential land uses account for the predominant land use pattern in the Brinnon Planning Area (see Figure BR-3). Residential development is most concentrated along the Hood Canal shoreline and the major river valleys of the Dosewallips and the Duckabush. Residential development is comprised of a mix of year round residents and seasonal (summer) homes that take advantage of the numerous recreational amenities offered in the area and the aesthetic saltwater shoreline and mountain setting. Early residential development in the Brinnon Flats The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) projected Brinnon’s population to grow by approximately 644 persons over the 20-year period from 1996-2016. According to the CP, Brinnon contained a population of 1,299 in 1996 that accounted for 5.0% of the county’s total population. The CP projected a 2016 population for Brinnon of 1,943 would, according to CP projections, result in Brinnon accounting for approximately 4.7% of the county’s total population in 2016. In other words, Brinnon is expected to keep growing in the future but at a slower rate in relation to growth in the rest of the county—especially the northern part of the county. The northern area of the county, including Port Townsend, is expected to receive the lion’s share of future growth. The new 2000 US Census offered an opportunity to see how Brinnon had changed over the last decade. The Census reported a total year 2000 population of 1,199 for the area that approximates the Brinnon Planning Area. For comparison, the 1990 US Census reported a total population of 1,049 for the zip code 98320—which includes Brinnon. However, straight comparisons between the total population of Brinnon in 1990 and 2000 are problematic due to changes in the Census geography between the two Censuses. In fact, Census tract boundary changes between 1990 and 2000 and designation of a new Brinnon Census Designated Place (CDP) in 2000 make straight comparison between the 1990 Census “Brinnon” population and that of the 2000 Census extremely difficult. In addition, many of the detailed population, housing and socio -economic data for sub- county areas and individual Census tracts we re not yet released as of the date of this report. In light of this, building permit data from Jefferson County offers the “best available” information from which to assess how Brinnon has been growing. Appendix 25 21 To gauge how Brinnon has grown in the five years since adoption of the CP, building permit data for the planning area was collected and analyzed for the period 1995-2000. The data reflect the dominance of residential development in the local Brinnon economy. In both sheer number of permits issued and total valuation (i.e., investment), new residential development far exceeds the amount of commercial/industrial activity over the last five years. Indeed, new residential development activity accounted for more than eight times as much investment in the Brinnon area as new commercial/industrial development over the past five years. The disparity between residential and commercial development in Brinnon is discussed in more detail in the Rural Commercial section of the Subarea Plan. Brinnon 1995-2000 Total New Development Construction Value $- $1,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $7,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $9,000,000.00 Private Commercial/Industrial Buildings Public Buildings Residential Units Type of Development The Comprehensive Plan (CP) projected that the Brinnon Planning Area would grow at about a 2.3% annual average growth rate over the course of the next 20 years —compared with a 2.5% rate for the county as a whole. One way to track population growth is to convert the residential building permits issued into a theoretical population. In this case, the building permits were converted to a theoretical net population gain by: · Totaling all final new residential building permits (mobile/manufactured and single - family site-built) issued from 1995-2000 in the Planning Area (115) and subtracting out the number of residential units demolished during the same time period (5); · Assuming a discount factor (10%) to account for unbuilt, unfinished or otherwise unoccupied units; · Assuming a 7% vacancy rate (2000 US Census); and · Applying a 1.9 persons per household estimate (2000 US Census) to the remaining, presumably occupied units This exercise yields a resulting theoretical net population growth of approximately 175 persons over the last five years (if we assume all of the new units were occupied by year-round residents). This is consistent with the population growth projected in the CP for Brinnon. However, based on a growing local real estate trend towards sales of seasonal homes —supported by an increasing part -time and permanent retired population—it is quite likely that a significant portion of these new units are in fact intended for seasonal—and not year-round occupation. If that is the case then it is also quite likely that the permanent population of the planning area is actually growing slower than Appendix 26 22 projected in the CP. What is also not known is how many permanent residents left the area since 1990 to pursue better economic opportunities in areas closer to major employment centers. Of particular interest to local housing issues is the comparison between the construction of new site-built single -family homes and the placement of new mobile and manufactured homes in Brinnon during the last five years. As shown in the follo wing graphics, the number of permits issued for both new mobile/manufactured homes and single -family residences in the past five years is almost identical (56 versus 59, respectively). However, the difference in construction value among the same housing types is significant. Mobile and manufactured homes combined accounted for only one-third the total value of the site-built single -family homes built during the same time period. This underscores the need for affordable housing in the community and the relatively low household income levels experienced by many residents. [This is discussed in more detail in the Economic Development Element of this Subarea Plan.] Brinnon 1995-2000 New Residential Development Construction Value $- $1,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $7,000,000.00 Manufactured Home Mobile Home Site-Built Single Family Residential Type of Residential Development Brinnon 1995-2000 New Residential Units Permitted 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Manufactured Home Mobile Home Site-Built Single Family Residential Residential Development Type Appendix 27 23 Appendix 28 24 The very high ratio of mobile home to site-built single -family unit is indicative of the need for affordable housing in Brinnon and how that need is currently being met. While Census 2000 household income levels have not been released as of the date of this writing, information from the Brinnon School Board and other sources indicate that household income levels in Brinnon are, on average, the lowest in the county. Indeed, testimony from School Board members indicates that the Brinnon School District ranks as the third lowest district in the state in poverty level (J. Baisch). Board members indicated that as many as 40% of households with children attending the Brinnon School may have incomes below the poverty level (P. Rodgers). Again, data from the 2000 Census regarding social and economic characteristics of the population has not yet been released so the School Board assessments represent the best available and most current socio -economic data. For comparison purposes, the 1990 Census reported that 22% of the Brinnon population fell below the poverty level—a rate almost double that of the county as a whole. The apparent increase in poverty status for Brinnon households between 1990 and 2000 is a disturbing trend. It suggests a need for expanded economic development opportunities and measures to ensure the availability of affordable housing. When all of the data from the 2000 Census is released, information relevant to the Brinnon Planning Area will appear in the Appendix of this Subarea Plan. An important consideration in monitoring and updating the Subarea Plan is the on-going gathering of available data to help describe local circumstances. The context in which this Plan is created is but a “snapshot in time.” Some of the data released from the 2000 Census does shed some light on the local population and housing characteristics. According to the 2000 Census, the Brinnon CDP (i.e., the most concentrated area of population in the larger Brinnon Planning Area) contained 912 housing units. Of those, less than half (45%) were occupied on April 1, 2000. The majority (55%) of housing units in Brinnon are vacant. Of the total 499 vacant units in 2000, the vast majority (88%) are held for seasonal or recreational use. In 2000, compared with the total housing stock, almost half (48%) of the housing units in Brinnon are for seasonal (summer) use. Even many of those are only used occasionally in the summer (e.g., for weekends), typically by Seattle area residents. By comparison, estimates based on the 1990 Census indicated that only about one-third of the housing units were of a seasonal nature. This represents a significant shift away from a year round owner-occupied housing stock. These figures highlight the transient nature of the local housing market. Although the 7.2% homeowner (i.e., owner-occupied year round) vacancy rate indicated in the Census is at the high end of a typical local housing market vacancy rate range. Housing tenure among year round occupied units in Brinnon is characterized by predominantly owner-occupied households. Year round owner-occupied units accounted for 88% of all occupied units while only 12% were renter-occupied. The dearth of locally available (and affordable) rental units (as well as employment opportunities) for young adults and families is also making it more difficult for young members of the community to stay in the community. As younger members of the community move away to seek better opportunities, the average age of Brinnon residents is rising and the average household size is shrinking. The average household size is 1.9 persons, significantly below the countywide average of 2.2 persons per household. The median age of Brinnon residents is 58, compared to 47 countywide. The Brinnon populace is an increasingly aging one. Fifty-five percent of the total number of year round residents are age 55 years and older and households with individuals 65 years and over account for almost one-half of all households. This characteristic is an especially significant one as both owner-occupied and seasonally occupied units predominantly house retirees. Older residents will in creasingly require specialized services, including health care and other human services and public transit, in addition to access to local retail needs and commercial services. Brinnon’s isolation and 45-mile commute to the closest commercial services center (Port Townsend Urban Growth Area) will lead to greater demand for more localized services. The community has identified the need for assisted living facilities as one measure of this trend. Appendix 29 25 The aging of the local population, lack of local access to a more diversified range of commercial and human services and growing shift towards seasonal or occasional residents is a concern for many members of the community. At a time when access to affordable housing is paramount to many residents, the median home price in the area is rising at a rate significantly higher than local, countywide and regional wage rates. The beautiful and plentiful saltwater shoreline is a prime draw for seasonal residential development and has significantly raised average home and land values throughout Brinnon. The new 5-acre minimum lot size adopted in the CP precludes many opportunities for creating more affordable housing for lower income residents in the rural area outside of the rural village center of Brinnon and the RVC itself is sized so small so as to allow negligible new residential development that might be affordable to local residents. [More discussion related to the development constraints in the Brinnon RVC is found in that section. See also the Housing Element for furt her discussion of affordable housing.] In order that the community maintains much of its present character through the years to come, yet can still respond to the challenges of affordable housing, the following goals and policies shall be applied to planning/permitting activities for future housing and residential development. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Ensure residential development is in context with the rural landscape. POLICIES: P1.1 Residential development should be sensitive to areas of natural limitations. Homes shall be sited appropriately with respect to natural features and natural hazard areas. P1.2 Groundwater resources, ground water recharge areas, and shorelines, including rivers and streams, must be protected from residential wastes such as septic tank effluent. P1.3 Residential development may not take place on sensitive natural areas such as tidelands and tidal marshes. P1.4 Residential development within the floodplain of rivers and streams must be designed and maintained so as not to present a hazard to its occupants or downstream properties, nor have a detrimental effect on streamside habitats. In no case may construction take place in river line floodways. P1.5 Consideration should be given to orienting lots and h ome sites so homes can benefit from energy conservation measures and alternative energy sources such as solar energy. P1.6 Innovative residential development with respect to architectural and structural design, utility systems, and site layout is encoura ged. P1.7 Codes and standards should contain sufficient flexibility to permit innovation and experimentation, as well as affordable housing. P1.8 Upgrading and renovation of existing deteriorating housing units are encouraged. Appendix 30 26 Rural Commercial Land Use Commercial, light industrial, professional, and business activities are all vital to the economic well being of the community, providing all types of goods and services as well as opportunities for employment and livelihood for the resident rural population. The most concentrated areas of rural commercial land use activity are generally located in three small areas: · Brinnon Flats, the main commercial center, located generally between the Dosewallips River and the Dosewallips River Road and extending from the east side of Highway 101 west to Schoolhouse Road. · WaWa Point, where Bee Mill Road and Highway 101 intersect (north approximately two miles from Brinnon Flats); and · Black Point, at the intersection of Highway 101 and Black Point Road (south approxi mately three miles from the Brinnon Flats). The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP), however, only designates portions of two of these areas for commercial zoning in Brinnon: 1) a portion of the Brinnon Flats is designated as a Rural Village Center (RVC); and 2) the existing Hjelvik’s Store portion of the WaWa Point area (but not including the Cove RV Park and Store) designated as a Convenience Crossroads (CC). Both the Brinnon RVC and WaWa Point CC are designated as Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) under the CP as authorized in the GMA under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). The Brinnon RVC serves as the main commercial center for the community and provides the broadest range of services. WaWa Point, including the Cove RV Park and Store and Hjelvik’s General Store, serve more seasonal visitors and tourists than local residents. Black Point existing businesses include the Pleasant Harbor Marina and the former Old NACO West RV Park and Campground and associated commercial buildings and uses as well as Mt. Jupiter Auto Repair and Coldwell Banker Settlers Real Estate office on Highway 101. However, Black Point was not designated as a LAMIRD under the existing CP. It is designated as a series of rural residential zones . The existing businesses operate as legal nonconforming businesses under the provisions of the CP and the UDC. This limits their expansion and the potential for new “infill” development in the Black Point area. In addition, many isolated small-scale commercial/industrial activities are dispersed throughout the community in rural residential areas based on the traditional and historic development pattern of the community. Many of these businesses operate as home -based business, cottage industries or small-scale tourist and recreational activities. [See discussion of historical business activity in the Economic Development Element.] All rural commercial areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan (CP) were established as “interim” commercial districts. The intent of the CP is to revisit and establish “final” rural commercial area boundaries and designations upon completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study. The “Special Study” was intended to determine the need for and allocation of future commercial/industrial lands and potential development of urban growth areas in the County. [See LNP 1.4 and LNG 5.0 and accompanying policies.] The purpose of this section of the Subarea Plan is to make recommendation to the County—consistent with the requirements of the aforementioned CP goals and policies —regarding designation of “final” rural commercial/ industrial areas in the Brinnon Planning Area. This is in compliance with the direction given in the CP under LNP 4.8. Adoption of this Subarea Plan will effectively redraw the Brinnon Rural Village Center boundary and create a Small-scale Recreation and Tourist Overlay District at WaWa Point. Appendix 31 27 GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: The following goals and policies are intended to encourage rural commercial use consistent with the goals of this plan: GOAL: G1.0 Ensure that sufficient buildable land is available to support a viable business community and services for the residents and visitors in the Brinnon area. POLICIES: P1.1 Define areas for commercial uses and economic development activity in proper locations that have sufficient land mass to support future business opportunities. GOAL: G2.0 Ensure that commercial development related to the natural resources and recreational opportunities of the area is consistent with the general goals as set forth in this plan and provides opportunity for local employment. POLICIES: P2.1 Define small-scale recreational and tourist areas on lots (or portions thereof) that rely on a rural location and setting and have sufficient land mass to support future business opportunities. GOAL: G3.0 Ensure that commercial development is located, designed, constructed, and operated in a desirable and well-planned manner. POLICIES: P3.1 Commercial structures should allow for a mixture of uses whenever possible. An example would be a commercial structure containing retail space, professional offices, and residential units (except for the SRT Overlay District). P3.2 Commercial developments should provide adequate buffering or screening when adjacent to incompatible or dissimilar uses such as residential areas. P3.3 Landscaping of commercial sites using native species and non-invasive plantings is encouraged, particularly along public roads and within parking areas. P3.4 Driveway access from commercial developments onto major roads should be minimized; access should follow the policies of the Transportation section of this plan. P3.5 Commercial developments should provide parking and off-street loading areas sufficient to serve the size and type of commercial activity. Whenever practical, parking and off- street loading areas should be used in common by adjoining businesses. P3.6 Commercial activities should not adversely affect the use or value of adjacent properties. Appendix 32 28 Rural Commercial – Brinnon Rural Village Center (RVC) Background The “interim” Brinnon RVC boundary adopted in the CP comprises approximately 34 acres of mixed-use commercial, residential and light manufacturing activities. Almost all of the area of the Brinnon Flats within the 1998 CP RVC boundary is also located within the 100-year floodplain of the Lower Dosewallips River. The 1998 RVC area includes a mix of residential and the following commercial activities: · Linda’s Gifts and Video Store · Brinnon General Store · McKay’s Shrimp Gear · Johnston Real Estate and Jefferson County Escrow · Brinnon Mini-Storage and Johnston’s Well Drilling · Brinnon Flats B & B · Halfway House Restaurant · Angela’s Crafts Corner · US Post Office · Brinnon Booster Club · Severn’s Auto Body and Paint Shop · Brinnon Liquor Store · Brinnon Automotive · Whitney Gardens and Nursery, LLC · Flock-In Trailer Park The “interim” RVC for Brinnon is approximately 34 acres in size. The existing land use pattern is shown in Figure BR-4. Most of the RVC is already developed and allows very limited infill development opportunities. Less than a third of the area is vacant (11 gross acres). Of that amount, more than half (6.5 acres) is comprised of one undeveloped parcel under single ownership. The remaining vacant areas are in very small lots (one-half acre or less), most of which are located in the residential area of the village. In short, there is almost no significant land available for new commercial development activity in Brinnon. Development inside the RVC is further constrained by the presence of the 100-year floodplain and the lack of a public sewer and water system. If “real world” commercial real estate market factors were taken into consideration—if a potential development needed to assemble a parcel more than five acres in size fo r a new commercial activity and the owner of that one property in Brinnon were unwilling or unable to sell—there would essentially be no land available for new economic development. Such land requirements are common—even essential—in an area like Brinnon where the lack of public water and wastewater treatment systems means that larger lot sizes are necessary to accommodate water wells and on-site septic systems and drainfields and still meet minimum setback and County health standards. Both the presence of the 100-year floodplain and the “interim” tightline boundary are significant impediments to economic development in Brinnon. From an environmental protection and public safety standpoint, it would be most desirable to locate new commercial/residential mi xed use development outside of the floodplain. However, the anti-low density sprawl and logical outer boundary requirements of the LAMIRD provisions of the GMA make it nearly impossible to do so [RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)]. The result is that the Brinnon RVC has been placed in an extremely difficult situation. Meanwhile local economic development activity is stagnating. According to building permit data collated by the County and shown in the following graphic, in the last five years (1995-2000) the value of new commercial/industrial construction amounted to only 4% of the total new development value in the entire Planning Area. Of that 4%, more than half was accounted for by Appendix 33 29 improvements to the Boy Scout facilities at Camp Parsons and for the rebuilding of existing storm- damaged buildings at Whitney Gardens and Nursery. In other words, less than 2% of the total value of new construction in the entire Brinnon Planning Area during the past five years was accounted for by new for-profit private commercial activity. That 2% was accounted for by one project—a mini-storage building in the Brinnon RVC —that created no new permanent jobs. When viewed in combination with the only other designated rural commercial LAMIRD in Brinnon— WaWa Point—no new permanent jobs were cre ated from new private commercial development activity allowed in any Brinnon LAMIRDs during the past five years. This speaks to the economic stagnation experienced in the community. This situation illustrates the failure of the existing Comprehensive Plan to adequately protect the “rural character” of Brinnon. The GMA [at RCW 36.70A.030(14)] requires the County—in the patterns of land use and development established in its Comprehensive Plan—to “foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas.” In combination with the 100-year floodplain designation for the Brinnon Flats, the “interim” RVC boundary represents a chokehold on future economic development in Brinnon and fails to live up to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b). In addition, the “interim” RVC boundary fails to meet the local Comprehensive Plan requirements for “logical outer boundaries” of LAMIRDs expressed in LNP 5.2.3—specifically the requirements of subsection “e.” to “[p ]rovide employment opportunities for local residents, in particular in areas of insufficient economic growth or economic decline.” The existing RVC boundary does not create sufficient employment opportunities to foster the community’s rural-based economy. See further discussion in the Economic Development Element. The shift to home -based businesses, cottage industries and small-scale tourist and recreational uses outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is a good economic development strategy for rural areas, but it cannot be the only one for Brinnon to survive. Vision The residents of Brinnon have a vision that the rural commercial designation should be expanded to include existing commercial uses excluded from the “interim” RVC and to allow new development opportunities [consistent with requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i) and (d)(iv)] thereby contributing to the vitality of the community and fostering rural-based economic development. The proposed “final” RVC boundary approximately doubles the existing 34-acre designation and adds another 32 acres to the boundary (after subtracting features such as roads). An additional 21.6 Brinnon 1995-2000 Total New Development Construction Value by Type (as a % of Total) Residential 83% Public 13% Commercial/ Industrial 4% Appendix 34 30 acres is re -designated as Light Industrial, consisting of the existing gravel pit north of Dosewallips Road and adjacent upland property. Most of this new area is already characterized by the built environment but would still allow for some limited new development and infill on existing parcels consistent with the requirements of the GMA. This proposed “final” RVC boundary (shown in Figure BR-6) extends westward from the current southern boundary to Schoolhouse Road (to include the existing residential development), northward to Dosewallips Road, and then eastward along the Dosewallips Road. On the east the boundary is Highway 101 northwa rd to encompass the existing developed properties (including the Brinnon Motel and Senior Center). This designation includes the area east of Highway 101 directly north from the existing boundary up to Walcott Slough. The following are examples of low-impact businesses that could be located in the Lower Dosewallips, Brinnon Flats area: · Grocery and hardware stores to serve more of the tourist and seasonal residents · Light assembly to take advantage of the available labor and relatively lower rural wage le vel · Medical clinic to serve the aging and growing retirement population · Recreational equipment, supplies, and apparel to serve the campers, backpackers, hunters and fishermen who come to the National Forest/National Park · Water bottling plant with a local area name to promote one of the great benefits of the area—our water. The areas proposed to be included in the “final” RVC boundary were analyzed for consistency with the “logical outer boundary” requirements of the GMA [RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv]. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board stated in Durland, et.al. v. San Juan County that the “built environment” as it applies to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) “means only those facilities which are ‘manmade,’ whether they are above or below ground.” This definition would seem to include the recognition of infrastructure improvements made on properties such as needed to provide for transportation access, utilities and water and wastewater treatment. Figure BR-5 shows the interim RVC boundary and the Subarea Plan RVC boundary and Light Industrial district over an aerial photograph of the area taken July 10, 1990. The purpose of Figure BR-5 is to contribute to a “built environment” analysis conducted by the authors of this Subarea Plan. Using the Jefferson County Assessor’s Office parcel files, staff used a benchmark of “improvements” to the land (i.e., structures) and “year built” for structures to begin to classify and categorize the properties as either built or unbuilt as of July 1, 1990. In cases where the Assessor’s database did not provide the year of construction for structures on the parcel, Jefferson County building permit files were reviewed to find the date. For the purpose of this “built environment” analysis, the term “structures” included houses , mobile homes and pads, sheds, garages, barns, outbuildings or commercial buildings. To complete the analysis, County staff and the Brinnon Subarea Planning Group considered other characteristics of individual parcels, including the presence of above- and below-ground infrastructure. The proposed re -designation in the existing Brinnon Flats area is bounded by the Dosewallips River on the south, Schoolhouse Road on the west, the Dosewallips Road to the north, and Highway 101 to the east, including highway frontage properties north from the existing boundary up to Walcott Sough. This area comprises approximately 32 acres (after subtracting features such as roads). Only four parcels totaling approximately six acres within this area are currently vacant or entirely undeveloped. Almost all of this area was originally zoned “general commercial” in 1994 Appendix 35 31 when the County began its GMA planning. Almost all of the parcels within this area exhibit characteristics of the built environment, most of which are already developed for residential or commercial uses, but do contain potential for “infill” and redevelopment to more intensive use. These parcels were identified in the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study Phase II, Land Use Inventory Report (prepared by TerraLogic , Inc.), as “planned commercial and manufacturing analysis areas.” These areas were included in the inventory of potential commercial/industrial lands for the county to consider for “final” LAMIRD designation (following up on the “interim” or “tightline” logical outer boundary designations in the initial adoption of the CP) following completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Almost all of these parcels were classified as either “occupied,” meaning fully developed, or as “further developable land” in the TerraLogic report, meaning that although already characterized by the built environment on portions of the parcel, there was sufficient area remaining to accommodate new (infill) development. Only one logical outer boundary parcel was identified as vacant (and not delineated by the built environment) along the Dosewallips Road. However, this parcel is currently “for sale” and qualifies as limited infill development. The proposed Light Industrial district north of Dosewallips Road, on a portion of the “Up per Flats,” would include the gravel pit and the Boling property. This is the only area outside of the existing 100-year floodplain that has both direct access to Highway 101 and historic use for non- residential development. The gravel pit (comprised of two parcels totaling 5 acres —a 3.9-acre piece owned by the Boling family and a 0.8-acre lot owned by the Washington Department of Natural Resources) is essentially a resource-based industrial use with occasional excavation and truck hauling operations and ma chinery storage. It did not register as a “built environment” parcel based on the criteria used to screen the Assessor’s database due to the lack of any permanent structures on the parcel. However, it clearly has current and historic (i.e., pre -July 1, 1990) man-made activities and alterations on the property. The upper Boling property (approximately 17 acres) comprises the largest parcel in single ownership in the Brinnon Flats area that has a current history of industrial land use. The property is cleared and graded and has housed a sawmill and other industrial operations over the years. An existing house and outbuildings are present on the property. Its location across Dosewallips Road from the Flats area and rise in elevation make it a very suitable area for potential manufacturing or light industrial uses. It could also provide a location outside of the floodplain for a future wastewater treatment facility and/or a public water system that could serve the entire Brinnon Flats area. In total, the Light In dustrial district includes 21.6 acres. The Brinnon Subarea Planning Group considered and reviewed several other areas for inclusion within an expanded “final” RVC for Brinnon. In spite of their desire to include these areas within a new RVC boundary, there were consistency issues associated with satisfying the GMA requirements for “prevention of low density sprawl” and “logical outer boundaries” in these areas that made consistency with the LAMIRD provisions of the GMA problematic. One alternative that was considered was to expand the RVC to include the entire “Upper Flats” bluff area above and immediately north of the Brinnon School and Dosewallips Road. This area contains a mix of existing residential and non-residential uses. There are several businesses operating in the Upper Flats area, including Bud’s Excavating, Brinnon Cemetery, Lucky’s Trailer Park, Mountain Electric, and Frank’s Storage. Most of these businesses operate as either home - based businesses, cottage industries or were established prior to zoning in the county. Nevertheless the area retains a predominantly rural residential character. The area was not zoned commercial at any previous time in history nor was it considered or did it qualify for inclusion in the TerraLogic Report as a “planned commercial and manufacturing analysis area.” In total, including the gravel pit and Boling property, and extending westward to the BPA power lines, this area would have increased the size of the RVC to more than 200 acres and could have designated as much as five times more new land for more intensive commercial development than presently exists or is allowed under the 34-acre “interim” RVC boundary. This would likely not qualify as allowing Appendix 36 32 “limited” development of undeveloped lands under the logical outer boundary requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv). The other alternative considered was to include the area one-parcel-deep immediately west of and contiguous to Schoolhouse Road that was excluded from the “interim” RVC boundary. This area is anchored by the new Fire Station (built after 1990) on the south and the Brinnon School (built pre - 1990) on the north. There is a limited amount of intervening vacant and further developable residential land between the two public buildings. However, due to the fact that both the school and the fire station are essential public facilities (and do not require a LAMIRD designation for expansion or for provision of potential future sewer or water facilities) and there is mostly undeveloped area in between, the area was not included in the recommended “final” RVC boundary. Future Objectives As the Tri-Area/Glen Cove “Special Study” was completed December 3, 2001, we urge the BOCC to redraw the “final” Brinnon RVC boundary and create the Light Industrial district consistent with the recommendations of this Subarea Plan and through adoption of same. In addition, the County should continue to work with its legislative delegation to promote revisions to the Growth Management Act that would allow for the expansion of the Brinnon RVC and LAMIRD activities to areas outside of the 100-year floodplain. Furthermore, the Brinnon Flood Board should act with urgency to work with the County and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to re - assess the extent of the 100-year floodplain on the Lower Dosewallips River. Finally, the County should coordinate with the US Department of Agriculture —Rural Development program, Economic Development Assistance, and other agencies to pursue funding opportunities for the planning and design of a public water and/or wastewater treatment system for the village area. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Enhance opportunity in and near the Brinnon Flats area by promoting mixed-use and light industrial development that supports the “hamlet” character of the Brinnon center. POLICIES: P1.1 Redefine the Brinnon RVC to include the existing boundaries and other properties, encompassing the area from Highway 101 westerly along the Dosewallips River to Schoolhouse Road, north to the Dosewallips Road, east to Highway 101, south from the Dosewallips Road to the point of beginning. This designation includes the area east of Highway 101 directly north from the existing boundary up to Walcott Slough. This expanded logical outer boundary increases the 1998 “interim” RVC area by approximately 32 net acres. Adoption of the Brinnon Subarea Plan by the BOCC effectively replaces the Brinnon RVC boundary as depicted on page 3-38 of the CP with the boundary as depicted in Figure BR-6 of this Subarea Plan. P1.2 Within five (5) years, the Brinnon community will have developed a plan, including funding sources, for an enhanced community water system and sewage treatment system. P1.3 Designate the 21.6 acres depicted in Figure BR-6 as Light Industrial (LI) through adoption of this Subarea Plan. GOAL: Appendix 37 33 G2.0 Coordinate with the Brinnon Flood Board, Jefferson County, and FEMA Region 10 to pursue update of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Lower Dosewallips River floodplain that affects the Brinnon Flats and the RVC. POLICIES: P2.1 Within one (1) year, the Brinnon Area Flood Control Board shall develop the rationale for why the designation of the 100-year floodplain should be revisited and initiate contact with the affected agencies to pursue an update to the FIRM for the Brinnon Flats. Rural Commercial – WaWa Point Convenience Crossroads The WaWa Point neighborhood includes all the land east of US Highway 101 and south of the Camp Parsons Boy Scout Camp to include both the Right Smart Cove and the Jackson Co ve residential areas. The major access road to WaWa Point is the WaWa Point Road. A service frontage road known as Hjelvik’s Road exists east of and parallel to US Highway 101 and serves Hjelvik’s General Store and boat launch. The 4-acre area comprising the existing Hjelvik’s General Store is presently the only portion of WaWa Point designated “interim” Convenience Crossroads (CC) in the Comprehensive Plan. The Bee Mill Road is approximately three miles long and serves the Point Whitney Shellfish Lab and residential area, Camp Parsons Boy Scout Camp and the Pulali Point residential area. At the intersection of Bee Mill Road and US Highway 101, is the long-standing Cove Park Store and RV Park. History According to Ida and Vern Bailey’s Scrapbook of Brinnon History, 1997, the first recreational development at WaWa Point was known as the Olympiad. It originated in September 1926 and was composed as a 167-acre tract. In 1929 the owners built 16 cabins and in 1930 added 13 more. The cabins were rented for recre ational use with some cabins occupied year round. There was also a wood mill on the property. In the early 1940s they purchased 33 acres of tidelands adjoining the cabin area. Then, in 1944 the original 15-year lease owned by the Pacific Wilderness Associa tion expired. After some negotiation the association renamed itself the Olympiad Park Association, and exchanged the tidelands for title to 14 acres and the main building plus one cabin and a dance hall. The main building included the dining room, store and living quarters. The remaining property was later subdivided and sold as individual lots to private citizens. For the past fifty years, vacation homes and year-around residences have occupied the mouth of Jackson Cove up to the boundaries of land owned b y Camp Parsons. Over the years since World War II, the site contained a number of different uses, including a gas station (the tanks were removed in 1996), a restaurant (until 1974), and a crab and shrimp pot manufacturing operation (since 1975). The primary use of the main building and surrounding Olympiad area, however, became known as the Cove RV Park. The park presently contains approximately 30 sites and has been operated by two different owners since 1974. It serves seasonal visitors whose stays are limited. The main building is a store, primarily serving guests, that sells items such as shrimp pots, fishing gear, and propane and also houses the office and laundry for the park. The current owners added an air station for recreational scuba divers and a portable espresso stand in recent years. The parcel immediately adjacent to the Cove RV Park, across the Bee Mill Road to the south, contained the dance hall associated with Olympiad Park as well as a home. After Olympiad Park was subdivided, this parcel was sold to the new owner Maury Anderson in 1950. The dance hall, apparently, was torn down sometime before 1950. The upland parcel was partially logged and used for a cattle and horse pasture. The remaining home, on the upland portion of the parcel closest to Appendix 38 34 Highway 101 (abutting the access road–Hjelvik’s Road), was used as a residence until 1987 when it was vacated. In 1989, it was donated to the Fire District for training purposes and destroyed. Today the property is used for occasional woodcutting. Mr. Anderson retains a cabin on the shoreline end of the property on Dabob Bay near the mouth of Marple Creek. Hood Canal Seafood has leased the tidelands here for the past 25 years for commercial oyster harvesting. The upland end of the parcel—across Bee Mill Road from the Cove RV Park—remains cleared, but currently has working septic and well with water service to the property. All of WaWa Point, from the east side of WaWa Point Road to the shoreline, is subdivided into small residential parcels. Some contain homes for year-around residents that are mostly retirees, while others serve as vacation homes. Hjelvik’s General Store presently resides on a 24-acre tract of land south of the WaWa Point Road to Right Smart Cove. It is owned and operated by Mr. Eivind Hjelvik and his family. Eivind’s mother and sister—“Ma” and Nancy Hjelvik—operated a small “old -time” store until it was destroyed by fire in 1974. Following the fire, the store was rebuilt to its current size. Gas pumps and propane were added for a short time. The Store sits on a much larger parcel most of which is used as a pasture. The pastureland—which comprises approximately 20 acres of the total 24-acre parcel—was fenced and irrigated and now contains cattle, horses, and geese. Immediately south and contiguous to the Store is another 6.5-acre parcel owned by Hjelvik. It extends to the shoreline of Right Smart Cove and includes a concrete boat launch, access road and gravel parking lot constructed in 1976. Mr. Hjelvik charged a fee for boat launching, parking and overnight camping at the site. Today the site is closed for most of the year but is used sporadically during the summer season for the same purposes. Land Use Considerations The area extending from Cove Park (at the intersection of Highway 101 and Bee Mill Road) south to Hjelvik’s Store (including the larger undeveloped pasture owned by the Hjelvik family on the same parcel as the Store)— bounded by Hjelvik’s Road, a frontage road to Highway 101, on the west and WaWa Point Road on the eas t—was zoned “general commercial” prior to the County initiating its planning under the GMA in 1994. The pre -GMA commercial zone for WaWa Point was approximately 27 acres. However, during development of the CP, as stated on page 3-16, the County made a finding that “infill development” between Cove Park and Hjelvik’s Store allowed under the pre -GMA zoning would “result in inappropriate sprawl.” As a result, the entire 27-acre “pre -GMA” commercially zoned area was designated as Rural Residential in the CP, except for the 4-acre site of the existing Hjelvik’s Store itself—which was designated as Convenience Crossroad CC (thus splitting the Hjelvik family parcel). The CP specifically found that the Cove Store and RV Park was a small-scale tourist and recreational use that “does not require commercial designation,” so only four of the original 27 acres of WaWa Point zoned commercial were designated as “interim” Convenience Crossroads (CC) in the CP—an 85% reduction. The CP also states (on page 3-16) that only t he 4-acre site of Hjelvik’s Store and not the remaining 20-acre pasture portion of the same parcel was designated as Convenience Crossroad (CC) commercial in order to “prevent commercial sprawl, and in order to focus development in areas of infill in Quilcene and Brinnon Rural Village Centers.” We believe the “sprawl” issue is a legitimate concern that needs to—and will—be addressed in this Subarea Plan. To wit, the County correctly followed the criteria in LNP 5.2.3.c. that, in drawing a logical outer boundary, “[a] large parcel that is partially developed for existing uses may not be designated in its entirety, if such a designation would promote sprawl.” We concur with the CP conclusion as to the application of that criteria in the particular case of the remaining 20-acre pasture portion of Hjelvik’s parcel. However, restricting commercial land designation at WaWa Point based on the need for that commercial allocation elsewhere in South County is unfounded. The CP cannot “rob Peter to pay Paul.” Indeed, as pointed out in the preceding discussion about the Brinnon RVC, and the present Appendix 39 35 economic conditions discussed in the Economic Development Element, the “interim” RVC designation failed to allocate enough land to “foster” rural commercial/industrial opportunities in the Brinnon village core. We make the same finding in WaWa Point. The WaWa Point area is a separate and distinct neighborhood from the Brinnon village and Quilcene, one that is isolated and has supported traditional and historic rural non-residential land uses and lifestyles. The current WaWa Point CC contains one existing use comprising 4 acres — one acre for the existing store and three acres to allow for “possible expansion” of the store and “to meet parking requirements,” according to the CP (at 3-16). In other words, the current CC designation only allows for expansion of Hjelvik’s Store —it creates or “fosters” no new rural commercial development opportunities and no opportunities for infill development as originally intended by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). We cannot believe that the CP intended to imply that any rural commercial designation beyond four acres at WaWa Point would constitute “promoting sprawl.” If so, then presumably even one more acre would constitute “sprawl.” We believe, instead, that the CP found, in the findings shown at 3-16, only that the original 27-acre pre -GMA “general commercial” zoning—and the range of uses allowed in that pre -GMA zone—proposed in the Draft CP—in its entirety—constituted sprawl at WaWa Point. Further, that the intent of the “interim” CC designation and the CP at LNP 1.4 is to allow and indeed “plan for” additional commercial development consistent with that necessary to foster rural economic development opportunities. But this must be done in a manner that prevents the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped lands into sprawling low-density development. We analyzed the area to determine how best to achieve those dual aims. As shown on the existing land use map (Figure BR-7) most of the area is characterized by residential use along the Dabob Bay shoreline and east of WaWa Point Road and the Cove RV Park. However, in the area comprised of the 27-acre “pre -GMA” commercial zone (and currently designated Rural Residential in the CP) there is only one incidental residential structure (the owner’s house at the Cove RV Park). The rest of the area is characterized by either existing commercial development (Cove Grocery and RV Park and Hjelvik’s Store), cleared and formerly developed land (i.e., Maury Anderson’s), or open grazing land that was long ago logged and cleared (Hjelvik’s pasture). The area is immediately adjacent to and served by excellent access to Highway 101—the only arterial in Brinnon. All of the former (pre -GMA) commercially zoned properties have frontage road access off of Highway 101 on Hjelvik Road. The CP at 3-16 found that all of these properties were provided “safe access” from Highway 101 via the frontage road. The character of the existing non-residential development, proximity to Highway 101 and local access roads, and lack of significant tree cover make its use as a future residential area questionable. Analysis of the 1990 “built environment” per RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) is illustrated in Figure BR-8. This analysis shows the “built environment” using the same methodology and criteria previously discussed in the Brinnon RVC section, except that the built environment as shown in Figure BR-8 also includes structures or facilities built below grade. For example the concrete boat launch, gravel access road and parking lot constructed on the parcel immediately south of Hjelvik’s Store which fronts on Right Smart Cove is not shown on the Assessor’s parcel database files as a “developed” parcel—but it does qualify as the “built environment” under the recent Hearings Board definition of the term in Durland, et.al. v. San Juan County. In essence, that the “built environment,” as it applies to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), “means only those facilities which are ‘manmade,’ whether they are above or below ground.” This is presumed to include the installation of above- or below- ground facilities and improvements for road access, utilities, water, septic, or irrigation systems, etc., on other parcels. However, these types of “built environments” are not identifie d in the Assessor’s files and therefore were not analyzed or mapped for parcels otherwise identified as Appendix 40 36 undeveloped or vacant by the Assessor, except in cases where field assessment or property owner information regarding the presence of such facilities could be confirmed. Vision WaWa Point is truly the northern gateway into Brinnon. Some of the residents of the WaWa Point neighborhood have a vision of the old crossroads commercial area being utilized for small-scale recreation and tourist uses consistent with the rural character and visually compatible with the existing development in the area. We do not want to see low-density sprawl or a commercial strip development that bears no connection to or is visually incompatible with the character of the surrounding area. For that reason, we propose adoption of a Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist (SRT) Overlay District for the WaWa Point area as shown on Figure BR-9. The following is a vision of how the crossroads area could be utilized under the SRT district to foster rural economic development consistent with the adjacent rural residential character of the neighborhood: · Cabins: A wooded setting with log cabins with amenities for couples and families. The complex would be required to be buffered with trees from area residents. It could be developed in stages and offer non-polluting recreational activities, such as those described in the Parks and Recreation element of this plan. · Scuba Diving Facilities : Charter boats for scuba divers. A store providing air, diving equipment and services for scuba divers. Divers favor the Point Whitney and Pulali Point area. Recreational divers are demographically a desirable segment of the recreational market usually characterized by relatively higher levels of disposable incomes and a propensity to explore and travel to new—even isolated—areas to conduct their hobby. · Horticulture : A “high class facility,” similar to Heronswood located in Kingston, that provides native species and non-invasive exotics. Horticulture and gard ening do very well with retirement communities and with tourists, as an attraction and destination. Heronswood is known throughout the world and Whitney Gardens and Nursery attracts 50,000 visitors a year. · Kayak (boat/log cabin) building: Provide local citizens and tourists with kayaks, boats, and/or small boats/log cabins, and boating and water safety instruction, and also educate locals with a new master skill that earns competitive wage. Low infrastructure costs. Fits the local environment. Would also distinguish the Brinnon- area for craftsmanship and provide living wage jobs. · Farmers Market: Where local cottage industries and home businesses could have an outlet to sell and market their products. Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist Overlay District (SRT) The proposed overlay district shown in Figure BR-9 covers only four lots (or portions thereof). It extends from the existing Cove Grocery and RV Park south to Hjelvik’s General Store and includes the boat launch and camping area on the separate parcel immediately south of and contiguous to the General Store. It is bordered on the west by the existing parcel boundaries along the frontage road and bordered on the east by extending the existing Convenience Crossroad boundary line for Hjelvik’s General St ore north in a straight line parallel to the parcel boundary that abuts the frontage road. Appendix 41 37 In total the SRT Overlay constitutes approximately 18.7 acres —still significantly less than the original 27-acre pre -GMA commercial zoning for the area. It would allow significantly fewer and potentially less intensive non-residential uses than otherwise allowed under a rural mixed-use commercial designation such as Neighborhood Visitor Crossroad (NVC). No new residential development would be allowed, except as authorized in the underlying Rural Residential districts. The overlay district would only allow the uses identified as small-scale recreational and tourist uses in Section 4.35 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The SRT overlay would also allow “limited and commensurately scaled commercial facilities” intended to serve those small-scale recreational and tourist facilities as a special use consistent with the requirements of the policies of this Subarea Plan and as prescribed in Section 4.35.3.a. of the UDC. The CP and this Subarea Plan promote increased tourism and recreational development in Brinnon. As discussed elsewhere in this Subarea Plan, Brinnon has a long history of small-scale recreational and tourism development. Much of its existing rural chara cter is defined by such uses. The SRT designation creates opportunities for traditional rural lifestyles and a rural-based economy by identifying a specific and discrete rural location and setting—which these kinds of uses are dependent upon—and relieves the affected property owners from the burden of obtaining a conditional use permit to foster this kind of rural economic development. All identified SRT uses in Section 4.35 UDC would be allowable uses within the SRT overlay subject to approval by the Admin istrator of the Department of Community Development through a Type II permit process, including the public notice, comment, and appeal provisions of the Type II permit process. Administrative approval would be required in order to ensure compliance with the following: · The applicable conditions and standards of the UDC, including those of Section 4.35 and where modified by this Subarea Plan; · The relevant bulk and dimensional standards of the underlying land use district; and · Any applicable provisions of this Subarea Plan. The rationale for designation as an SRT overlay is prompted largely by the existing rural character and land uses of the four lots (or portions thereof) in question. Despite its Rural Residential designation in the CP the character of the lots proposed for the overlay district is decidedly non- residential. · The CP, at 3-16, already recognizes the Cove Grocery and RV Park as an SRT use. This area constitutes approximately 2.3 acres. · The portion of the Maury Anderson property included within the SRT overlay accounts for approximately 3.0 acres. It comprises only the upland portion of the parcel used initially as a dance hall in the 1930s that was later converted to a residence and then destroyed by fire and never rebuilt for residential purposes. The upper portion of the Anderson parcel proposed for the overlay has been cleared and is surrounded on three sides by public roads—Hjelvik Road, Bee Mill Road and WaWa Point Road, and has working water and septic systems on-site. This portion of the parcel is much better suited for non-residential development. Its location adjacent to the existing Cove RV Park and at the intersection of Bee Mill Road and Highway 101 makes it a unique “gateway” entrance location to the overall Brinnon Planning Area as well as the WaWa Point and Pulali Point areas, including the Point Whitney Shellfish Lab and public beaches. · The portion of the Hjelvik pasture proposed for the overlay comprises about 7.0 acres. It is undeveloped (but cleared), accessed by two different roads (the frontage road and WaWa Point Road) on two sides of the property, is contiguous to the Appendix 42 38 existing LAMIRD designation at the General Store, and only includes the parcel frontage along Hjelvik Road and Highway 101—not the remaining acreage that abuts the rural residential uses on the back side of WaWa Point Road to the east. Its characteristics, location and setting make it a particularly attractive and unique property for small-scale recreation and tourist uses. It represents the largest undeveloped, topographically flat and already logged and cleared property with views of Hood Canal and adjacent to Highway 101 in the entire Planning Area. It is an appropriate site for conversion to SRT development. The SRT portion comprises less than one-third (7.0 acres) of the total acreage of the Hjelvik parcel (24.3 acres). The remaining 13 acres of the “pasture” would retain a Rural Residential designation to act as a buffer between the residential uses east across WaWa Point Road. · The southern terminus of the SRT overlay would include the beach and boat launch on Right Smart Cove at the southern end of the Hjelvik property (approximately 6.5 acres). The existing beach access, boat launch, access road, parking area and current and historic use of the site for transient RV camping are the unique features of the area that truly make this location best suited for small-scale tourist and recreational uses. People could camp at Cove Park and at the beach on Hjelviks property and use the boat launch. Also, this launch is sandwiched between two waterfront lots with 200-ft. tidelands on the east owned by Washington State Parks (and known as the undeveloped Right Smart Cove State Park) and 5.6+ acres with 500-ft. tidelands on the west owned by the State DNR. There is an existing permitted commercial boat launch and a history of transient, self-contained RV camping at the south end of the Hjelvik property, which is still operated occasionally throughout the year. The beach at Right Smart Cove. Statutory Requirements We have previously in this section and in the Economic Development Element discussed the land use, rural character, and economic development rationale for the SRT overlay designation. Now we must address the statutory (both GMA and the Jefferson County CP) requirements. Appendix 43 39 GMA Consistency The SRT designation is consistent with the uses authorized under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) as a small-scale recreation and tourist LAMIRD. Such LAMIRDS are subject to the “measures governing rural development” found in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c). Those measures include: (i)Containing or otherwise controlling rural development; (ii)Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area; (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development in the rural area; (iv)Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.060, and surface water and ground w ater resources; and (v)Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. We find that application of the SRT overlay to the approximately 18.7-acre area specified in Figure BR-9 and the applicable provisions of this Subarea Plan and the UDC will serve to meet the above requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c). About one-half of the area of the lots (or portions thereof) proposed for the SRT overlay are “undeveloped” in the sense that they do not constitute the ”built environment” as defined by the Hearings Board and this Subarea Plan. These include portions of two lots —Maury Anderson’s 2.9-acre site and the 7.0-acre portion of Hjelvik’s pasture. In total the portions of these lots included within the SRT overlay comprise 10 acres (or 53%) of the total 18.7 acres proposed for SRT designation. The designation of undeveloped land in an SRT LAMIRD is clearly consistent with the intent of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) to allow for “…new development of, small scale recreational and tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting.” Nevertheless care must be taken in the application of the designation to ensure that the (c)(iii) requirements to reduce the “inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development” are met. We find that the designation of the portions of the lots in question do, in fact, meet that requirement. If all of the area of the two “lots” in question (i.e., Maury Anderson’s and Hjelvik’s) were included it would add between 15-20 additional acres to the designation and would extend it much closer to the existing rural residential uses along Dabob Bay and WaWa Point. This could potentially lead to the “inappropriate” conversion of undeveloped lands in to low-density sprawl and threaten the rural residential character of the adjacent area. However, as previously discussed, the portions of the properties proposed for SRT designation include those best suited for non-residential small-scale recreation and tourist uses and therefore, comprise land uses consistent with the rural character and constitute the “appropriate” conversion of undeveloped land in the rural area. Furthermore, the current proposed SRT designation includes significantly less undeveloped land than that included in the “pre -GMA” commercial zoning CP proposal that was found to constitute “sprawl” in the CP. To ensure visual compatibility with the surrounding rural character and residential uses [required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(ii)] all proposed SRT uses allowed within the overlay district will be required to prepare —and have approved by the UDC Administrator—a site plan that can demonstrate measures to protect or minimize adverse impacts on drainage, traffic generation, visual impact, noise, and other relevant criteria to preserve the existing rural character of the area. Any development proposed within the SRT overlay will be subject to the environmentally sensitive areas requirements, including groundwater resource protection standards, of the UDC at Section 3.6.4 et. al., and the grading, drainage and stormwater protection standards in the UDC at Section 6.6 and 6.7. The proposed SRT overlay does not include or abut any lots designated as agricultural, Appendix 44 40 forest or mineral resource lands in the Comprehensive Plan, nor is the impleme ntation of such a designation expected to interfere or conflict with the use of such resource lands in the vicinity. The Hearings Board ruled in City of Anacortes, et.al. v. Skagit County that small-scale recreational and tourist-oriented LAMIRDS authorized under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) are not required to meet the “logical outer boundary” (LOB) requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv). According to the Board, “LAMIRDS designated under (d)(ii) or (d)(iii) are defined by ‘lots’ and thus [logical outer boundary] requirements are irrelevant.” Small-scale recreation and tourist LAMIRDS are intended to be small-scale by definition, to comprise “appropriate” development in a rural area, and to only require public services and facilities that are “limited” in such a manner that—the public facilities —do not permit the spread of low-density sprawl. The lots (or portions thereof) proposed for the SRT overlay are adequately served by transportation facilities and lack public water and sewer facilities. No new public water or sewer facilities are planned for or deemed necessary to serve the lots in question. The existing non- residential uses on the lots in question all rely on wells and septic systems for water supply and wastewater treatment and disposal, respectively. Therefore, future development will be limited to that which must be of a character, scale, intensity, and design to meet the on-site septic and water requirements of the UDC and the Jefferson County Health Department. The SRT designation will promote small-scale and rural character development that limits the need for public services and facilities in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl—as required by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii). Comprehensive Plan Consistency The CP contains several policies that require measures to “minimize and contain” the site of a SRT use (LNP 7.1.6) and that allow “expansion of existing small-scale recreational or tourist areas and uses” (LNP 7.1.7) which “should be established and maintained by logical outer boundaries.” The site plan requirements of LNP 7.1.6 are contained in the SRT criteria in the UDC at Section 4.35 and reaffirmed in the policies in this Subarea Plan. The “logical outer boundary” (LOB) requirements of LNP 7.1.7 appear to create an inconsistency with the recent Hearings Board decision in Anacortes v. Skagit County regarding whether or not logical outer boundaries apply to SRT LAMIRDS. Nevertheless, the CP (at LNP 7.1.7) clearly allows for and anticipates the “intensification/expansion of existing small-scale recreational or tourist areas and uses.” Therefore creation of a discrete SRT overlay itself at WaWa Point that takes in undeveloped land is consistent with the CP. However, there are two potentially important questions here: 1. Must the boundary of the SRT overlay be “delineated predominantly by the built environment as of July 1990”?; and 2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, then is it? We pass on the first question and assume for our sake that we must be consistent with LNP 7.1.7, which states in its entirety: LNP 7.1.7 Upon application for intensification/expansion of existing small-scale recreational or tourist areas and uses, the ultimate size and configuration of the site should be established and maintained by logical outer boundaries. Existing areas and uses are those that are clearly identifiable and contained, and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment as of July 1990, but may also include undeveloped lands if the overall goals of the Rural Element are maintained, by: Appendix 45 41 a. preserving the character of the existing natural neighborhood; b. physical boundaries such as bodies of water, roadways, and land forms and contours are used to assist in delineation of the site; c. abnormally irregular site boundaries are p revented; d. public facilities and services are provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; and e. protecting critical areas and surface and groundwater resources The July 1, 1990 “built environment” for WaWa Point is shown in Figure BR-8. This map illustrates the built environment based on the methodology previously discussed utilizing Assessor’s Office parcel data to identify structures and man-made (above ground) improvements. It is also (in the case of Hjelvik’s boat launch) augmented with local property owner data that has been field verified to illustrate “below ground” man-made improvements and facilities (i.e., boat launch, access road and parking lot) that have been determined to constitute the built environment according to the Hearings Board. The only portion of the four lots in question that does not constitute the “built environment” as defined herein is the undeveloped 7.0-acre portion of Hjelvik’s pasture proposed for inclusion in the SRT overlay. It accounts for slightly more than one- third (37%) of the total area of the proposed SRT overlay. [It should be noted that field investigation was done on the affected portion of the Anderson property to validate the presence of man-made “below ground” facilities. These facilities include the on-site septic system and well that served the original “dance hall” building and later residence for Mrs. Anderson (which burned down in 1987)]. We believe the intent of the CP at LNP 7.1.7 is clearly to allow for the inclusion of undeveloped lands in SRT “areas.” How else then to allow for “intensification/expansion” of these uses and areas “that foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas”? The challenge is to find a balance between the requirement to cultivate a rural-based economy while preventing low-density sprawl and preserving the rural character of the area. Therefore, the key determinant in deciding how much undeveloped land should be included within an SRT LAMIRD cannot solely be that of the logical outer boundary requirement—but must include consideration of the measurable criteria prescribed in LNP 7.1.7 a.- e. In effect, the LOB and the criteria in LNP 7.1.7 a.-e—taken together—constitute the appropriate test for preventing low-density sprawl and preserving rural character. In other words, any undeveloped land included within an SRT LAMIRD must be able to demonstrate satisfaction with the criteria (in a.-e.) in order to meet the requirements of LNP 7.1.7. We cannot belie ve the intent of the logical outer boundary requirement of (d)(iv) was to be so restrictive so as to prevent the very expansion of these same areas authorized by (d)(ii). If that were the case—and the portion of the Anderson and Hjelvik’s lots not defined by the built environment were removed from the designation—there would be no opportunity for expansion of the SRT “area and uses” at WaWa Point—in violation of the Act at (d)(ii). We believe that the proposed SRT overlay at WaWa Point and the associated policies and provisions of the CP, this Subarea Plan, and the UDC act in concert to fulfill the requirements of LNP 7.1.7. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Promote the historic commercial area at WaWa Point as an attractive area for new or expanded small-scale recreational and tourist businesses in order to foster the rural-based economy and traditional lifestyles of the local residents. Appendix 46 42 POLICIES: P1.1 Redefine the existing WaWa Point Convenience Crossroad (CC) LAMIRD to include a Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist (SRT) Overlay District. The overlay includes the existing Cove Park Grocery and RV Park, extends south to include the upland portion of the Maury Anderson property and the Highway 101 frontage portion of Hjelvik’s pasture, and terminates at the existing boat launch and camping site on Right Smart Cove, immediately south of and adjacent to the existing Hjelvik’s Store. The overlay designates approximately 18.7 gross acres of land for expansion and intensification of the existing small-s cale recreational and tourist area and uses. Adoption of this Subarea Plan by the BOCC effectively designates the WaWa Point SRT Overlay District as depicted in Figure BR-8, modifying the LAMIRD designation for WaWa Point as depicted on page 3-46 of the CP. P1.2 Docket amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) that will better integrate the Brinnon Subarea Plan and the Comprehensive Plan policies related to small- scale recreation and tourist uses. Amend the Unified Development Code (UDC) to establish provisions for an SRT Overlay District at WaWa Point. Provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 1. Classify the Small-Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses (SRT) identified in Table 3-1 of the UDC under Rural Residential designations as Type II permit uses within the SRT Overlay District, subject to the provisions of the UDC, except as may be modified by the provisions of this Subarea Plan. 2. Outdoor commercial amusement facilities, outdoor shooting ranges, and off-road vehicle (ORV) and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) parks and recreational uses shall be prohibited within the SRT Overlay. 3. Unnamed uses, if classified as an SRT use by the Administrator—consistent with the requirements of UDC Section 4.35.2—shall be treated as “Cd” (Conditional discretionary) uses within the SRT Overlay. 4. All allowed uses within the SRT Overlay shall be exempt from the general minimum lot size requirements of 4.35.3.b, provided they are located on legal lots of record. However, other use-specific minimum lot size requirements of Section 4.35 shall apply unless otherwise exempted by this Subarea Plan. 5. The use-specific minimum lot size requirements of UDC Section 4.35 for equestrian centers, conference center/retreat facilities, and for rural recreational lodging shall not apply to such uses when located within the SRT Overlay. 6. All allowed uses within the SRT Overlay shall have a site plan approved by the Administrator consistent with the requirements of the UDC generally and Section 4.35.3.j specifically. 7. Setbacks and other development standards shall be consistent with those required in the underlying Rural Residential District, except as may be modified by UDC Section 4.35.3 or by the provisions of this Subarea Plan. 8. Expansion of existing SRT uses and facilities within the SRT Overlay shall be exempt from the requirements of UDC Section 4.35.4.a (which requires a conditional use permit), but shall be subject to a Type II permit process. Appendix 47 43 9. The maximum size provisions for rural recreational lodging or cabins for overnight rental, and conference center/retreat facilities —specified in UDC Section 4.35.9.b — shall be amended to read as follows when such uses are located within the SRT Overlay: b. Fifteen (15) built cabins or bedrooms for overnight lodging comprising up to seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of gross floor area are allowed for up to every ten (10) acres of parcel area devoted to SRT use, or as allowed in UDC Section 4.35.9.b., whichever is greater. A maximum of thirty (30) rooms or cabins comprising no more than twelve thousand (12,000) square feet of total building area over the entire site, excluding a caretaker’s or manager’s res idence, shall apply to rural recreational lodging uses in areas greater than ten (10) acres when located in the SRT Overlay. In projects involving both conference center/retreat facilities and lodging facilities, total building coverage shall not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage allowed by UDC Table 6-1 for the underlying Rural Residential district and other requirements of the UDC, as applicable. The Administrator may also modify the maximum building size of the SRT use(s) allowed under this section based on the authority granted under UDC Section 4.35.3.j. 10. Rural recreational lodging or cabins for overnight rental and conference center/retreat facilities —when located within the SRT Overlay—shall be exempt from the requirements of UDC Section 4.35.9.f (which requires a conditional use permit), but shall be subject to a Type II permit process. 11. Rural restaurants —when located within the SRT Overlay—shall be exempt from the provisions of UDC Section 4.35.10.a (which requires co-location with another primary SRT use). P1.3 Ensure that adjacent and surrounding property owners receive adequate and timely public notice and comment periods for proposed SRT uses within the SRT Overlay District. Amend UDC Section 8 and Table 8-1 to require a Type II permit process for small-scale recreation and tourist uses in the WaWa Point SRT Overlay District, as described in this section of the Brinnon Subarea Plan. The public notice requirements of the Type II process satisfy this policy. P1.4 During site plan review of proposed SRT uses within the SRT Overlay, the Administrator shall consider site and building design standards including, but not necessarily limited to, building material types, building mass and orientation, architectural treatment, and the use of existing vegetation and landscaping as means to ensure compatibility with the surrounding rural character. Rural Commercial - Black Point The Brinnon Subarea Planning Group suggests that the Black Point area may be an appropriate location for a possible future Master Planned Resort. This idea is discussed in this section. The land use maps provided are for initial discussion purposes only and do not constitute land use designation proposals. Final land use map designations can only be made through a formal, private land use application for a Master Planned Resort, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. Appendix 48 44 History Since the beginning of the timber industry, people have been coming to the Brinnon area to enjoy the recreational opportunities afforded along the shores of Hood Canal and the Dosewallips and Duckabush River valleys. Both State and Federal government agencies have recognized these recreational opportunities and provided parks and trails to accommodate the public’s desire for recreation. Except for slowdowns during the 1930s (Great Depression) and mid 1950s (an over supply of logs in a weak domestic market) the timber industry grew along with the need for commercial services. Both were supported by a fleet of supply boats (often called the mosquito fleet) that served the area by bringing in mail, supplies and people seeking employment. The boats also brought visitors and tourists and as a result, the tourist industry began to grow. Roads were built between 1918 and the mid -1920s that extended from Hoodsport in the southern part of Hood Canal to Quilcene in the north. This automotiv e connection with the outside world relieved the reliance on the mosquito fleet for supplies. As the tourist industry grew, so did the existence of transient accommodations such as hotels, lodges, inns, cabins and camp grounds. Boaters began to come from all over Puget Sound to the Hood Canal area including the all-weather protection of Pleasant Harbor. The tourist industry reached its peak in the area during the 1950s and 1960s. Although the Pleasant Harbor facilities continued to exist, many other non-boating related facilities began to dwindle due to aging of the property owners, aging of the facili- ties and the high cost of improve- ments. Rather than staying in business, property owners often took advantage of a more lucrative real- estate market and sold their com- mercial facilities to the private sector. This occurred to the well–known Olympic Inn Resort (near Seal Rock) that was originally built in 1906 as the Olympic Tavern. It contained many cabins located on 108 acres. After a fire in 1936, the facility was extensively remodeled and operated as a resort through the 1950s. The Inn and cabins eventually fell into disrepair and the property was sold during the early 1970s. The original Inn was torn down in early 1977. Many other resorts and lodges met their fate in this same manner (See Appendix, Brinnon Historical Business List). In the 1970s, the timber industry peaked due to the export market but began to decline in the early 1980s. A number of Olympic Peninsula lumber mills and local cedar shake mills went out of business due to over-harvesting, poor market conditions, and increasing environmental restrictions that limited logging in the National Forests. As the pressure continued into the 1980s and 1990s, the USDA Forest Service continued to curtail most logging in the Olympic National Forest. Today, private landowners are the main suppliers of forest resources along Hood Canal. However, the future of local private logging is likely to be further adversely impacted by implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the recent listing of native Puget Sound and Hood Canal salmon as threatened species. Although the timber industry slowed, the demand for both local and national tourism continued to grow. This was largely due to more reliable automobiles, better road systems and emergent air transportation industry. Air transportation allowed families to easily travel to the large California theme parks (e.g., Disneyland, etc.). Recreation and tourism in the Brinnon area continued to grow due to the ever-increasing desire for outdoor sports (e.g., fishing, shrimping, shellfish harvesting, Early supply boat Appendix 49 45 hiking, mountain climbing, boating, etc.) and the closeness of the Olympic National Park and Hood Canal. The Washington State Department of Parks and Recreation, the USDA Forest Service and the National Park Service continue to be the main providers of tourism and recreational opportunities and facilities in the area. In the mid -1980s, both nationally and in Washington state, the tourism industry grew even faster largely due to the ever-increasing number of traveling retirees and an increase in the wealth and number of families going on weekend excursions. This increase in demand for tourism and recreation continues today. However, due to the lack of significant tourist accommodation facilities and targeted tourism marketing, Brinnon has not benefited as much from tourism as other areas of the county and the Olympic Peninsula. The decline of jobs related to the timber industry coupled with the ever-increasing demand for tourism and recreation resulted in a strong desire by the residents of the Brinnon area to offset the loss of jobs in the timber industry by rebuilding the capacity to accommodate recreation and tourism. An expansion of recreational and tourism opportunities and associated commercial facilities in the Brinnon area, including a potential Master Planned Resort at Black Point, will help fulfill this objective. Master Planned Resort The number of private parks and recreational facilities along with State and Federal campgrounds and trail systems has been steadily growing in the Brinnon area since it was first settled. In recent times, the areas at Jackson Cove (WaWa Point) and Black Point have contained the most intensive use of small-scale recreational and tourist facilities. 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. Although not recognized as such, the Black Point area contains many features characteristic of a Master Planned Resort (MPR). The definition of an MPR is that of “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 on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities” (cf. RCW 36.70A.360). The existing land use pattern in the Black Point area is shown in Figure BR-10. The Black Point area including Ple asant Harbor already contains a number of existing recreational and visitor support activities. This area contains two marinas accommodating over 400 vessels, a 504 unit RV Park (the old NACO Campground & RV Park), presently under limited operation, and other support services including: a real estate office, gift store, a gas and oil fuel facility for boats and sea-planes, vehicle/boat maintenance and repair shop, welding service shop and a vehicle and boat storage facility. Also, this area provides moorage for commercial fishing, crab and oyster boats and offers limited grocery and food service facilities including a pizza shop and a seasonal roadside food service facility. The southern end of Pleasant Harbor contains a boat launch, beach, parking area and approximately 30 acres of forest owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Providing additional tourism and recreational opportunities on the former NACO RV Park site, such as a golf course and hotel with conference and health facilities, could take advantage of an existing site previously developed for tourist and recreational uses, but currently idle. This would also help to diversify the local tourism market by creating a unique “destination resort” not typically found anywhere els e on the west side of Hood Canal and one supported by—but not dependent upon— the marina tourist traffic. In addition, many of the boaters and visitors to the Pleasant Harbor marinas are a “captured market,” in the sense that they arrive to the area by boat and have limited mobility beyond the marina. Providing land-side short -term visitor accommodations and support Appendix 50 46 services such as a restaurant, specialty food store, pharmacy, gift shop, outdoor equipment sales and rental, interpretive center and other uses as well as links to other nearby outdoor recreational opportunities (e.g., hiking, birdwatching, fishing, etc.) helps to capitalize on an existing tourist market and increase tourism spending in the local economy. Natural amenities of the Black Point area include the harbor itself, pristine views of Hood Canal and the Kitsap Peninsula to the east, the Olympic Mountains and adjoining forests and rivers to the west and the abundance of wildlife that includes osprey, bald eagles, deer, elk and cougar. Unlike small-scale recreational and tourist uses —which rely on existing tourist populations to draw upon—Master Planned Resorts can create their own demand by creating an amenity or attraction that does not otherwise exist in the area. In this sense, it can be a “build it and they will come” type of tourist or recreational attraction. It is a unique type of economic development activity that can help to stimulate the local economy and broaden the range of tourist and recreational opportunities in Brinnon. The intent of this portion of the Brinnon Subarea Plan is to describe a vision of the Black Point area to serve as a policy guide if and when a project-specific application for designation of an MPR is made. We envision the Black Point MPR to be significantly different and smaller in scale than the Port Ludlow MPR in that it would be less structured towards development of permanent residential accommodations and moreso towards providing recreational opportunities and support services for the traveling public in a manner that will benefit local residents. The 1995 Brinnon Community Plan recognized the potential and desire for enhanced recreational and occupational opportunities with the suggestion of possible additions to the existing recreational matrix in cluding a planned resort, visitor information center, golf course, inns and additional support services for recreation and tourism. The expansion of recreational opportunities in the Brinnon area is closely aligned with the following other elements of this plan: · Parks and Recreation Element · Economic Development Conceptual Master Planned Resort Land Use Plan The recommendation of this Subarea Plan is to generally support the idea of an MPR at the Black Point. Since a project-specific application for an MPR has not yet been made, approval and adoption of this Subarea Plan by Jefferson County will not, in and of itself, result in the approval of a Master Planned Resort for Black Point. Actual designation of an MPR district can only be accomplished through a site-specific MPR application consistent with the requirements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (including the Brinnon Subarea Plan) and the Unified Development Code. The following is the vision for a conceptual Black Point MPR. A conceptual MPR boundary is shown on Figure BR-11 for planning purposes only. The conceptual MPR depicted contains approximately 305 acres. An MPR at Black Point could include these types of uses, though an actual application may include uses not listed here and/or not in clude the uses listed here: · Resort —could be comprised of the former NACO Campground and RV Park property; an 18-hole golf course, with clubhouse facilities and hotel/inn with conference and Appendix 51 47 health/athletic facilities; with on-site advanced stormwater and wastewater treatment systems integrated into the golf course. · Recreation—could include the 30 acres of land owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at the southwestern end of Pleasant Harbor with beach access and a potential boat launch sit e, dock and day park facilities and the existing dock at Pleasant Harbor State Park at the northeastern edge of the harbor; may facilitate the acquisition of funding to improve the boat launch, dock, and beach access and create new trails and an improved p ark and recreational area and potential interpretive center for the community. · Marina—approximately 20 acres, including the two existing marinas and commercial and residential uses in Pleasant Harbor; would allow for limited infill of associated visitor-s upported commercial, recreational, and residential uses. · Single -Family Residential—envisioned to be located on the southern high bank boundary of Black Point; an area of approximately 20 acres for potential development of 20-25 single -family residential homes in a low density setting adjacent to the golf course. · Mixed Use—could characterize the 19-acre site across US 101 from the existing intersection with Black Point Road; already cleared and graded and portions of which are subject to pre -existing vested development applications; could provide for placement of water reservoir for the resort and to allow for mixed use development, including visitor-oriented short -term accommodations such as townhouses or condominiums and employee housing as well as associated visitor support commercial uses and services. · Tourist Commercial—could characterize the seven (7)-acre area along the immediate eastern side of US 101 on either side of its intersection with Black Point Road; already cleared and graded and portions of which are subject to a pre -existing vested development application; the area contains an existing office building (Coldwell Banker Settlers Real Estate) and seasonal roadside food stands; could provide retail and commercial uses and other services to me et the needs of resort visitors and community residents, including a motel/inn, restaurant/lounge, visitor center, and other visitor-supported commercial and retail uses. This conceptual area would also include the 6.7-acre parcel containing the existing M t. Jupiter Auto Repair located on the west side of Highway 101 at the intersection with Mt. Jupiter Road. The conceptual MPR boundary shown in Figure BR-11 is advisory. It is a conceptual vision based on extensive discussion by the Brinnon Subarea Planni ng Group, property owners in the affected area, neighbors and adjacent property owners and the public. It is intended to serve as a guide to any future project-specific MPR application for the Black Point area. An actual proposal for a specific master planned resort project and MPR designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for Black Point should be reviewed for consistency with the ideas presented in this Subarea Plan. However, this Subarea Plan should not be viewed so narrowly as to preclude variations from the exact boundaries or land uses described herein so long as the scale and intensity of the proposed MPR are consistent with that envisioned by this Plan. The conceptual MPR boundary shown in Figure BR-11 includes multiple properties owned by multiple property owners. Any future MPR site-specific project application for Black Point must include the signatures (i.e., agreement) of any affected property owners in order to be accepted for Appendix 52 48 review by the County. Discussion or concurrence among most, but not all, affected property owners within the proposed MPR boundary has occurred. For example, participation by the WDFW is uncertain. Therefore, any subsequent MPR site-specific application in the area will have to resolve any remaining issues between or among property owners as to their participation in such a project. The Year 2001 Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments regarding MPRs included provisions for the use of resort master plans and development agreements to implement MPR- related policies in the Comprehensive Plan. These procedures are intended to be the vehicle by which multiple property owners within a single unified MPR application could reach agreement on their particular areas of interest. For this reason and others, the definitive boundary of an MPR for Black Point can only be defined at the time of an actual site-specific MPR application. Finally, several existing cottage industries are located in the Black Point area immediately adjacent to the conceptual MPR site. These include the Mt. Jupiter Auto, Truck, and Tire Center on Mt. Jupiter Road and Brothers Welding and Metal Arts located west of the Pleasant Harbor Marina across Highway 101. Both of these existing businesses provide support and services to the existing users of the Ple asant Harbor marinas as well as to surrounding local residents. Both owners of these businesses were included in the discussion regarding the MPR. At this time, Mt. Jupiter has expressed interest in being included in such a potential MPR development. There fore, the conceptual Black Point MPR boundary in this Subarea Plan includes that existing commercial use. However, the final inclusion of any adjacent non-residential uses in such a development would be fully evaluated at the time of an actual MPR project application. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES GOAL: G1.0 Promote recreational and tourist development consistent with the character of Brinnon. POLICIES: P1.1 Encourage the proposal of a Master Planned Resort for Black Point to foster economic development in Brinnon consistent with the vision illustrated in this Subarea Plan. P1.2 Ensure that the project review procedures and public involvement processes in place for designation of an MPR at Black Point are implemented in a manner that results in a project that meets the need for local economic development while protecting the natural environment and rural character of surrounding properties. P1.3 The Black Point MPR project review and approval process should reflect the diversity of interests and potential property owners who may be included in such an overall project at Black Point. Home Businesses and Cottage Industries As early as 1858 Brinnon was a community of entrepreneurs and small business owners. Roads did not connect the community to the north or south until the early 1900s; the available transportation was by boat. This made it necessary for Brinnonites to be self-sufficient and resourceful. Even with the coming of roads, the community remains isolated. Brinnon is still a remote rural commu nity that is over 35 miles from major services and 45 miles from emergency or major public services. Highway 101 is the only road connecting Brinnon with the rest of the County. It is not uncommon for the road to be closed and the area cut-off for indefinite periods due to mudslides, snow and ice storms, downed trees, or flooding. This constraint has contributed to the peace and quiet that so many residents desire but also to the need to be self-reliant and self-supporting. The transportation constraints and long distance to Appendix 53 49 employment centers means local residents must often develop their own means of economic activity to make a living. If those options are not available or are unduly restricted by certain regulations, their only other choice is often to leave the area and move closer to major employment centers. This only contributes to further economic decline locally and widens the disparity between North and South County. It also fails to live up to the promise of preserving Brinnon’s rural character ma de by the GMA [at RCW 36.70A.030(14)] to “foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural- based economies, and opportunities to live and work in rural areas.” Our environment of independence has been demonstrated over the years by the wealth of home businesses and cottage industries that are an integral part of the Brinnon community. It is characteristic of home businesses and cottage industries that they are not generally disruptive of the residential or mixed uses of adjacent properties, they generate less tra ffic and noise than typical commercial or industrial activities, they are compatible in appearance and they have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Following is just a partial and illustrative list of the range of typical home based businesses and cottage industries presently found in Brinnon—although even many of these occupations are part - time or seasonal and do not necessarily represent year-round full-time employment. In other cases, residents may have more than one business activity in ord er to make ends meet. Typical home - based businesses/cottage industries in Brinnon include, but are not necessarily limited to: · Mushroom farmer · Home elder care · Dog and cat groomer · Oyster farmer and picker · Tutor/home educator · Dog breeder · Craftspeople · Carpenter · Electrician · Hair stylist · Bookbinder · Auto repair · Equipment rental · Bed & Breakfast proprietor · Watch repair · Day care provider · Woodcarver · Freelance author · Journalist · Leatherworker · Jeweler · Seamstress/tailor · Signmaker · Excavator · Metalworker · Internet business · Housecleaner Today the small business owners in the Brinnon area use a variety of communication and delivery services to conduct their activities, and electronic media has fostered new enterprises. The nature of small business has changed regarding resourc es, markets, products, and the services required, and business owners have accordingly updated their approach to meeting needs around the world. Appendix 54 50 However, other opportunities for work are very slim. The regional decline of forestry and fishing and shellfish gathering has resulted in dire conditions throughout the area. High unemployment, a distressed local economy, and low residential densities characterize the community. Current state statistics identify Brinnon has having the third highest rate of povert y among the state’s small school districts. The lack of employment and distance from living-wage jobs signify the need to create new opportunities and actively pursue a transition to a more diversified local economy. In the Brinnon area, home businesses and cottage industries are encouraged as opportunities to provide family income, start up a business, or establish a work place at home (see the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 3-35). These businesses generally have a minimal impact on the rural environment and reduce the capital facility services required to move remote workers to more populated areas. Future Objectives The Subarea Plan proposes to initiate implementation of a Brinnon Planning Area—Remote Rural overlay designation to allow for expanded “sustainable” economic opportunity within the Comprehensive Plan’s context of rural development based on “unique local circumstances.” The intent of the overlay designation is to relieve the Brinnon Planning Area from certain regulations and restrictions regarding home businesses and cottage industries that are needed for higher populated rural areas of the county with better access to employment opportunities in urban growth areas. The Brinnon Planning Area—Remote Rural (BRPA RR) overlay is an overlay district designation with provisions similar to those for western Jefferson County (West End). These provisions include exemption from certain policies relating to home businesses and cottage industries and provide consistency within the Comprehensive Plan for remote rural areas. Similar to the West End of Jefferson County, this community has a low projected population growth but serves a high number of tourists traveling in the area. Policies for home businesses and cottage industries allow for greater flexibility under criteria specific to the West End which, because of its proximity to Forks, is actually closer to major urban services than is Brinnon. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Establish Brinnon Planning Area—Remote Rural overlay district for the purpose of regulating home business and cottage industry activities. POLICIES: P1.1 Home businesses and cottage industries, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, shall be permitted throughout our Remote Rural overlay. This includes any residential sites located within a designated commercial zone, providing the criteria for residences are met. P1.2 Jefferson County shall immediately amend the Unified Development Code (UDC) to establish the BRPA RR overlay and ensure that it is regulated in a similar manner as the West End insofar as the treatment of home -based businesses and cottage industries. Appropriate amendments that improve integration between the Brinnon Subarea Plan and the Comprehensive Plan (CP) should be docketed for the annual CP amendment cycle. The differences in requirements for the BRPA RR overlay are as follows: 1. The Brinnon Planning Area (BRPA) shall have alternate provisions regarding the number of non-resident employees. For home businesses, up to four (4) non-resident employees shall be allowed; a number of non-resident employees beyond four (4) would be reviewed under a conditional use permit application. For cottage Appendix 55 51 industries, up to eight (8) non-resident employees shall be allowed; a number of non- resident employees beyond eight (8) would be reviewed under a new or revised conditional use permit application. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.6, LNP 6.1.7(b) and LNP 6.2.8.) (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) 2. The BRPA shall be exempt from the restriction on types of on-site retail sales, provided that on-site retail sales are not unreasonably disruptive to the use of adjacent properties. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.9 and LNP 6.2.7.) (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) 3. The BRPA shall be exempt from specified hours of operation. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.12 and LNP 6.2.14.) (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) 4. Cottage industries in the BRPA shall be exempt from the limitation on parking and the storage of heavy equipment and materials to be used on other properties. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.2.15.) 5. Cottage industries in the BRPA shall be exempt from the prohibition on the following activities: auto, truck, or heavy equipment repair shop, automobile body-work or paint shop and large-scale furnit ure stripping. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.2.3.) (See UDC 3.6.12 and UDC 4.17.) 6. Home businesses and cottage industries in the BRPA shall be exempt from the need to move to a commercial mixed-use area or industrial area as a result of growth. Home businesses shall be allowed to grow into cottage industries with a revised permit and cottage industries shall be allowed to expand with a revised conditional use permit. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.2 and LNP 6.2.4.) (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) 7. Cottage industries in the BRPA may be permitted conditionally under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) (iii). (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) 8. Exemptions herein shall be regulated subject to Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.10 and LNP 6.2.12, whic h prohibit uses that may be disruptive to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Prohibited uses include activities that cause excessive noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property. Hearings on regulations prohibiting uses that may be disruptive to adjacent property in the BRPA will be held in Brinnon to be close to the residents who may be affected. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.10 and LNP 6.2.12.) (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) 9. An additional home business or cottage industry or combination thereof on a single property shall be permitted in the BRPA as long as the standards in this Subarea Plan for home business and cottage industry are not exceeded and the criteria of LNP 6.1.10 and LNP 6.2.12 are met. 10. Any hearings associated with regulation or conditional permit review procedures for the BRPA shall be held in the Brinnon community, close to the residents who may be affected. (See Comprehensive Plan LNP 6.1.13(b) and LNP 6.2.16(b).) (See UDC 3.6.12, UDC 4.17 and UDC 4.20.) P1.3 “Limited product assembly” which is commensurate with the scale and character of the rural remote area should be appropriate for home businesses and cottage industries provided that the other provisions of the UDC and this Subarea Plan are met. STRATEGIES: S1.1 Within resource limitations, Jefferson County in cooperation with the citizens of Brinnon should develop a plan aimed at informing local home businesses and cottage industries Appendix 56 52 about the provisions of the overlay district and the benefits of having a County permit and/or a small business license from the State of Washington. GOAL: G2.0 Encourage the continued development of businesses that allow residents to maintain a sustainable economic independence within our remote rural community. POLICIES: P2.1 Provide an education program that will enhance and improve the function of small businesses. STRATEGIES: S2.1 Within resource limitations, Jefferson County in coordination with the Economi c Development Council and in cooperation with the citizens of Brinnon should develop educational workshops and forums locally, aimed at the small business owner, to provide, for example, business planning, business training, and applicable small business p ractices. Appendix 57 53 Natural Resource Conservation Element Forest Lands Forest Lands of long term commercial significance designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 comprise the single largest land use classification in the Brinnon Planning Area. As with agricultural soils, soils well suited for timber production are classified. Much of the Brinnon area contains Class II and Class III soils that are capable of sustaining Douglas fir, western hemlock and western red cedar. Timber corporations retain sizeable portions of land in the area and continue to develop this resource. Most of the marketable timber is situated on DNR or USDA Forest Service lands and have been taken out of the inventory of available timber production. The Brinnon Subarea Plan supports the establishment of a Forest Transition Area (FTA) that creates a protected long-term commercial forestland boundary that will not be impacted by adjacent land use conflicts. This commercial forestlands FTA could be a one-quarter mile in width adjacent to non-resource lands. The FTA could be partially developed without changing the underlying density if adjacent land use conflicts are restrictive of normal forest practices. Mineral Lands Mineral resource lands fall under the jurisdiction of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). The DNR has not always been diligent about keeping the community and the County informed as to resource land development plans. Many areas with potential resource extraction and/or reclamation are located near areas where safety is an issue. Feeder use of County roads is a safety issue as well as a potentially serious impact on public facilities. In some areas where the topography and location of potential resource extraction and/or reclamation activities would be affecting residential areas, little has been done to mitigate the impact on surface streets, water resources and noise abatement. Because of Brinnon’s remoteness and because the local resource is necessarily available for emergency use, maintenance and construction, this resource is essential; so, too, is the community impact protection. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES GOAL: G1.0 Provide the community sufficient protection and remedies from mineral resource activities. POLICIES: P1.1 Ensure that activities of extraction and/or reclamation companies are consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), surface mining law, and other applicable regulations. P1.2 By law, reclamation is regulated by the Was hington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The County can ensure that mineral lands of long-term commercial significance have a subsequent underlying density and associated future use and notify neighbors in the Brinnon area of proposed mineral extraction if and when the County is requested to complete an “SM -6” zoning approval by the DNR. Appendix 58 54 P1.3 Operations on mineral resource lands that require entrance or exit onto a County road in the Brinnon Planning Area shall meet Jefferson County Public Works Department requirements STRATEGY: S1.1 For any extraction/reclamation proposal in the Brinnon Planning Area, the County shall endeavor to notify neighbors and see that applicable provisions in State law are satisfied. Agricultural Lands The Dosewallips River valley is flat land, unlike much of the terrain along the Duckabush River. Much of the Dosewallips River valley has been farmed, beginning near the mouth of the river with Britt’s truck garden, Springer’s farm, Whitney Gardens and Nursery, and Wasell’s p rivate garden, and extending to the old Kidwell place at 6.7 miles (the boundary of the National Forest). The soils vary, but most is fine river bottom soil that is fertile and productive. The Dosewallips valley has been cultivated and used for cattle (both beef and dairy) since the turn of the century. Truck gardens and nurseries have been long-time operations. The Duckabush River valley enjoys not as much flat arable land, but does sustain small greenhouse and garden facilities that take advantage of the rainfall and warm summer temperatures. WaWa Point has had the Hjelvik pasture land and Anderson farm that have sustained orchards, horses, and beef cattle over many decades. However, there are no agricultural resource lands of long-term commercial signific ance in the Planning Area designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. GOAL: G1.0 Promote sustainable agricultural activities on appropriate lands and the marketing and promotion of locally produced or available agricultural goods and commodities. POLICY: P1.1 Encourage the development of a Farmers Market for the distribution of goods to local residents and tourists alike. Aquaculture Resources The definition of aquaculture as given in RCW 15.85.020 is “…the process of growing, farming, or cultivating private sector cultured aquatic products in marine or freshwaters and includes management by an aquatic farmer.” The background of aquaculture in the Brinnon area will be described from the southern shorelines of Dabob Bay south into the main channel of Hood Canal down to the southwestern most region at Triton Cove. The Aquaculture Map (Figure BR-12) in the Appendix of the Plan shows the location of these shorelines in the order described. Prior to the 19th century, this area contained discrete populations of native Olympia oysters (Ostreola conchaphila), as well as geoduck and hardshell clams. Late in the 19th century, an increase in market demand resulted in heavy commercial harvesting of Olympia oysters. Clams were also harvested commercially as demand encouraged their exploitation. However, in the early 20th century there was concern for the ultimate depletion of these valuable resources. As a result of this concern, as well as the fact that the natural reproduction could not keep up with market demand, aquaculture first began within both the public and private sectors. The first commercial effort occurred with the diking of certain tidelands in Quilcene Bay to provide artificial tide pools for oyster cultivation. Soon after that, what was then known as the Washington State Department of Fisheries began an effort to establish local oyster reserves. This effort took place at the Whitney Point Lagoon, Fulton Lake and the tidelands formed by the deltas of the Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers. Appendix 59 55 Today, the aquaculture research and management activities take place within the facilities of the Point Whitney Shellfish Lab and at the Point Whitney Public Recreational Tidelands that extend north from Whitney Point about one mile and south for one quarter mile. The Point Whitney Shellfish Lab began operation in 1953 and has operated in a variety of research and management capacities. In the beginning, the main emphasis was on prediction of time and intensity of reproduction of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in Hood Canal. An adjacent pond was used as part of this effort. The pond was also used for controlled spawning but did not result in oyster “setting” due to an unfavorable environment. Other shellfish activities since 1953 included: pulp mill pollution research, sea water productivity, predator control, oyster mass mortality evaluation, subtidal geoduck stock assessment, and an experimental clam and oyster hatchery. Many other research and management activities in connection with Puget Sound have also been carried out since the lab’s inception. Many of these efforts continue under the management of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Adjacent to the Point Whitney Shellfish Lab is the Point Whitney Lagoon that was first established as a Washington State Oyster Reserve to preserve and protect the small stock of native Olympia oysters. However, it did not accomplish the planned purpose so the (then) Department of Fisheries returned it to the Washington State Land Department. In the 1930s the pond was used as a rearing area for even-year pink salmon with eggs obtained from northern British Columbia and Cordova, Alaska. The eggs were hatched at Brinnon’s Duckabush hatchery and the fry were placed in a salt -water pond created from a dike and weir. The pond was used to retain the young salmon until they reached the smolt stage (grow-out), before release into Dabob Bay. After a few years, the effort was abandoned because the adult salmon failed to return to the pond. South of the public tidelands at Point Whit ney Shellfish Laboratory and for the next 0.75 miles are several small tracts of tidelands owned by commercial clam and oyster growers and non-commercial private owners. Continuing south to Pulali Point, private tideland owners cultivate shellfish for their personal use and control the red rock crab and starfish that prey on clams and oysters. Around the southern end of Pulali Point and into Jackson Cove, most of the tidelands, with the exception of DNR beach #55, are privately owned. Camp Parsons Scout Camp of the Boy Scouts of America, Seattle Council, owns a significant portion of these tidelands. Boy Scouts, college students, elementary classes, and other users of Camp Parsons are offered limited shellfish education. At Right Smart Cove, the Taylor Shellfish Farm in cooperation with the Hjelviks planted hatchery reared geoduck seed for future harvest and sale. South of this was the Seal Rock Resort, a boat launch and the Rainbow Lodge. Norton Totten harvested oysters in this vicinity during WWII. South of Seal Rock were the Federal Forest Camp public tidelands, and adjacent to these were tidelands owned and operated by Ervin Kelly and Norm Germeaux. Presently, there is one small oyster farm operated by Stan Germeaux. During the 1950s the United States De partment of Fish and Wildlife developed a hatchery on the Quilcene River and, in conjunction with it, operated a trap and egg-taking facility for fall chum salmon at the Walcott Slough in Brinnon. The eggs were hatched at the Quilcene hatchery and released into Hood Canal. In the 1960s, the Brinnon facility was put into a ‘standby status’ where maintenance is performed but egg taking is rare or nonexistent. One of the tracts of the Washington State Oyster Reserve was located on the north end of the Dosewa llips flats where tidelands were diked to create artificial tide pools for the purpose of preserving a tidepool habitat for Olympia oysters. This effort also failed and the tidelands reverted back to the Washington State Land Department. The land was then acquired by the Eagle Oyster Co. for raising imported Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Due to the lack of natural Appendix 60 56 reproduction, the effort was abandoned. Other users of the northern half of the Dosewallips flats were the P and T Log Dump, Northern Oyster Co., Coast Oyster Co., Engman Oyster Farm, and the Taylor Shellfish Farm. The remaining tidelands are now part of the Dosewallips State Park where hardshell clams and oysters are cultivated and utilized by the treaty tribes and the public. Pleasant Harbor has been a site for aquaculture for many years. The upper end of the harbor included tidelands and an oyster schucking house operated by the George Babare family. A loading dock was built and operated by Ed Sherwood and Nat Persson, who are oyster growers and processors from Grays Harbor. For a short time, Louie Lakenes used the harbor as a staging area for the collection of oyster seed at Broadspitt. During WW II, virtually the entire natural-set Pacific oysters along the Brinnon shores were harvested either by the tideland owners or harvesters who leased the ground. After WW II, Sherwood and Persson harvested and shipped oysters to Grays Harbor from Babare tidelands and those of other owners along the shores of northern Hood Canal. At Black Point were the cabin camps of Old Orchard Beach and Lackawanna Beach. For a short time Fulton Lake was used as an experimental site for collection of oyster seed. South of Black Point are the tidelands formed by the delta of the Duckabush River. This area was part of the Washington State Oyster Reserve but because the effort failed, the land was abandoned and later reverted back to the Washington State Land Department. Joe Leonard of Waketickeh Creek harvested oysters on parts of the Duckabush for many years. A t the time the Olympic Canal Tracts were being developed, 40 acres of the former oyster reserve tidelands were purchased from the State to provide both beach access and a source of clams and oysters for the tracts association members. Farmers such as Ken Gaul who leased the ground from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) harvested other parts of the tidelands for oysters. However, Mr. Gaul gave up his lease when the DNR increased the annual lease amount such that he felt that he could not make a profit. Also, for a time this beach was closed due to harbor seal contamination. Recently, hatchery - reared geoduck seed was purchased by the Olympic Canal Tracts Owners Association and planted to enhance existing stocks. A small effort directed towards rehabilitation of Hood Canal Chinook salmon is being conducted at the site of the former Duckabush River hatchery. The Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to salmon restoration that works with the Washington Departme nt of Fish and Wildlife, obtains salmon eggs from the George Adams Hatchery at the Skokomish River. The eggs are placed in streamside rearing boxes and supplied with running spring water. After hatching, the young are reared to a size of 500 fish per pound and then released into the river to ultimately reach Hood Canal. About 30,000 to 40,000 salmon fry have been released at this site each year since 1996. To the south of the Duckabush are the McDaniel Cove tidelands. Although these tidelands are small they were once used as a site for oyster culture. South of McDaniel Cove on McDonald Creek, Harry L. Smith operated the Beacon Point Oyster Farm that is now managed by the Beacon Point Owners Association. They are also the current owners of what was known as the Beacon Point Oyster Farm that was located on the northern part of those tidelands. South of the McDaniel Cove tidelands are the Fulton Creek flats which was another of the early sites used for an oyster reserve and eventually abandoned. This area wa s later cultivated and harvested by Zula and Walt Kelly and later by Fletcher Johnson, and still later by Fred Williams and Partners. Their effort was followed by the Triton Cove Oyster Company. Appendix 61 57 Shellfish Harvesting Rights In about 1989, thirteen Puget Sound Indian Tribes, with the support of the Federal government, sued the State of Washington to clarify their rights to shellfish as provided in the 1854 Stevens Treaty. The Tribes maintained that their treaty rights included the right to harvest all species of shellfish except for those on staked or cultivated tidelands. Their claim also included the right to harvest introduced shellfish such as Manila clams and Pacific oysters, to make up for native shellfish that had been depleted by earlier non-Indians. When the trial was held (starting in 1994), Federal District Judge Radfeedie sustained Tribal treaty rights to harvest shellfish and ruled that the Tribes are entitled to 50% of the natural shellfish in Puget Sound. These percentages are consistent with previous decisions of Judges Boldt and Belloni. Judge Rafeedie exempted those shellfish (primarily Pacific oysters and Manila clams) that were artificially produced and cultivated. However, he did not award similar protection to Hood Canal shellfish growers because so many of those shellfish, particularly Pacific oysters, are now the result of natural setting. Also exempted are oysters or clams cultivated on privately owned or controlled tideland. Indian shellfish harvesting on private tidelands would be associated with the percentage of cultivated shellfish vs. natural shellfish, as determined by the “co-managers”: the Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Judge Rafeedie also required that those Tribes that intended to invoke their treaty rights on private tidelands must follow certain notification and stock assessment procedures before beginning a harvest. Upon appeal to the 9th Circuit Court in 1995, some of Judge Rafeedie’s rulings were overturned and remanded back to him. The Puget So und Shellfish Growers Association, private tideland owners, and the Tribes petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear the case but the Court elected not to do so. In the meantime, the Puget Sound Shellfish Growers Association and private tideland owners have been negotiating with the Tribes in an attempt to settle the issues. A review of The Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Ostreola conchaphila; Pacific Oysters, Crassostrea gigas; and Pacific Razor Clams, Siliqua patula, in the State of Washington (by Cedric E Lindsay and Douglas Simons) is recommended. Future Objectives 1. The principal aquaculture activities are expected to continue on the Brinnon tidelands, where private growers will take advantage of natural productivity of the waters for clams and oysters. En hancement of public tidelands by artificial reseeding will probably increase, as there is increasing demand by recreational users and Tribal members. A relatively new activity is the planting of hatchery reared geoduck seed on suitable sandy or muddy tidelands. 2. Demand for fish and shellfish is expected to increase. If the business outlook for shellfish production increases in proportion, private aquaculture will become more profitable followed by an increase in cultivation efforts. More public funding should be applied toward development of a “put and take” approach for supplementing natural reproduction on public tidelands, so long as such a technique would not negatively impact the integrity of the nearshore ecosystem. Presently, the use of offshore floating structures to transcend the current limitations of ground aquaculture continues to be economically unattractive due to storm exposure, the objections of upland property owners, and the potential for negative impacts to the ecosystem. 3. A multi-species s almon enhancement plan should be developed that takes into account factors such as overfishing; harvest methods of Tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries; salmon habitat; forest practices; weather conditions; and property development. One such plan has already been developed, specific to one species —the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative (WDFW and PNPTT 2000). Appendix 62 58 4. Watershed landowners must be aware of and involved in watershed assessment and planning in order to maintain the health and viability of t he Brinnon area watersheds. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 The maintenance of clean water is a vital necessity for successful aquaculture. POLICIES: P1.1 Through appropriate guidance and the application of regulations from Jefferson County, upland runoff from activities such as logging, mining and property development shall be controlled. P1.2 Septic systems shall be maintained at properly functioning levels in accordance with Jefferson County regulations. P1.3 The County should undertake a watershed water quality improvement plan including provisions for resource inspection, identification of problem areas, and recommended corrective measures, actions and funding sources in order to protect water quality in the area watersheds. STRATEGIES: S1.1 Review and, if appropriate, follow what other communities (e.g., Belfair) have accomplished to establish and maintain clean water. GOAL: G2.0 Establish a working relationship between the Brinnon community and the Tribes and create an on-going dialogue about the harvesting of shellfish in the Brinnon area. POLICIES: P2.1 Encourage participation from the “co-managers” of the resource—the Tribes and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife —, the National Marine Fisheries Service (when appropriate), and Brinnon community members and stakeholders to establish a working agreement that allow for community education and notification regarding Tribal shellfish harvesting in the Brinnon area. STRATEGY: S2.1 Conduct two town meetings annually with Tribal leadership, WDFW, NMFS (when appropriate), and community members and stakeholders. These meetings should review the Tribes’ long-term harvest plans as well as upcoming harvest activities in the Brinnon area, including dates, locations, and harvest amounts. In addition, discussions should take place about past harvest activities and impacts to private property owners. GOAL: G3.0 Ensure the viability of tidal and subtidal resources through improved management. POLICIES: P3.1 Jefferson County should maintain a policy of designating aquaculture as a preferred use of the tidelands and the beds of navigable waters. State shoreline legislation, the 1971 Appendix 63 59 Shoreline Management Act, has already designated Hood Canal as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. P3.2 Jefferson County should encourage private as well as public priority for aquaculture. P3.3 Ownership patterns vary along the marine shoreline. In order to cultivate and/or harvest shellfish in some areas, it is necessary to obtain a lease fro m the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the State agency that manages State-owned tidelands and bedlands. Approval of offshore aquaculture and shellfish harvesting includes consideration of aesthetics. GOAL: G4.0 Support a countywide Salmon Re covery Program based on “best available science” and focus on the protection and maintenance of critical fish habitat. POLICIES: P4.1 Jefferson County should participate in a coordinated salmon recovery program. STRATEGIES: S4.1 Encourage more cooperation between agencies (e.g., the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Jefferson County) and property owners and land users (e.g., foresters, farmers, recreationalists, etc.) on how to better protect fish habitat. S4.2 Obtain Jefferson County support to establish a local ‘Adopt a Creek (or a River)’ program that allows local residents to be actively involved in the improvement of salmon (fish) habitat. S4.3 Encourage local residents to be actively involved in existing volunteer organizations that work towards salmon enhancement, including improving salmon habitat. Appendix 64 60 Housing Element Affordable Housing Improving the conditions of and access to affordable housing is a prime concern of this Subarea Plan. The challenge is a significant one. The following indicators signify the depth and breadth of affordable housing and household income conditions in Brinnon. · Median household income levels for the Brinnon area are significantly less than that for Jefferson County and the state of Washington. Median household income levels in Brinnon are almost 40% lower than those in the rest of the county. According to the 1990 Census, the median household income for Brinnon was $15,719, compared to $25,197 for Jefferson County as a whole. · According to local school district officials, as many as 40% of Brinnon households may have incomes that fall below the Federal poverty level. · The 1990 Census reported that more than one-half (57%) of all households in Brinnon were classified as low or moderate income. · A review of building permits issued by Jefferson County for construction in the Brinnon area over the last five years reveals that about as many mobile and manufactured homes (56) were permitted as site-built single -family residences (59). · Visual and anecdotal evidence suggests that the Brinnon area contains a higher degree of substandard housing than any other area of the county, except perhaps the West End. Finding affordable housing is further compounded by escalatin g prices for many existing homes and acreage as the area becomes more attractive for retirement living and for second homes. Brinnon’s abundant and beautiful shoreline and river valleys and the close access to public recreational lands are particularly attractive for recreational home purchases and a relative bargain (for seasonal home purchasers) compared with other areas of the Peninsula and Puget Sound. According to local realtors, for example, 5-acre waterfront lots have, on average, more than doubled in value in the last decade. In 1990, five acres of raw land with a good water view typically sold for $15,000 to $24,000. Today those same parcels sell for $45,000 to $55,000, with no improvements. Most of the original waterfront homes along the Hood Canal shoreline were small cabins. But as the area’s attractiveness for second home purchase and retirement living increased many of the cabins were sold and replaced by new larger or remodeled homes. A typical waterfront cabin or A - frame sold for $125,000 and a home for $195,000 in 1990. Today those same cabins and homes are selling for $150,000 to $275,000. Water view homes have typically increased value by 50% or more over the last decade. For example, in the early 1990s, water view homes were selling for $85,000 to $100,000, and some of the same homes have recently sold again in the $135,000 to $155,000 range, although it is not uncommon to see waterfront homes for sale in the $400,000 to $600,000 range. Based on current conditions many Brinnon residents are unable to afford local site-built home prices and have utilized mobile/manufactured housing as an affordable alternative. However, other alternatives such as higher density or multi-family housing, such as apartments, are either not allowed by local land use regulations or the infrastructure (i.e., sewer and water) is not available to make such development feasible where it is allowed, such as in the Brinnon RVC. Lacking a significant local job market or opportunity for skilled labor, residents in the local labor force must either move or travel greater and greater distances away from Brinnon to find a larger market for Appendix 65 61 living wage employment. These are significant challenges, especially given Brinnon’s isolated location, low income levels and frequently inefficient transportation access to employment, workforce training or education centers. Providing alternative access to a broader range of local potential employment opportunities is discussed in more detail in the Economic Development Element of the Subarea Plan. Local land use regulations are often cited as primary reasons for the lack of affordable housing in a community. The following techniques are among those considered to have an exclusionary effect on providing housing affordable to a local commu nity. Each item includes a brief evaluation of the applicability of Jefferson County’s land use policies and regulations as represented in the Comprehensive Plan (CP) and Unified Development Code (UDC), respectively. Minimum Lot Area Requirements The Rura l Residential (RR) districts in the County are one dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5), RR 1:10, and RR 1:20. This is an impediment to small lot, higher density development, which better provide affordable housing. However, the County has an excess of le gal lots of record, most of which are smaller than their assigned development density. Additionally, the minimum lot area necessary for an onsite sewage system, according to regulations implemented by the Environmental Health Division, is 12,500 square feet. The County is planning to designate an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Port Hadlock/Irondale area. The new UGA will provide increased opportunity for affordable housing, however this area is a significant distance from Brinnon (approximately 30 miles) and is not expected to significantly benefit the affordable housing needs of local Brinnon residents. Minimum Floor Area Requirements The County does not have floor area requirements. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires a minimum 220 square feet for an “efficiency dwelling unit” (i.e., a habitable dwelling). However, this is not considered an impediment to providing safe affordable housing. Limitations On Multi -Family Dwellings Unless the applicant can meet the land use map base density, multi-family dwellings (defined as three units or more in the UDC) are not allowed in RR districts, presenting a definite impediment. Multi-family dwellings are allowed in Rural Village Centers (RVC). Duplexes are allowed in RR districts, subject to meeting the underlying density requirements (such as two 5-acre parcels if the density is RR 1:5). Approximately 93% of the Brinnon RVC is located within the 100-year floodplain. This situation requires increased costs for flood-proofing new development in the RVC (i.e., to raise the minimum building elevation above the 100-year flood elevation level). The presence of the floodplain in the RVC also restricts the ability to acquire State and Federal funding for sewer or water utility improvements that would allow for increased density and potential affordable housing projects. Limitations On Manufactured Dwellings There are no County limitations to manufactured dwellings on individual lots. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are allowed to a maximum size of 1,250 square feet – a figure that was raised through adoption of the UDC from a maximum 850 square feet to provide more affordable housing opportunities. Recreational Vehicles (RVs) can also be used on individual privately owned lots as living units —subject to meeting minimum septic standards in the UDC and the Health Code. Minimum Yard, Setback, and Bulk Requirements County side yard setbacks are five feet; these cannot be lowered further. Front setbacks are a function of the street classification. Appendix 66 62 Overzoning (e.g., devoting a disproportionate amount of land area to low-density, single-family use) The majority of the County, subtracting forestlands, is Rural Residential. This is a State-mandated Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement to protect “rural character” that is a significant impediment to providing affordable housing. Incentive Zoning/Bonuses The UDC offers a zoning bonus for inclusion of affordable housing (20% of total units and above) in new Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) subdivisions. However, because of the oversupply of legal lots of record, there is not a significant demand for new large-scale residential housing developments. Permit Fees Building permit and consistency review fees can be an impediment for true affordable housing construction. Build ing permit review and “plan check” fees are based on guidelines in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which the County has adopted. For each valuation range of a building project, the UBC presents a corresponding base fee using Table 1-A in the 1997 UBC Fee Schedule. The UBC allows a jurisdiction to make an additional charge for the plan check. The plan check fee is allowed to be a maximum of 65% of the base fee. Jefferson County charges 65% of the base fee for a commercial plan check, but has historically only charged 30% for residential plan check. The residential plan check fee has changed to 65% of the base fee through the 2002 budget process to implement the “fee for service” strategy of the County administration. The County has not adopted “impact fees” for new development. Land Costs Land costs may be a serious impediment in Jefferson County. The median home price was estimated to be $176,400 in the year 2000 by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER), a program of Washington State University. The median home price in 1995 was $127,300. In that span of time, the median home price in the state of Washington rose from $136,600 to 176,300, a similar range to the Jefferson County figures. However, the median household income of Jefferson County is consistently lower than that of the state, $29,002 to $38,707 in 1995 and $34,662 to $50,152 in 2000, according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Consequently, the affordability index, a measurement of the ability of a typical fa mily to make payments on a median price resale home assuming a 20% down payment, is lower for Jefferson County than for the state (WCRER) and even lower in Brinnon than other parts of the county. Commercial Zoning The Comprehensive Plan does not require a minimum lot size. New subdivisions have to meet the base map density. RVC districts allow mixed use commercial/residential with no limitation (other than bulk and dimensional requirements and the on-site septic and well requirements) on the number of dwelling units per acre. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Secure safe and affordable housing opportunities for Brinnon residents. Appendix 67 63 POLICIES: P1.1 Continue exploring planning options that would allow for the location and siting of new compact hig her density housing in order to provide affordable owner- and renter- occupied housing units. P1.2 Coordinate with the County to continue working with the US Department of Agriculture (Rural Development), Department of Commerce (Community Development Block Grant), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Energy, US Economic Development Assistance (EDA), and other agencies to utilize existing grant, loan or other funding programs to provide for the construction of affordable housing and to plan, design and construct a water/wastewater treatment system for the Brinnon Flats RVC that would allow for the construction of affordable higher density housing and assisted living facilities, if desired or required by the community. P1.3 Ensure that the Brinnon Planning Area is considered in any future countywide affordable housing strategy. Appendix 68 64 Parks & Recreation Current Conditions: Hood Canal, the Olympic National Park, and the Olympic National Forest provide an abundance of recreational opportunities, and assist in the economic development of the Brinnon area in ways such as tourism and commerce. There are a number of State and Federal parks and campgrounds. There are three public boat launches operated by the State of Washington. There are also private camp grounds and boat launches. However, other than the Brinnon school complex, the Brinnon area does not have a community park or recreational area. Camping, hiking and boating opportunities are abundant in the Brinnon area. The following is a partial list of these activities, beginning at the area’s northern boundary: · Mt. Walker offers hiking trails and vistas of Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and surrounding mountain ranges. · USDA Forest Service Rainbow Campground, located at the foot of Mt. Walker along Highway 101, has hiking trails and nine (9) group-only dry campsites (no showers, etc.). · Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory, has a public beach, boat launch, dock (proposed to be rebuilt), rest- rooms, and shellfish interpretive center; no overnight camping. A public beach is seasonally avail- able for crabbing, clamming and oysters. · Cove RV Park has divers air, rentals, an espresso stand, and thirty-plus full hookups for RVs. Also offered are propane, fishing tackle, crab/shrimp gear, bait and WDFW licenses. · The USDA Forest Service Seal Rock Campground has forty (40) wooded campsites, two building with restrooms, and a beach with oysters and clams. A nature trail and interpretive signage identifies a Native American archeological shell midden and camp. · The USDA Forest Service Elkhorn Campground on the Dosewallips River has nineteen (19) wooded, primitive campsites with vault toilets and a single source of water, and is located approximately ten miles off US Hig hway 101, near the trailhead Rocky Brook Falls, an early tourist attraction. Appendix 69 65 into the Olympic National Park. It is not recommended for access and use by large travel trailers or motor homes. · Dosewallips National Park Campground, located at the end of the road and the beginning of the trailhead into the Olympic National Park, has approximately twenty- four (24) primitive campsites, stock camp for horses and pack animals only, restrooms and shower facilities, and a Ranger Station. It is not recommended for access and use by large travel trailers or motor homes. · The Flock-in Trailer Park in the heart of Brinnon is close to stores, restaurants and the post office, and has fourteen (14) full RV hookups and restrooms with showers. · Dosewallips State Park has approximately 110 wooded campsites (some with full RV hook-ups) on or near the Dosewallips River, showers, restrooms, a limited RV dumping station, hiking trails, public beach with oysters/clams, and a day use park with restrooms. · Pleasant Harbor State Park has vault toilets, limited parking area, and a dock available for overnight boating (no overnight camping or parking). · Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has property at the south end of Pleasant Harbor with potential for a boat launching facility. There is no overnight camping. · USDA Forest Service Interorrem Cabin is available by lottery only for group (4 or less) camping and has vault toilets and a hand pump well. · The USDA Forest Service Camp Collins Campground, approximately six miles off Highway 101 on the Duckabush River, has primitive camp sites with vault toilets and is located near the trailhead into the Olympic National Park. · The former Twin Eagles RV Park located at the mouth of the Duckabush River is now owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and is available for day use only. · Triton Cove Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Beach, located just north of Triton Cove State Park, is available for clams and oysters. · Triton Cove State Park, located just north of the Mason/Jefferson County line, has a day-use area, a boat launch and portable toilets. · Outdoor activities are also well documented in a number of publications including: - Olympic Mountain Trail Guide – 2nd Edition, National Park and National Forest by Robert L. Wood, 1991. - Middle Puget Sound and Hood Canal – Afoot and Afloat by Marge and Ted Mueller, 1990. - Saltwater Fishing in Washington by Frank Haw and Raymond M. Buckley, 1988. - Clam Digging and Crabbing in Washington by John Johnson, 1991. Appendix 70 66 Additional recreational facilities in the Brinnon area consist of: · Camp Parsons, a Boy Scouts of America summer camp and winter retreat, is a member of the American Camping Association and has limited group accommodations off- season on a reservation basis. It also is a Red Cross station and has an Emergency Medical Response helipad. Camp Parsons is unique in its designation of Private Parks, Preserves, and Recreation (PPR). · Pleasant Harbor Old Marina offers monthly rental of 99 boat slips, showers, restrooms and laundry. No transient moorage is available · Pleasant Harbor Marina offers monthly and daily rental of 312 boat slips, grocery and pizza, gas/diesel dock, swimming pools, hot-tub, showers, restrooms, laundry. · The Pleasant Harbor Campground (former NACO Campground), located at Black Point Road and Highway 101, is a private campground, now open to the public on a limited basis by reservation, with swimming pool, sauna, clubhouse, showers, restrooms, and expansive beach. Additionally, there are numerous State beaches, which are accessible by boat only. Vision The residents of Brinnon have a vision that certain recreational activities could be expanded and promoted to serve the local residents and to attract visitors and tourists to our area, thereby contributing to the vitality of the community. The following elements of that vision are divided into semi -active and active recreational activities. Implementation of any of these activities could require the agreement of and possible easements from private property owners and/or State and Federal agencies. Semi -Active Recreation Elements : Activities : Walking/hiking Tours More hiking trails like that in the Dosewallips State Park. A boardwalk out to the Dosewallips State Park beach and the Duckabush beach. More road tour areas (by automobile or bus) Bus tours from major metropolitan areas along the length of US. Highway 101 and return. Include a rest stop at the Brinnon Rural Village Center. More automobile tour areas such as at Walker Mountain and along the Duckabush and Dosewallips river roads. Hood Canal boat tours Seasonal tours/rides provided out of Pleasant Harbor. Camping Provide camping facilities commensurate with the level of public demand. Provide campers with literature about things to do in the Brinnon area. Appendix 71 67 Golf Range Where the water table depth and other environmental limitations will allow, consider development in the floodplain. Swimming Pool Where the water table depth and other environmental limitations will allow, consider development in the floodplain. Roller Rink Where the water table depth and other environmental limitations will allow, consider development in the floodplain. Seaplane/airplane/ hot air balloons tours Seasonal seaplane tours out of Pleasant Harbor and airplane tours out of local airports. Hot air balloon tours should be considered as well. Brinnon Area Museum History of Native Americans, settlers, commerce, transportation, etc. Nature Tours (with Park Rangers and Naturalists) Seasonal hiking tours to observe wildlife, flora and fauna, geology, bird watching, etc. Active Recreation Elements : Activities : Bicycling An improved bicycle lane on US Highway 101. A mountain bike lane on both the Dosewallips and the Duckabush roads, providing the County roadway can accommodate it. Consider the construction of a “Hood Canal Trail” for non-motorized bikes, hiking and horseback riding. Possibly this trail may be developed, in part, under the BPA power lines, with permission of private property owners. This trail could eventually link up with the “Olympic Loop Trail” being developed by the Peninsula Trails Coalition and others. Hiking Provide maps and recommended routes in an area visitor center, and encourage the state and Federal parks to develop more trails. Construct a “Hood Canal Trail” for non- motorized bikes, hiking and horseback riding. Possibly this trail may be developed, in part, under the BPA power lines, with permission of private property owners. This trail could eventually link up with the “Olympic Loop Trail” being developed by the Peninsula Trails Co alition and others. Appendix 72 68 Equestrian Consider possible locations for equestrian sites up the Dosewallips and the Duckabush rivers with trails for touring. Construct a “Hood Canal Trail” for non- motorized bikes, hiking and horseback riding. Possibly this trail may be developed, in part, under the BPA power lines, with permission of private property owners. This trail could eventually link up with the “Olympic Loop Trail” being developed by the Peninsula Trails Coalition and others. Motorbikes Consider developing a separate trail system or an area set aside purely for this activity. Rock and Mountain Climbing Provide maps and recommended routes. Kayaking Hood Canal recommended kayaking routes. Boating Hood Canal recommended routes. Sea Food Recommended locations for fishing, crabbing, clamming, shrimping, oyster gathering, etc. Hunting Recommended hunting locations. Camping and RV Sites Expand the number of sites in the Brinnon delta area to match the seasonal demand. Parks and Playgrounds Expand the number of parks and playground sites in the Brinnon to match projected demand. Recreational and Tourist Facilities Description Transient Accommodations More local B & Bs, motels, hotels, inns and hostels. Food Services More restaurants and expanded grocery service. Promotional Activity Description Brinnon Area Web Site Provide recreational, tourist, business and support services information (in addition to that provided by the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations). Tourist Center A tourist center that provides public recreation and tourist information should be located at either the existing Dosewallips Appendix 73 69 State Park (Day Use Park) or at a future park located at the southern end of Pleasant Harbor that presently contains a potential boat launch facility and parking area owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. [See Goal 1 under Historical and Archeological Cultural Resource Preservation.] Promotional Advisory Group A group of local citizens and Jefferson County officials responsible for planning and promotional strategy. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Expand and promote tourist and recreational areas and activities for local residents, tourists, recreational enthusiasts and visitors. POLICIES: P1.1 The development and improvement of community parks and playgrounds in the Brinnon area should provide for active and passive recreational pursuits, as prioritized and funded by the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Plan, currently being revised by the Department of Public Works, and the Capital Facilities Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. P1.2 The development of trails for hiking, biking and horseback riding in the Brinnon area should be included in the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Plan and similar plans for the USDA Forest Service and Olympic National Park. P1.3 Every effort should be made by public and private park operators to prevent user ‘over spill’ onto private properties and private tidelands. Signage, fencing, and other measures should be employed. P1.4 Recreational facilities and programs should accommodate a diversity of age and interest groups. Provide access under the Americans with Disabilities Act. P1.5 Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be provided on the Dosewallips and Duckabush River Roads , as prioritized and funded by the Jefferson County Non-motorized Transportation Plan, currently in development, and the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. There should be appropriate signage on these roadways to alert motorists and provide direction to cyclists. The Washington State Department of Transportation should be encouraged to do the same improvements for US Highway 101. P1.6 Encourage conservation of the area’s rural character and resources. STRATEGIES: S1.1 Citizen participation in cooperation with Jefferson County must be an integral part in the planning, promotion and improvement of recreational areas, activities and facilities, including those associated with Washington State and the US Federal government. Appendix 74 70 S1.2 A local site should be identified and acquired or improved, as applicable, for future development of a community park large enough to contain a variety of activities (e.g., soccer, baseball, etc.). S1.3 Joint use of the Brinnon School facility for recreational programs is encouraged. An example of this is that the school facility could be used as a gathering place for our youth during non-school hours. S1.4 Obtain Jefferson County support to es tablish a local Community Center and/or improve existing facilities to encourage residents to participate in community events/activities. Historical and Archeological Cultural Resource Preservation Much of the early history of Brinnon is contained in the book self-published by Vern and Ida Bailey, Scrapbook of Brinnon History (Perry Publishing: Bremerton 1997). Many of the historical materials from some of the settling families are currently in the Quilcene Museum and Port Townsend Museum. The pictorial documentation, of which there is a great deal, can be found in the Burke Museum, University of Washington archives and numerous archives containing the large collections of the Curtis brothers, etc. These caretakers of our history are best prepared to maintain these items safely and protect them from deterioration by the Best Management Practices used by this type of facility. There are many heirloom orchards that still stand as a testament to the vitality of Brinnon and still produce crops. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Showcase our historical background and future regarding natural resources (logging, shellfish, fishing) and natural habitat (for birds, fauna, and sea-life). POLICY: P1.1 Develop a plan to provide a historical, educational, and recreational center to be located at the south end of Pleasant Harbor, which would include an interpretive center with a park and rest area. STRATEGIES: S1.1 Establish a partnership that includes USDA Forest Service, National Parks, Washington Treaty Trib es, Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jefferson County, and Port of Port Townsend, with Brinnon community members, to develop and maintain this multi-functional center. S1.2 Form a committee of local citizens willing to gather copies of items for a local resident and tourist informational display. S1.3 Form a committee of local citizens to create an inventory of the heirloom orchards, for horticultural and historical purposes. Appendix 75 71 Economic Development Element In early years, logging was a primary source of employment, followed by the shellfish industry, retail and/or service trades, fishing, construction activities, government, and real estate. Retail and/or service trades and construction activities were primarily individual or family oriented businesses, offering limited opportunity for generalized employment. More recently, Brinnon has been a retirement community, with its economic base supported primarily from the recreation and tourist trade and ‘pension’ dollars. Currently, in addition to the recreation, tourism and pension dollars, Brinnon is experiencing a slow diversification of economic activity due to changing trends, with wage-earners commuting to out-of-area employment, early retirees with secondary income, computer/internet at-home employment, and various local entrepreneurs. Brinnon is a classic case of a resource-based community faced with the need for economic transformation in a changing world. Traditional and historic logging, fishing and resourc e-based support activities have been grudgingly reduced due largely to changing market conditions and tighter environmental restrictions as a result of the impacts of past practices. Brinnon too, like other rural communities in Western Washington, does not want to be frozen in time and become a “rural museum piece.” The community—consistent with the requirements of the GMA—desires to “foster” (i.e., promote) its traditional rural lifestyles and rural based economy by creating opportunities for residents to both live and work here. But to do so will mean overcoming great obstacles. Brinnon is truly at a crossroads. Its challenge is to how to take advantage of its best attributes —its own natural environment and friendly people —and its biggest liabilities —its remote location and lack of infrastructure —and together weave a new and lasting economic fabric. There are significant impediments to increasing economic development activity in Brinnon. The relatively small population, remote location and distance to major population and employment centers are the primary reasons for its limited economic development activity. However, other factors have also contributed, including the lack of significant available and marketable land zoned for commercial/industrial activity, the lack of significant infrastructure (e.g., public sewer and water systems) to accommodate new and more intensive commercial and industrial activity, the lack of a significant and coordinated economic development marketing and promotion program, and a relatively small and untrained workforce. Year 2000 Census estimates for economic, work force and employment characteristics have not been released as of the date of this writing. However, some data from the 1990 Census in these areas can help to describe some of Brinnon’s economic development characteristics in more detail and perhaps indicate issues that need to be addressed so as to improve the climate for economic development. The labor force participation rate is the ratio of all persons seeking work (including employed and unemployed persons) to the total number of persons aged 16 and over (who are of legal age to be employed). According to the 1990 Census, the labor force participation rate in Jefferson County as a whole was 50% while the rate in Brinnon was only 28%. There are likely several factors at play here to explain the significantly lower figure in Brinnon. Chief among them are the increasing influence of retired persons in the community most of whom are not actively seeking employment themselves. Another factor that may contribute to the lower local labor participation rate is the relatively high rate of work force disability in Brinnon. The 1990 Census indicated that 20% of the total persons aged 16 to 64 in Brinnon suffered a disabilit y that prevented them from working compared to a 5% disability rate for all of Jefferson County. Both of these factors are important in understanding why the community needs to expand and diversify its range of economic activity. Communities with growing populations of retired persons Appendix 76 72 and those experiencing high rates of worker disability typically require higher levels of and better access to human services and commercial support activities than other communities. The “trap” that Brinnon finds itself in is that at the same time as these populations demand more and better access to these services (in effect comprising a “market” themselves), the community is not of the critical size yet to justify enough demand to make feasible many of these services —given its isolated location and distance to major population centers. Many businesses have been marginalized and even failed due to lack of critical mass or enough local market support. One way, and perhaps the most efficient way for Brinnon to make those kinds of services and businesses more feasible is to “create” additional demand for those commercial support activities by taking advantage of the underutilized tourism and recreational nature of the local economy. In effect, by “piggybacking” on the tourism sector—which Brinnon is very well suited to accommodate—to increase the market and demand for new commercial development in a manner that can still preserve its rural character. Brinnon’s labor force is relatively small and exhibits characteristics common to many rural and formerly resource-based economies. The 1990 Census reported a total of 230 employed persons (16 years and over). Of those, more than one-half (53%) were private sector wage and salary workers, one-third (33%) worked for local, State or Federal governments, and the remainder (14%) were self- employed workers. The remote rural character of the area accounts for the relatively high number of self-employed persons. The presence of State facilities (e.g., the Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory and Dosewallips State Park) and Federal lands (e.g., the Olympic National Forest and National Park) account for the relatively large number of government workers in Brinnon. 1990 Census data for occupations in Brinnon provide a good analysis of the local employment sector. The retail trade, durable goods manufacturing, transportation, and personal services sectors of the local economy accounted for the largest share of employment, respectively, in 1990. Indicative of the dramatic loss of the natural resource economic base of the community, the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining sector of the local economy, combined, provided only eleven jobs in Brinnon in 1990. It is ironic that an area dominated by 80% designated forest resource lands on the Compre hensive Plan Land Use Map generates less than 5% of its total employment from the industries associated with those resource lands. The total breakdown of employment sectors in the local economy is shown in the following table. BRINNON LOCAL EMPLOYMENT SECTORS (1990) Employment Sector Total Employees (1990) Percent of Total Employment Retail Trade 44 19% Manufacturing, Durable Goods 41 18% Transportation 37 16% Personal Services 23 10% Public Administration 20 9% Wholesale Trade, Utilities & Communications 17 7% Professional Services 16 7% Forestry, Fishing, Mining, & Agriculture 11 5% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 8 3% Education 7 3% Construction 6 3% TOTAL 230 100% In 1990, Brinnon had generally lower educational attainment levels than the county as a whole. For example, 59% of its residents (aged 25 years and over) were high school graduates or higher in 1990 Appendix 77 73 compared to 82% for the county as whole. This suggests that the labor force may need better access to work force training and other educational outreach opportunities. It also suggests that Brinnon—in addition to its lack of efficient transportation access to major markets and other constraints —is not likely to be as competitive as other areas in the region in attracting new technology or other industries requiring a highly skilled or highly educated labor force. This, in turn means that wage levels are likely to remain generally lower in Brinnon compared with other areas of the region better able to attract higher paying industries. Historic Business Activity Hemmed in by the Olympic Mountains to the west and Hood Canal to the east, and bisected by two major river valley floodplains, habitation and settlement concentrated along the narrow belt of upland lands adjacent to the Hood Canal shore. Since its early years, Brinnon’s business inventory has grown considerably, although only a handful of businesses are situated in the ‘downtown’ area of Brinnon, the Rural Village Center. Commercial enterprises are located throughout the Brinnon planning area, in keeping with this rural and historically mixed-use area. The Business List Map (Figure BR-13) illustrates some of the variety of businesses that have existed in the Brinnon area in the past, as well as businesses currently operating. The ma p illustrates the historically dispersed and scattered pattern of economic development activity throughout the planning area. Even though the historic “core” settlement of Brinnon was located along the “Flats” adjacent to the mouth of the Dosewallips, it represents only a small component of the entire Planning Area’s historic economic development activity. Indeed, the major residential settlements in the Planning Area occurred outside the Brinnon Flats (and the associated floodplain). Economic development activities largely followed the residential settlement pattern that occurred on a regular and recurring basis throughout the rural Hood Canal shoreline and higher elevation river valley areas. Many commercial/industrial activities also desired to locate out of the Dosewallips floodplain for obvious reasons. Isolation Brinnon’s isolation is both its blessing and its curse. It accounts, to a large degree, for the slow- paced rural lifestyle —the peace and quiet—of the area. That—characterized by the predominance of the natural environment—is the primary attraction for many residents looking to “get away” from someplace not so isolated. But that also means the community is out of the economic mainstream and subject largely to their own economic devices. It is a characteristic and challenging economic environment not uncommon to remote rural areas. The Brinnon community is unique in many aspects and deals with many constraints, among them topography, limited acreage held in private ownership, isolation, and long narrow inhabitable territories. We are the most physically isolated populated area in Jefferson County—12 miles from Quilcene, 25 miles from Port Hadlock, and 45 miles from the County seat in Port Townsend— separated from the social, economic, and cultural amenities other Jefferson County communities take for granted. To conduct business in Port Townsend or even go grocery shopping can be an all-day event—assuming that the highway is passable. There is literally only one paved road— Highway 101—connecting Brinnon with the rest of the world. This results in very high transportation costs for local residents who work in Port Townsend and have to commute every day. There is only very limited bus service. For some lower income residents —who cannot afford dependable private automobile transportation and maintenance costs —the isolation can be a prohibitively expensive obstacle to securing a living wage job outside of Brinnon. The area is particularly susceptible to natural disaster. In winter, it is not uncommon fo r snow or ice storms, mudslides, wind-blown trees or flooding due to heavy rainstorms to cut-off access on Highway 101. A severe forest fire during the summer or bridge failure caused by flooding or earthquake can severely impact access to urban services. In these instances, the historic self- Appendix 78 74 sufficient and independent nature of the community and its residents takes on a whole new meaning. It also suggests —more than any other characteristic —the “unique local circumstances” present in Brinnon that argue for recognition of alternative economic development strategies. Recreation and Tourism A cornerstone of economic development in the Brinnon Planning Area is tourism. With over 20 miles of beautiful saltwater shoreline accompanied by excellent marinas and other shoreline access, and two long river valleys approaching the Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, the potential for tourist and recreation-related uses is extraordinary. According to the North Olympic Peninsula Regional Marketing and Tourism Infrastructure Strategy, prepared for Jefferson County in June 2000, it is estimated that as many as 500,000 tourist visitors travel through the North Olympic Peninsula in the peak summer months. The USDA Forest Service reports that approximately 25,000 visitors stop in annually at the Visitors Center in Quilcene. The Forest Service also reports that about 20,000 campers annually utilize the approximately 250 campground sites located in the various national forest campgrounds located along the east side o f the National Park from Hoodsport to Quilcene. However, the lack of private tourist accommodations and services in South County often means that potential economic benefit from tourism spending is lost to other, more developed, areas of the Peninsula. In addition, there is not a coordinated marketing or tourism promotion program in effect to “get the word out.” Brinnon is usually not even mentioned—much less highlighted—in most guidebooks regarding recreational and tourist opportunities in Washington or the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless, Brinnon is extremely well-suited to capitalize on tourism development. Popular recreational activities in the area include boating, fishing, hunting, shellfish gathering, hiking, camping, birdwatching, mountain biking, scuba diving, and visiting historical sites. Small-scale recreational and tourist uses are an integral part of Brinnon’s “rural character” and “traditional rural lifestyle,” while a master planned resort concept would help to expand the scope of tourist accommodations and recreational attractions in the community and could help to capture more tourist dollars in the local economy. Brinnon’s economy has been supported by tourism since early in the 20th Century. The logging industry, which initially brought new settlers to work here and provided their income, continued to be a strong part of Brinnon’s economy until its collapse in the 1980s. But for most of the last century there were also short -term visitor accommodations in the form of hotels, small resorts and summer cabins located all along Hood Canal. While tourists and other visitors have always enjoyed Brinnon’s outdoor activities and abundant seafood, the shortened fishing and shellfish harvesting seasons of recent years have made attracting tourists increasingly difficult. The importance of protecting Brinnon’s unique marine environmental resources and their importance to the local economy cannot be understated. Looking north across the Hood Canal from Brinnon. Appendix 79 75 The people of Brinnon recognize that developing recreational opportunities enhances the economy while preserving Brinnon’s rural character. Brinnon residents know that they live in a community that visitors appreciate. They enjoy the traditional rural lifestyle. They approve of the types of businesses that are consistent with rural chara cter while protecting basic health and safety and the environment. They know that tourist-related businesses are those for which the area is, and has historically been, best suited. Tourists and tourist related businesses are welcomed in the Brinnon community. Many Brinnon residents commute to other areas daily to earn an income that allows them to live in this rural community that they enjoy. Most of the residents, retired and working, do their shopping and fuel their vehicles outside of the Brinnon area. Many of Brinnon’s tourists shop and fuel their vehicles while visiting here. This is typical of rural areas that rely on tourism to help support their economy. Small-scale recreational and tourist services are located in the rural areas near the resource they serve. It is common to have many of these services consider themselves “home businesses.” Most have little impact on their neighbors and are in areas that are “pass-throughs” to the National Forest and National Park. Given the remoteness of the area, these uses are essential to the continued economic viability of Brinnon. The Parks and Recreation Element of the Subarea Plan contains a more detailed description of existing recreational and tourist-related uses and potential business opportunities. Future Objectives We treasure our environment, our resources and our neighbors, and it is the intent of this community to maintain these as well as be economically self-sufficient. Because of the nature of our constraints, we feel the strict application of conventional “land use districts” and their attendant “use tables” (that may be suitable for areas with fewer constraints) do not always provide an adequate “fit” to our community and the needs of our rural economy and rural lifestyles. Indeed, the sizing of the existing LAMIRD designations (Brinnon RVC and WaWa Point) provides sufficient constraint on new commercial/industrial economic activities so as to preclude any significant new economic development opportunities. [See further discussion in the Rural Commercial section of the Land Use Element.] We find this inconsistent with the requirements of the GMA “that traditional rural lifestyles including rural-based economies and opportunities are to be fostered” in the pattern of land use and development established by a county in its comprehensive plan per RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b) and RCW 36.70A.070(5). In Brinnon, “rural development” means a mixture of uses co-existing compatibly that preserves the community’s “rural character.” It always has. It is also consistent with the definitions and requirements of the GMA and RCW 36.70A.070(5). Our preference for small-scale owner-operator endeavors in rural areas and recommended revised LAMIRD boundaries and designations—along with the conditions and requirements contained in this Subarea Plan, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code—will retard and restrain the threat of low density sprawl and maintain the balance of rural lifestyle and self-sufficiency. At the same time, we understand that for our local economy to survive we must adapt and be responsive to outside markets and trends. Capitalizing on our abundant natural resources and scenic amenities we must take advantage of new markets for tourism and recreational opportunities that can increase investment and spending in the local economy. The potential for a master planned resort at Black Point is a significant opportunity. But one that should be pursued carefully —in compliance with RCW 36.70A.360 and 2001 amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan—to ensure that we do not lose the very qualities that make our community a special place. Appendix 80 76 Brinnon shares the national trend that indicates a growing percentage of employment by home occupation and/or small business. However, home businesses and cottage industries are not just a convenience here; they are a critical part of our local economy. Ensuring that these types of activities can continue to occur and indeed be fostered and promoted as a self-sufficient means of maintain ing our rural-based economy is a prime aim of this plan. A description of typical existing home businesses and cottage industries in Brinnon is presented in the Rural Commercial Section. This list exhibits the broad range of home -based business and cottage industries traditionally found in Brinnon and that contribute to its rural character. Recommendations in this Subarea Plan are aimed at ensuring the viability of these types of uses in our fragile economy. Along with our wise use of commercial and resourc e lands, it is our ability to adapt and diversify that will keep the Brinnon area strong and healthy for the succeeding generations. Jefferson County’s Sustainable Economic Development Strategy (Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, pages 7-10) leans toward self-sustained communities, small industry requiring minimal impact on the infrastructure, and resource/recreational and tourist/service-oriented jobs as the basis for economic development. This is consistent with the recommendations of this Subarea Plan and seems to be consistent with the majority interests of the residents of the Brinnon Planning Area. The preference of uses and recommendations contained in this Subarea Plan will enable the community to monitor its own development process and progress and be watchful that the historically significant areas are preserved and maintained. As the Brinnon Subarea Plan was reviewed and updated, lists were prepared on some of the ways that the community sees itself developing. Also listed were the types of commercial enterprises that could have potential. These lists can be found in the section on Community Values (see Introduction). GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Promote the development of employment opportunities for local residents consistent with the rural character of Brinnon. POLICIES: P1.1 Jefferson County shall structure its Economic Opportunities Plan such that the Brinnon area can be uniquely identified. P1.2 Jefferson County shall hold local forums to inform the citizens of Brinnon about the status of the Brinnon-related parts of this Economic Opportunities Plan. P1.3 Team with the Jefferson County Economic Development Council to bring their resources to bear on educating and training our local residents. P1.4 Team with the Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council in pursuing USDA funding for small business in the Brinnon community. P1.5 Encourage Jefferson County to reinvest a portion of the DNR’s Forest Board Transfer monies that are paid to the County each year (County-owned property managed by DNR, with up to 78% of income distributed back to the County), specifically for the Brinnon area’s economic redevelopment through a community/County advisory committee to direct the best use for the community. Appendix 81 77 STRATEGIES: S1.1 Jefferson County should include the following elements in its Economic Opportunities Plan: · Business by industry type (e.g., forestry, aquaculture, services, construction, etc.). · Employment by industry type for each employer. · Jobs available by skill for each employer. · Local residents identified by skill that are available for employment. · Training necessary to obtain skills for available jobs. · Where and when to obtain training for skills. · Where to get the full range of human and social services made available by the county. S1.2 Establish and conduct training sessions on the “How To's” for setting up and running a home business, cottage industry, and small business in Jefferson County. S1.3 Assist existing and potential businesses in providing services while maintaining the rural character of the area, utilizing the local Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the Jefferson County Economic Development Council and Department of Community Development. GOAL: G2.0 Promote the preservation of the existing and development of new business and economic development opportunities in Brinnon. POLICIES: P2.1 Jefferson County will promote the availability of economic resources (i.e., commercial land and potential employees) in the Brinnon area. P2.2 Support a process and program for recruiting new resource-based and other light industrial activities to Brinnon. P2.3 Support a resource network for financial, educational, social and health services for startup and existing businesses. P2.4 Support appropriate designations for mixed commercial and residential development, small-scale recreational and tourist uses, and master planned resorts in areas that can utilize the land and available resources for their highest and best use, without adversely impacting the natural environment, promoting low-density sprawl, or harming the rural character of adjacent areas. STRATEGIES: S2.1 Assist existing and potential businesses in providing services while maintaining the rural character of the area, utilizing the local Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the Jefferson County Economic Development Council and Department of Community Development. S2.2 Request that Jefferson County present bi-annual educational forums for the Brinnon community to describe the coordination of its efforts with Federal, State and local economic development groups. Appendix 82 78 S2.3 Request that Jefferson County present bi-annual educational forums for the Brinnon community to describe plans to provide regulatory incentives to encourage and facilitate economi c opportunities. S2.4 Request that Jefferson County present bi-annual educational forums for the Brinnon community to describe its plans to encourage and support appropriate rural economic development. S2.5 Cooperate with lending institutions, educational facilities, and social and health institutions to provide local services. GOAL: G3.0 Market local attractions, businesses and the recreational and tourism amenities of the Brinnon area, including Hood Canal and Olympic mountains. POLICIES: P3.1 Establish a cooperative and proactive tourism marketing campaign to identify the recreational resources and tourist amenities in Brinnon and market those resources, opportunities, and amenities to local, regional and national target audiences. STRATEGIES: S3.1 Develop a community theme/identity. S3.2 Develop a cooperative marketing effort between area residents, Jefferson County and various community and regional business organizations, including the Jefferson County Economic Development Council and the North Olympic Peninsula Visitor & Convention Bureau. S3.3 Utilize the outreach capabilities of the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce. GOAL: G4.0 Ensure that the infrastructure needed to diversify the local economy is established. POLICY: P4.1 A coordinated effort must be made between the local business community and Federal, State, County, and private agencies for the planning, funding, and installation of various infrastructure requirements, such as water, power, and telecommunications. GOAL: G5.0 Integrate efforts and ideas, and share costs and services with neighboring communities. POLICY: P5.1 Cooperate with local business organizations and service providers to provide cost-saving joint services. GOAL: G6.0 Develop training opportunities for teenagers and other entry -level workers in the Brinnon Planning Area. Appendix 83 79 POLICY: P6.1 Training should be available from standard and vocational educational institutions as well as specialized workshops and other means. STRATEGIES: S6.1 Encourage Jefferson County and WSU Extension Service to assist the local High School (Quilcene) and other training modules in providing vocational education opportunities and job training for students still of high school age and other community members who constitute the entry -level workforce. S6.2 Establish through the County/State a tax incentive for local businesses that mentor high school age residents with on-the-job work experience. Appendix 84 80 Natural Environment Element Water Resources The groundwater resources are characteristic of the overall diversity of the Brinnon area. In most areas, including the Duckabush and Dosewallips drainages, groundwater resources provide more than adequate supplies of water for private as well as public wells. There are some areas (particularly in sites characterized by bedrock in close proximity to the shoreline) that experience shortages during the late summer months or have been unsuccessful in tapping into an aquifer to provide private wells. However, there is not an established geographical pattern to wide areas of water shortage. Overall there is a relative abundance of groundwater sources as evidenced by the number of adequately producing wells in the Brinnon area. The depth and capacity of individual wells depends on water tables and aquifer recharge potential; stream or creek flow depends on the accumulation of snow in higher elevations and seasonal rainfall. Rainfall and aquifer recharge potential, as well as septic tank and drain field effluent, affect the quality of these systems. Areas where the geology is characterized by fractured bedrock—not the more typical unconsolidated glacial outwash or till—can be particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater levels. Some shoreline properties on Pulali Point, for example, have demonstrated water shortages and dry wells during summer months when aquifer recharge is at its lowest. These portions of the Point are characterized by the presence of fractured basalt that typically provides very low well yields during the dry season because of its limi ted capacity. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) is responsible for issuing water right permits for new wells and tracks new water rights applications. However, land use planning and development project proposals should be carefully reviewed in this area to ensure adequate availability of groundwater for existing development and “senior” water right holders. Aquifer Recharge Potential Aquifer recharge potential is the relative ability of the soil and underlying geology to transport rainwater into underground reservoirs. Aquifer recharge areas contain some of the most permeable soils. Conflicts can arise between proper functioning of these soils and development. Rooftops, driveways, walkways, and roads all reduce the amount of land surface able to receive rainwater. In areas of extreme permeable soils, septic tank effluent may percolate faster than the ability of the soil microorganisms to purify it, thus increasing the chance of contaminating ground water supplies. Moderate aquifer recharge areas, and occasionally high aquifer recharge areas, occur in the Dosewallips River Valley. Moderate recharge areas occur between McDonald and Fulton Creeks and in the Jackson Cove area. The ability of soils to allow replenishment of ground water resources becomes an increasingly important resource as more demands are placed on ground water for domestic and commercial use. Land uses within Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are regulated though the environmentally sensitive areas provisions of the UDC. Appendix 85 81 Flooding The Brinnon area contains the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers, two of the major river systems in eastern Jefferson County that are subject to flooding. Local flooding can result from a combination of factors, such as “rain on snow” events when heavy rains combine with warm temperatures, rapidly melting the snows in the Olympic Mountains. Flooding conditions can be further compounded during periods of high tides and low barometric pressure during storms. Jefferson County is a participant in the Natio nal Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides low cost flood insurance to property owners living in floodplain areas. A floodplain is the normally dry land area adjacent to a stream or river channel that is susceptible to being inundated by water. The 100-year floodplain has a one percent chance per year of being covered with water. The NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) show the general delineation of the 100-year flood boundary and floodway fringe. A “100- year event” has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. On the Dosewallips River, the floodplain begins approximately two miles upstream from the mouth. Approximately one mile upstream the 100-year floodplain expands rapidly and eventually encompasses a good portion of the Brinnon Flats area. In fact, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis reveals that 93% of the Brinnon Rural Village Center land use district established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan lies within the 100-year floodplain. On the Duckabush River, the 100-year floodplain begins approximately 0.8 miles upstream from the mouth and expands to approximately 0.4 miles as it crosses US Highway 101 and empties into Hood Canal. The 100-year floodplain has been adopted as the base flood elevation for floodplain management measures and flood insurance. Pursuant to the Jefferson County Flood Damage Protection Ordinance (No. 18-1120-95) adopted in 1995, construction within the 100-year floodplain must demonstrate that it is sufficiently protected against flood damage, including a Base Flood Elevation Certificate showing that the base floor of the structure is elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. In 1997, FEMA officially updated the Dosewallips Flood Boundary Floodway Map. The general result was a decrease in the amount of land in the Brinnon Flats that falls within the floodway, an area that represents the active channel of the river and within which construction is not allowed. According to Lawrence Basich of FEMA (phone call 1/31/01 with Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff), the Floodway Map update did not affect the Base Flood Elevation and by extension the FIRM. The Floodway Map and the FIRM are based on the same hydrology, but use separate sub-models for the calculations. The FIRMs associated with the lower Dosewallips (530069 1230 B, 1235 B, and 1245 B) are based on pre -1982 data. Subsequent data could result in an adjustment to the FIRM, according to Mr. Basich, but there is no scheduled review of any FIRMs in Jefferson County. A community may request a review in writing, substantiating the request with factual reasoning. As FEMA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington) has limited budgeted funds to conduct reviews, there are only so many miles of rivers and streams that can be reviewed. In 1994, the Mapping Needs Assessment Process was established to identify and prioritize community map update needs in accordance with Section 575 of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. In Washington state, FEMA and the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) have been collaborating in an effort to update a database called the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS). The database holds records of maintenance o r flood data update needs as reported by jurisdictions in the state of Washington. Jefferson County responded to the general DOE survey in the spring of 2001, but has not submitted detailed information on any specific river systems. The Brinnon Flood Board is considering submitting detailed information regarding the lower Dosewallips River to DOE and FEMA or requesting that Jefferson County do so on its behalf. Appendix 86 82 FEMA, Washington State, and Jefferson County have taken flood management measures in the Dosewa llips river system. The aim of one project was to reduce localized bank erosion on the Dosewallips River by rip -rapping approximately 0.25 miles up from the Dosewallips bridge over Highway 101 and installing barbs further up the river. Particularly in riv er systems that possess a channel migration zone, such as the lower Dosewallips, these types of measures may negatively impact fish habitat and productivity by restricting the ability of the river channel to respond to increases in water, wood, and sediment. Armoring the riverbank may also exacerbate bank erosion for downstream neighbors by reducing the roughness in the channel and failing to reduce stream power. A major project in the last few years was the construction of a new bridge over Highway 101, which allows a much greater volume of water to flow under the bridge. Without the channel constriction of the old, shorter bridge, there is less chance for floodwaters to spread out over the floodplain in the Brinnon Flats. This project is one of the reasons why FEMA redefined the floodway boundary when the agency updated the Dosewallips Flood Boundary Floodway Map such that the boundary edge was significantly closer to the river channel. Given the results of the floodway study, FEMA should be asked to re-analyze the area FIRM and assess the height of the expected 100-year flood and corresponding extent of the 100-year floodplain on the Brinnon Flats. In July of 2001, four Brinnon Subarea Planning Group members met with representatives from USDA -RD (US De partment of Agriculture – Rural Development) to review the current public water systems, tour the floodplain area, and discuss the potential for grants and loans for future expansion, considering that the location of the Brinnon Rural Village Center is in the floodplain. A comprehensive floodplain management strategy would also include restoration efforts in the upper watershed and research into opportunities for conservation easements along riparian corridors, the purchase of riparian properties for the public trust, and dike setback or removal to minimize river channel constrictions which increase the severity and frequency of flooding. Some projects can help address the distinct, but related goals of fish habitat restoration and flood hazard mitigation. As a method of gathering data and monitoring results for floodplain management, stakeholders can request that the United States Geological Society (USGS) re -activate an historic flow gauge at rivermile 7.1. The USGS gauge could also provide real-time flooding alerts to area residents. Currently, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s Natural Resources Department is engaged in a study to unravel the linked issues of salmon habitat restoration and flooding on the Dosewallips. Products from this work will be of use to the County and Brinnon residents for charting flood hazards along the River. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Identify the optimal area of increased acreage for mixed use commercial and residential development where water is currently available with water right transfers or where systems can be combined. POLICY: P1.1 Direct Jefferson County to provide appropriate zoning for mixed commercial and residential development, small-scale recreational and tourist uses, and master planned resorts in areas that can utilize the land and available resources for their “highest and best use,” without adversely impacting groundwater and other environmentally sensitive features. Appendix 87 83 GOAL: G2.0 Improve water quality and reduce the risk of water quality p roblems in Brinnon. POLICIES: P2.1 Encourage managers/operators of Group A and Group B water systems to develop a plan for the long-term needs and maintenance of their systems. P2.2 Encourage small neighborhood water systems, advising adjoining property owners, as appropriate, of the options to (1) share developmental and operational costs of self- management, (2) petition the Public Utility District (PUD) to manage “for a fee,” and (3) petition the PUD for ownership takeover and management. (This policy is also located under Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities, and under Water Utilities, Utilities Element.) P2.3 The County should undertake a watershed-based floodplain management and water quality improvement plan including provisions for resource inspection, identification of problem areas, and recommended corrective measures, actions and funding sources in order to protect water quality in the area watersheds. P2.4 Upon formal request from the Brinnon Flood Board, the County should coordinate contact with FEMA with the aim of acquiring an updated assessment and map from FEMA of the extent of the 100-year floodplain on the Lower Dosewallips River. Particular emphasis should be placed on the extent and location of the floodplain in the Brinnon Flats area. STRATEGIES: S1.1 Private landowners should have their water quality evaluated and, if necessary, take remedial action. S1.2 Jefferson County should advise the community about how private landowners could improve their water quality with minimal expense. Shorelines One of the area’s outstanding physical assets is its twenty miles of shoreline, including a natural harbor and two major river systems, the Duckabush and Dosewallips, providing a unique opportunity for many residents t o live on water-oriented property. Recognizing the potential impact of development on these fragile and unique shoreline areas, the people of the State of Washington in 1971 enacted the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in order to protect the natural integrity of the shorelines of the state through a careful balance of development and preservation. Ensuring public access to the shorelines of the state is a key component of the Act. The SMA was implemented locally in 1974 through the adoption of the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program, updated in 1989 and amended in 1993, 1996, and 1998. (With Port Townsend disassociating itself from the Master Program in 1994, the name changed to Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program.) The Master Program designates shorelines with respect to their characteristics and use, prescribes the range of potential activities, and establishes policies and performance standards for each activity. The Master Program also provides the administrative procedures required to obtain permits for certain uses and developments of these designated areas. Appendix 88 84 Shoreline jurisdiction (a.k.a. shorelines) is defined in the Shoreline Management Act as all marine waters, streams with a mean annual flow greater than 20 cubic feet per second, lakes larger than 20 acres, and upland areas called “shorelands” 200 feet landward from the edge (“ordinary high water mark” or “floodway,” whichever is greater) of these waters. In addition, shoreline jurisdiction includes wetlands and river deltas hydrologically associated with the above-defined waters, and all wetlands within the 100-year floodplain. All of the shorelines along Hood Canal are designated “Shorelines of Statewide Significance,” providing them an extra level of protection. Brinnon shorelines currently have the following shoreline environment designations: Suburban, Conservancy, and Natural. The policy regarding Suburban designation is to provide permanent residential and recreational areas, while that of Conservancy is to protect, conserve, and manage existing natural resources. The Natural shoreline designation preserves and protects unique and fragile shoreline features. Brinnon currently has three areas that have the Natural designation: the Dosewallips River and Du ckabush River estuaries and a portion of Right Smart Cove. On November 29, 2000, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the State agency that co-administers the Shoreline Management Act with local jurisdictions, adopted new shoreline master program guidelines, concluding a five-year process to review and update the State rule. The new rule required local jurisdictions to update their shoreline master programs within two years from the date Ecology adopted the new guidelines. Those guidelines have been suspended through a ruling by the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB), which heard a multiparty appeal consisting of various elements. Some of the elements in the new rule were upheld and some were rejected by the SHB. The parties to the appeal are currently negotiating a settlement. Local jurisdictions await the results of the settlement process. Jefferson County issued a draft updated Shoreline Master Program on July 12, 2000, well before the adoption of the new State rule. The draft Master Pro gram was not adopted by the County. Until the County adopts an updated Master Program, the 1989 version with amendments remains in effect. Some types of development and land-disturbing activities on shorelines may be influenced by the environmentally sensitive areas protection provisions of the UDC, as well as the Shoreline Master Program. Persons who live along the shorelines are advised to review the provisions of the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program before beginning any development, which in terms of shorelines is defined in the Shoreline Management Act. Questions may be referred to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). Shoreline permit information sheets and the Shoreline Master Program can be found at DCD and via the DCD website. The use of the area’s shorelines for residential, recreational, commercial, aquaculture, industrial, and transportation purposes is an integral part of Brinnon’s heritage. Hood Canal shoreline in Brinnon. Appendix 89 85 Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory The Washington Departme nt of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is in the process of developing a 5-10 year facility renovation and improvement plan for the Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory near Brinnon. Approval has been received to construct a new shellfish hatchery on the West Side o f the lagoon. Funding was allocated in the 1999-2001 biennium for site development, and engineering has begun. Construction funds for the shellfish hatchery have been allocated for the 2001-2003 biennium. Additional large-scale construction options under consideration include upgrading the current office complex and vacated hatchery space, or building a new office facility on WDFW land recently vacated by the Navy. Other options include moving the harvest management staff to some location other than Brinnon and expanding the public parking area at Point Whitney, or a combination of the above. The Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory currently employs 40 professional staff, of which five are local Brinnon residents. If a new office complex is constructed on lands recently vacated by the Navy, or the harvest management staff is relocated, space could be freed up for improved public access to the beach. Improvements could include such things as additional public parking, rebuilding of the dock, boat launch upgra des, and widening the road to two lanes. Natural Heritage Vegetation, Wildlife and Landforms The diverse forest ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula provide habitat areas for a variety of plant and animal species. Local indigenous populations found these resources plentiful and had no need to cultivate them. Since the arrival of the first white settlers, a number of new species were introduced, including domestic herd animals and plants for cultivation (as well as some invasive species such as scotch broom, tansy ragwort, ivy, and purple loosestrife). The moderately well-drained, gravelly soils throughout most of the area support a variety of coniferous and deciduous trees including Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, red alder, and madrona. Typical underbrush includes salal, Oregon grape, several species of ferns, huckleberry, red currant, wild honeysuckle, and oceanspray as well as numerous species of mushrooms and fungi. The Brinnon Planning Area is also home to several unique and pristine marine environments along its 20-mile Hood Canal shoreline, including salt meadows, marine sloughs, river estuaries, eel grass beds, salt marshes, mud flats, and sand and gravel beaches. These environments make for rich and diverse plant and wildlife habitats. These include important habitat for oysters, clams, mussels, crabs, shrimp, and a variety of salmon and trout species, which rely on bait and forage fish, such as herring, surf smelt, shiner perch and others. The shoreline and nearshore is also home to a host of shoreline and marine birds and mammals. The Brinnon area contains suitable habitats for numerous species of wildlife. The mountain foothills, which are mostly on National Forest and wilderness areas, provide a seasonal source of food and cover for permanent and summer resident animals. Though there are resident species listed, it should not be presumed that all species are found in all areas of Brinnon. The diverse terrain, elevation, ecosystems and geography provide micro -climates/environs for many species in only one or two locations and not in the remainder of the community. It is important to note that some species may be observed but are only transient and not resident populations. Threatened and Endangered Species Some species whose habitat includes the Brinnon area are listed as threatened or endangered on State and Federal lists. Those found on the Federal endangered species list are protected via the Appendix 90 86 provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA is intended to prevent extinction of animals and plants by protecting habitat and ecosystems upon which the species depend. Federal government agencies designate “critical habitat” for the listed species. Areas within the Brinnon Planning Area are included as “critical habitat” for at least one listed species. Aquatic species of concern in the Brinnon area include Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer Chum, and potentially the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. Terrestrial species of concern include the bald eagle (see below). A lthough other species have been listed under the ESA in the past, the impacts from salmon listings are more far-reaching than previous listings. Federal rules to protect threatened Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum went into effect on January 8, 2001. Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout have been listed as threatened since early 2000. Under the ESA it is illegal to kill, harm, or harass listed species without an approval from the Federal government. These actions are called a “take” of the listed species, and include damage to the listed species’ habitat. The ESA allows any person or entity to bring a lawsuit against any individual or agency responsible for a “take” of listed species. The National Marine Fisheries Service can also assign penalt ies. Any individual, group, or agency can bring a Federal suit for a listed species “take,” even if you are in compliance with Jefferson County development codes. In many cases, both the party responsible for the activity and the County issuing the permi t would be named in the “take” lawsuit. Through action by the Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County has resolved to comply with the ESA and craft development regulations that provide a level of assurance toward that end. The Brinnon Subarea Pla n policies herein do not waiver from the environmentally sensitive areas provisions of the Unified Development Code, including protections for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas. A countywide strategy to address the ESA will include the Brinnon Planning Area. Resident wildlife includes the bald eagle, listed as “threatened” by State and Federal agencies. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is considered “de-listing” the bald eagle under the ESA. According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife bald eagle specialist Shelly Ament (phone call, December 20, 2001), the de-listing is tentatively proposed for July 4, 2002, assumedly in a deliberate pairing of a symbol of our country’s freedom and the celebration of Independence Day. Ms. Ament report s that the State would likely change the status of the bald eagle in Washington from “threatened” to “sensitive.” Certain elements of the current bald eagle habitat protection strategy would remain in effect, including bald eagle management plans agreed to by private landowners and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) when there are bald eagle nests in the vicinity of proposed development. Wildlife Species List The list that follows is a representation of the regular resident or frequently migrating species in the area and is not intended to include occasional or rare sightings. A biologist did not prepare this list, so it should not be thought of as a comprehensive survey of species in the area. WDFW maintains a Priority Habitats and Sp ecies database statewide for those interested in more detailed information. Mammals – Water and Terrestrial Roosevelt Elk, Deer – black and white tail, Otter – river, Beaver – mountain and dam, Muskrat, Cougar, Bobcat, Coyote, Mink, Skunk – two species, Mice – three species, Fox – red, Martin, Marmot, Mole, Raccoon, Bear – black, Fisher, Shrew, Squirrel – two species, Chipmunk, Rat – two species, Weasel, Rabbit, Mountain Goat, Sea Lion – California, Seal – harbor, Porpoise, Orca. Reptiles Frog – three species, Lizard, Snake – two species, Salamander Appendix 91 87 Birds – Water and Terrestrial Bald Eagle, Grouse – two species, Hawk – four species, Owl – five species, Jay – two species, Robin, Junco, Towhee, Finch – four species, Sparrow – three species, Grosbeak – two species, Hummingbird – two species, Tanager – western, Woodpecker – three species, Flicker – two species, Thrush – three species, Bush Tit, Pine Siskin, Pigeon - Band-tailed, Guillemot – Pigeon, Crow, Raven, Swallow – barn and cliff, Warbler, Blackbird – re d and yellow wing, flycatcher, Starling, Turkey, Snipe, Meadowlark, Quail – California, Turkey Vulture, Nighthawk, Wren – Seattle, Scoter – two species, Grebe – three species, Coot, Blue Heron, Kingfisher, Merganser – two species, Goldeneye, Loon, Murre, Tern, Gull – five species, Killdeer, Goose – two species, Cormorant, Brant, Swan, Osprey, Water ouzel, Duck – six species Invertebrates and Fish – Marine, Water and Terrestrial Slugs – four species, Sow bug, Millipede, Centipede, Ant – three species, Termi te, Spider, Oyster – three species, Scallops – rock, Mussel – Blue, Clam – Manila, Pacific Surf, Jack Knife, Native Littleneck, Thinshelled Littleneck, Butter, Bent nose (three species), Horse (two species), Eastern softshell, Moon Snail, Cockle, Geoduck; Drill (three species), Pandalid shrimp – three species, Crago shrimp, Mud shrimp, Ghost shrimp, Sea urchin, Sea slugs – five species, Crab – three species, Hermit crab – three species, Shore crab – four species, Sea cucumber – two species, Rock Fish – six species, Ling Cod, Bull Cod, Pacific Herring, Candlefish, Surf smelt, Shiner perch, Sand lance, Sole and Flounder – four species, Midshipmen fish, Viviparous perch, Steelhead (sea-run Rainbow) and resident Rainbow trout, Cutthroat trout, Chinook, Chum, Pin k and Coho salmon, Tidepool bullheads – four species, Shark – three species. GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL: G1.0 Protect the natural environment while maintaining adequate opportunities for economic development. POLICIES: P1.1 Provide those public services such as community water and sewage treatment where these services would provide a greater protection to the environment than multiple individual systems. P1.2 Ensure the adequate protection of environmentally sensitive areas is considered in all future development, including commercial, industrial or recreational and tourist-oriented development. P1.3 Consider provisions for reducing the adverse impacts of new shoreline development on the unique marine and riparian habitats along Hood Canal (i.e., clustering, increased setbacks, etc.). P1.4 Encourage the use of conservation easements, transfer or purchase of development rights, and other voluntary and innovative land owner measures to protect sensitive and unique fish, wildlife and plant habitats in Brin non. P1.5 New development, especially non-residential development, should be designed and located in a manner consistent with the preservation of the surrounding rural character and fish and wildlife habitat in the adjacent areas. Appendix 92 88 Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities Element There are many types of facilities and services typically provided in a community. Some are provided by private enterprises, others by public entities. Some of these facilities and services provide basic community needs, such as police and fire protection, education, water supply and sewage disposal. Others address the social needs of a community, such as recreational, youth and senior citizen activities. The following section describes various public and public purpose facilities in the Brinnon Planning Area. There are no municipal water or sewer systems serving the Brinnon area. Individual wells and on- site sewage disposal systems serve domestic water and sewage disposal needs. There are a few Brinnon communit y water systems serving two or more families that are privately owned or are on a cost-share basis. Public Utility District #1 (PUD #1) owns and manages two community water systems. One system serves the Lazy C Ranch development and one serves part of Trit on Cove and the Williams Addition. The larger and denser a population becomes, the more facilities and services are required. While these services are based on demand, often the provision of a service creates demand. This is particularly true of utilitie s. Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4 is headquartered in Brinnon. This volunteer fire department covers the southernmost part of Jefferson County and maintains three stations with an average of 25 volunteer firefighters and ambulance personnel. A new fire hall was built in the Brinnon flats area in 2000. All firefighters are State-certified and receive advanced first-aid training. There are seven State-certified emergency medical technicians (EMTs), three first-aid and CPR instructors and two St ate-certified fire fighting training instructors. Fire vehicles include two pumpers, four tankers, two brush fire rigs, one reserve truck, one search and rescue command post vehicle and two ambulances. There are also off-highway vehicles for clearing roads and to get in and out of rough terrain for rescues. The Brinnon Post Office, serving Zip Code 98320, is located in Brinnon’s Rural Village Center. The new Post Office building was built in 1999 to accommodate growth spanning the next 20 years. The Post Office has a capacity of 970 post boxes, of which 581 are currently rented. There are also 556 rural delivery postal patrons. The Brinnon Booster Club building has served as a community center (and until recently the fire hall) over the past several decades. Booster Club members host events for children and adults throughout the year. The facility is available for use by community members and organizations. The Brinnon Senior Center primarily provides services to and activities for Brinnon senior citizens. The center may be made available for other community activities. The center, and the Brinnon Bayshore Motel that occupies the floor above the center, are owned by Jefferson County and operated by OLYCAP (Olympic Community Action Program). The Senior Nutrition Program is provided by Jefferson County; all activities at the Senior Center are organized/governed by the local Seniors Organization. State and National Parks in the Brinnon area present a variety of recreational opportunities. Telephone service is provided by the Sprint Telephone System, whose offices are in Hood River, Oregon, and Poulsbo, Washington. Appendix 93 89 Electric power is provided by Mason County Public Utility District #1, whose offices are to the south, in Potlatch. The Brinnon School District #46 provides educational activities from Kindergarten through eighth grade. As enrollment in the Brinnon School District fluctuates, the school staffing increases or decreases accordingly. For the 2000-2001 school year, the school had an enrollment of 74 students. The school is the location for many indoor and outdoor social and recreational activities for the community. Brinnon is a non-high school district; therefore, high school students residing in Brinnon may choose to attend any high school in the state. There are no colleges or universities located in the county. Extension courses from Peninsula College in Port Angeles are available in Port Townsend, and extension courses from Washington State University are available in Port Hadlock. A coordinator of higher education for Jefferson County, in cooperation with Peninsula College, is present every week at the Brinnon School to assist the local community. In addition, satellite higher education courses for delivery from the Brinnon School have been funded in the recently approved Washington State budget. The funding for the necessary equipment will be available July 2002, for classes beginning in the fall of 2002. Public library services in Brinnon are provided by the Jefferson County Rural Library Bookmobile. Brinnon is served by two churches; the Brinnon Community Church and the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Brinnon maintains its own Cemetery District. The Brinnon voting precinct is #204; currently the polling place is located at the Brinnon Elementary School. Voters in the last four years have fluctuated between 944 and 1006. In July 2001 there were 966 registered voters. A house numbering and addressing system has been established, and is maintained, to identify the location of residents and to aid in the efficient delivery of emergency services and law enforcement, particularly when using the emergency 911 telephone system. Jefferson County Sheriff’s deputies patrol the area on a scheduled basis. State troopers patrol US Highway 101, the main thoroughfare through the community. A medical clinic has been established in nearby Quilcene, supported by Jefferson General Hospital. This clinic will be expanded to include counseling for mental health, substance abuse and other related services. The Jefferson County Community Action Council is in the process of establishing a medical clinic in Brinnon at the south end of the Bayshore Motel/Senior Center building. Brinnon is served by Jefferson General Hospital in Port Townsend and Mason General Hospital in Shelton. State and County roads in the Brinnon area are maintained by local State Highway and County Road crews, with facilities located on Highway 101 at Mt. Walker and at County Shop Road, north of the Duckabush River Road. Federal Programs for Inf rastructure Assistance United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD) offers a variety of programs of potential use and benefit to the Brinnon community. The Rural Housing Service (RHS) provides assistance for the financing and construction of housing for moderate-, low-, and very low-income families and for community facilities such as fire stations, libraries, industrial parks, and Appendix 94 90 hospitals and medical clinics. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) offers loan and grant programs for electric energy, telecommunications, and water and waste disposal projects. The Rural Business— Cooperative Service (RBS) works in partnership with the private sector and community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and business planning, including technical assistance, research, and educational services. RD also contains other components, including the Department of Community Development, which administers the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) program, the Alternative Agric ulture Research and Commercialization (AARC) Corporation, and an initiative to collaborate with land grant institutions on projects for underdeveloped rural communities. Affordable housing is an issue that has been discussed during Brinnon Subarea Plannin g Group meetings. RD RHS provides some opportunities to meet affordable housing goals. RHS loan programs include Home Ownership Loans, Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants, Self- Help Housing Loans, Rural Rental Housing Loans, Rental Assistance, and Community Facilities Direct Loans, Loan Guarantees and Grants. There has also been discussion at Planning Group meetings regarding how the RD RUS Water and Water Disposal Programs could benefit Brinnon, which qualifies for RUS water and wastewater loans and grants by virtue of its size (population under 10,000) and median household income (between the Census categories of “intermediate” and “poverty”). Inquiries were made to RD in the past concerning the possibility of a project in the Brinnon Flats area. The purpose of the project would be to provide the level of utility services necessary for potential commercial enterprise and multifamily housing in the Brinnon Rural Village Center (RVC) mixed-use district. A limitation to the availability of RD funds fo r projects in the Brinnon RVC was discovered during this inquiry and further explained by visitors from RD during Planning Group meetings in early 2001. The limitation has to do with the 100-year floodplain in the Brinnon flats, which covers approximately 93% of the Brinnon RVC. A complete application to RD RUS includes an environmental report. RUS Bulletin 1794A -602 (December 1998 Version 1.0) is the “Guide for Preparing the Environmental Report for Water and Waste Projects.” Section 3.2 of the Guide addresses floodplains. Section 3.2 references Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” which requires Federal agencies to avoid actions, to the extent practicable, that will result in the location of facilities in floodplains and/or affect floodplain values. To this effect, there is a model tap-in restriction ordinance that local governments must adopt in most cases in order to receive RUS assistance for projects in the floodplain. In the rare occasions when projects are approved in floodplain areas, s uch as when there are no other suitable areas available, there are examples of mitigation measures in Section C.1 of the Guide that are applicable to floodplains. RD in Washington has an Environmental Coordinator who makes judgments concerning the feasibility of projects in floodplains. In July of 2001, four Brinnon Subarea Planning Group members met with representatives from USDA -RD, including the Environmental Coordinator, as well as representatives from Washington State Department of Ecology, to view the locations of current public water systems, tour the floodplain area, and again discuss the potential for grants and loans for future expansion, GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES The following goals and policies apply to public and private community services and facilities. GOAL: G1.1 Provide for a level of community facilities and services adequate to meet the needs of current and future residents and ensure that the establishment or expansion of community facilities and services is consistent with the small town and rural character of the Brinnon area. Appendix 95 91 POLICIES: P1.1 Encourage small neighborhood water systems, advising adjoining property owners, as appropriate, of the options to (1) share developmental and operational costs of self- management, (2) petit ion the Public Utility District (PUD) to manage “for a fee,” and (3) petition the PUD for ownership takeover and management. (This policy is also located under Water Resources, Natural Environment Element and Water Utilities, Utilities Element.) P1.2 Explore alternative methods of private sewage and/or effluent disposal systems, utilizing an adjoining or a community area, rather than individual on-site disposal. P1.3 Encourage participation in community programs available to Brinnon area residents, such as Little League, Community Theater, Food Bank, etc. P1.4 Encourage active participation in the Brinnon Volunteer Fire Department, the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) squad, and Emergency Search and Rescue (ESAR) unit, to maintain a high level of servic e. P1.5 Encourage the support and utilization of the regional outpatient medical facility being established at the Bayshore Motel/Senior Center location. P1.6 Encourage the education of the community in the use of the 911 system and other emergency facilities. P1.7 Maintain and support the Jefferson Transit Authority service between Brinnon and other parts of Jefferson County, as well as to other communities within the Puget Sound region. P1.8 Establish an emergency plan that includes disaster relief fo r the community. P1.9 Establish a “Welcome Wagon” service to introduce newcomers to the various community organizations and programs. Public Safety Brinnon has no resident police presence. Our sheriff deputies are dispatched from the Port Hadlock headquarters. The Quilcene annex may have an officer available for response, but this is not on a consistent basis. Currently, Brinnon has 5% of the county’s unincorporated population but accounts for a significantly higher portion of the law enforcement calls. This has been attributed to the high unemployment rate and high drug and alcohol use. Quilcene has recently become the station for the County’s drug enforcement k-9 unit. GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL: G1.0 Improve public safety in the Brinnon planning area. POLICIES: P1.1 Request resident law enforcement officers in our community. P1.2 A local advisory group should work with the County to explore alternatives for improved public safety and drug control. Appendix 96 92 Appendix 97 93 Transportation Element History The people of Brinnon have always had various forms of transportation in and out of their community, but travel has not always been convenient. From the mid -1850s until roads were built early in the 1900s, boats were used to transport supplies, mail, and passengers to and from Brinnon. From 1917 until the mid -1940s automobiles were ferried between Seabeck and Brinnon. At first, this was accomplished by towing a scow behind a fishing boat; then self-propelled ferryboats were used. The first ferry dock was located at Seal Rock and later one was constructed at Cedar Cove near the entrance to Pleasant Harbor. Logging company railroads were constructed along the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys down to Hood Canal. The roads along these valleys were built in the late 1800s , but only went about 3.5 miles up the Duckabush valley and about 8 miles up the Dosewallips. Another road connecting the Duckabush Road to the Dosewallips Road was built and improved over the next several years. Between 1888 and 1923, there were six different bridges crossing the Dosewallips River. These were all located in the Brinnon Flats. The first bridge lasted only one year. Each bridge lasted a little longer than the previous one. The bridge built in 1923 lasted until it was dismantled in the year 2000. The current bridge is the seventh to cross the Dosewallips River. The first five bridges were located about 0.25 miles upriver from the latter two and crossed the river near the location of the original road. Between 1901 and 1934, there were four different bridges built to cross the Duckabush flats. The bridges built in 1934 are still in use. Crossing the Duckabush flats was always done by the use of one small and one longer bridge, with the exception of a single bridge used from 1910 to 1914 near the present site of the Olympic Canal Tracts. Early bridge over the Dosewallips. Appendix 98 94 In 1896, a road to Quilcene was built; in 1918 a road south into Mason County along Hood Canal was built; Bee Mill Road was built in 1926; Black Point Road was built in 1933; Point Whitney Road was completed in 1971; the Olympic Loop Highway was completed in the 1930s. Current Situation Today, with the exception of some private and chartered boats and floatplanes, people and supplies are transported to and from Brinnon by way of County- and State maintained highways. Brinnon has over 15 miles of highways maintained by the Washington State Department of Transportation, over 35 miles of County maintained roads, and some roads maintained by the State Department of Natural Resources, State Parks, State Fish and Wildlife, USDA Forest Service, and National Park Service. There are also many private roads that are generally maintained by the property owners serviced by these roads, but they can be converted into county maintained roads if they meet criteria specified by the County. US Highway 101 is the main highway extending from north to south through the Brinnon area. Because it is bordered by the Olympic Mountains on the west and Hood Canal on the east and because of the areas unstable soil conditions, it is vulnerable to washouts and slides. This concern resulted in the designation of the following emergency bypass roads: the Rocky Brook Road via the Dosewallips Road, the Mt. Jupiter Road via the Dosewallips Road and the Waketickeh Road via the Duckabush Road. The concern for emergency road preparedness continues today. The Comprehensive Plan (CP) identifies current levels of service (LOS) on Brinnon’s roadways. All of the roads presently operate at either LOS “A” or “B” based on their average daily traffic. The Transportation Element of the CP projects the 20-year (2018) operating LOS for all affected arterial or collector roadways in Brinnon to be LOS “C” or better—either within or well-above their adopted levels of service in t he CP. Most of the roadways have an adopted minimum LOS of “C” or “D.” Therefore, roadway capacity is expected to be adequate to accommodate projected growth during the planning period. Jefferson Transit and Mason Transit both serve the Brinnon area with bus service. They both connect with service to all of their neighboring counties. Jefferson Transit serves Brinnon on Route #1, which connects Brinnon with Port Townsend by daily service. In 1998, the route accounted for 1,809 total annual passenger trips or an operating level of service of 10.2 riders per service hour. Floatplane service is primarily provided to and from Brinnon by Kenmore Air. There are also boats and floatplanes available for charter service. Usually, passengers entering and leaving Brinnon by boat or floatplane do so at Pleasant Harbor, a deep sheltered body of water with marina docks, private docks, and a public state maintained dock. There are also public and private docks between Point Whitney and Triton Cove. Skippers and pilots are occasionally directed to transfer passengers from boats and floatplanes onto shore boats to be left off at other waterfront locations in the Brinnon area. Today, Brinnon is connected with the rest of the world by land and by sea. People can travel to and from Brinnon with or without a motor vehicle, and as in the past, if the demand increases, the options for transportation will also increase. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 The transportation system must be maintained so that it is safe, reliable, and efficient, and at the same time conserves costs, energy, and natural resources. Appendix 99 95 POLICIES: P1.1 In order to provide traffic safety and to minimize public expenditures, arterial and collector roads should incorporate limited access provisions whenever possible. Jointly used residential driveways, local access roads, frontage roads, etc., are encouraged. P1.2 Driveway access to commercial and industrial activities and multiple family dwellings should be located and designed in such a manner that any vehicle entering or leaving such premise is traveling in a forward motion and is clearly visible for a reasonable distance to any pedestrian or motorist approaching the access. GOAL: G2.0 Jefferson County in concert with the Brinnon community should maintain a transportation and circulation system that is multifunctional and consistent with the rural character of the Brinnon area. POLICIES: P2.1 Support the continued operation and expansion of Jefferson County Transit service to Brinnon. P2.2 Support the development of the Jefferson County Non-motorized Transportation Plan to improve safe bicycle and pedestrian access in Brinnon. P2.3 The Washington State Department of Transportation in concert with the Brinnon community should maintain safe traffic conditions and speed limits on US Highway 101, and provide a safe crossing of the highway for pedestrians and bicycles. A pedestrian/bicycle trail along the shoulder of the highway should be constructed, and maintained, with marking and signing of the lanes for safety. GOAL: G3.0 Facilities associated with transportation and circulation should be located and designed with respect to such natural features as topography, soils, geology, shorelines, etc., and within existing routes and corridors where feas ible. POLICIES: P3.1 Roadway systems within residential areas should be designed to minimize through-traffic. GOAL: G4.0 Future road improvements should be designed and built to meet the needs of local residents. Roadway planning should always involve lo cal citizen participation. POLICIES: P4.1 Jefferson County Public Works should review both the County and Washington State Department of Transportation roadway improvement plans for consistency with the goals of this plan. STRATEGIES: S4.1 Jefferson County Public Works and the Washington State Department of Transportation in cooperation with local citizens shall recommend changes/additions, where appropriate, to the roadway improvement plans consistent with the goals of this plan. Appendix 100 96 S4.2 Jefferson County shall provide public notification of any impending County road improvements/changes per legal requirements. GOAL: G5.0 The Brinnon community desires a park-and-ride facility in the Brinnon area and requests that Jefferson Transit revise to the Transit Master Plan to include this goal. POLICIES: P5.1 The Brinnon community and Jefferson Transit should work together to achieve this goal. STRATEGIES: S5.1 The Brinnon community, Jefferson Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation should work together to identify and recommend a possible location based on State, County, and community requirements. GOAL: G6.0 The Brinnon community desires a back-up road in the event that US Highway 101 and/or other by-pass roads become impassable. POLICIES: P6.1 Jefferson County Public Works Department, using the County’s Roadway Priority Rating System, should analyze the cost and benefits and other relevant factors related to creating a by-pass route between the Dosewallips River Road and the Mount Jupiter Road. Based on this analysis, the proposed by-pass route will be given the appropriate ranking in the County’s Transportation Improvement Program and the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The analysis should consider the potential for a closure of US Highway 101 or the Dosewallips River Road and the expenses related to constructing and maintaining a by-pass road. A future by-pass road project should include coordination between the Washington State Department of Transportation, the United States Department of Highways, Jefferson County, the Brinnon community, and other stakeholders. STRATEGIES: S6.1 The Brinnon community requests that as part of the Emergency Preparedness Program, the road connecting the Dosewallips Road to the Mt. Jupiter Road along the Mt. Jupiter ridge be re -opened and all other by-pass roads be maintained. S6.2 The Brinnon community requests that under the guidance of the Sheriff’s Department and the Emergency Preparedness Program, community property owners, the USDA Forest Service and Jefferson County begin to cooperatively identify and agree to maintain emergency by-pass roads for US Highway 101. Appendix 101 97 Utilities Element Water Utilities There is no public municipal water system in the Brinnon area. Area residents derive their domestic water from individual wells, diverting water from streams and creeks, or participating in a Brinnon community water system. Some residents participate in community water systems where two or more property owners share a common source, as well as development and maintenance costs. Some of the Brinnon community water systems are under Public Utility District (PUD) management. There are presently two community water systems in the Brinnon area, managed by PUD # 1 of Jefferson County: Lazy C Ranch and a portion of Triton Cove. These systems serve small neighborhood areas as well as residential and recreational developments. Under provisions of the Revised Code of Washington, citizens desiring to have PUD manage their community water system may petition PUD # 1 for such action. The PUD will determine if sufficient water is available and the cost of its development to each property owner concerned. Unless a majority of affected property owners reject by vote the development of a public community water system, the PUD will proceed in its establishment. The cost of PUD management is provided by property tax levies. There are an additional 20 Group A water systems throughout Brinnon under private management. Currently, 12 Group B water systems p rovide communities with between two to 14 connections. All Group A systems and many private wells have water rights but none are close enough geographically to make it economical to combine systems except perhaps in the Brinnon RVC . However, the low densit y of development in the village does not make it economically feasible for a public water system at the present time unless funded or mostly funded by outside grants and low- interest loans. The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is the lead agency for the Groups A and B water systems compliance, and coordinates closely with the Jefferson County Health Department on developing communication and technical assistance for small public water systems. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Improve water quality and reduce the risk of water quality problems in the Brinnon area. POLICIES: P1.1 Encourage small neighborhood water systems, advising adjoining property owners, as appropriate, of the options to (1) share developmental and operational costs of self- management, (2) petition the Public Utility District (PUD) to manage “for a fee,” and (3) petition the PUD for ownership takeover and management. (This policy is also located under Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities, and under Water Resources, Natural Environment Element.) STRATEGIES: S1.1 Jefferson County should encourage private landowners to have their water quality evaluated and, if applicable, provide guidance on how to improve their water quality. Appendix 102 98 S1.2 Jefferson County should assist private landowners accomplish this goal with minimal expense. Sanitary Sewer Utilities There are no public wastewater treatment and disposal systems in the Brinnon Planning Area. All development relies on on-site septic systems to treat and dispose of sewage. New development must meet minimum lot size, setback and septic system design standards established by the Health Code in order to maintain adequate separation from water wells, groundwater levels and shorelines. The classification of soil suitability for septic tank and drain field systems considers soil properties that may inhibit the proper functioning of these systems by affecting effluent absorption and decomposition and/or the construction and operation of the system. Some of the soils in the Brinnon Subarea Plan area are classified as having limitations for septic tank and drain field systems. Large lot sizes and/or engineering measures may be required to safely dispose of septic tank effluent in areas exhibiting these soil properties. Most on-site septic and drainfield systems operate adequately. However, there are isolated areas of higher septic failure rates, particularly in cases of small lots in close proximity to the shoreline or where steep slopes or poor soils are pre valent. Often times, increased failure rates occur when development becomes too dense or locates too close together and cannot maintain adequate separation levels between the surface soils and groundwater. Another common occurrence of septic system failure is when small older waterfront one- to two -bedroom cabins are replaced with three- to four-bedroom houses that produce more effluent than the original septic system was designed to handle. The lack of a public sewage treatment system in the Brinnon RVC is a constraint to future economic development in the area. The village’s current limited size and density/intensity of use does not create sufficient density or base of potential ratepayers to make such a public system feasible at the present time. Yet it may develop dense enough to create increased future septic failure rates. However, expansion of the RVC boundary would allow for more commercial/industrial development to occur and to spread the future costs of such facilities over a greater potential rate base. There are also State and Federal programs that could provide additional monies —through grants or loans—to help offset the costs associated with the planning, design and construction of such a system in the future. Much of the constraint of securing Federal monies for an improved sewage treatment system focuses on the floodplain location in the RVC. US Department of Agriculture representatives from the Rural Development (RD) program indicated in discussion with the Brinnon Subarea Planning Group that their rural development funding assistance includes criteria that favors funding facilities located outside of the 100-year floodplain or that would not promote more development inside the 100-year floodplain. This situation remains a significant constraint to obtaining Federal funding assistance for such facilities —unless the RVC is expanded to areas outside of the floodplain suitable to accommodate new commercial development. See further discussion in Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities Element and Rural Commercial section of the Land Use and Rural Element of the Subarea Plan. Future Objectives Secure appropriate locations for future wastewater treatment facilities to serve the at-risk areas of Brinnon and pursue State and Federal funding opportunities and grant assistance programs for a public wastewater treatment system. Appendix 103 99 GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: G1.0 Secure a public wastewater treatment system for the Brinnon Flats RVC to allow for higher density and more affordable housing opportunities and expanded economic development activities in Brinnon. POLICY: P1.1 Encourage the County to continue working with the Department of Agriculture (Rural Development), DOE, US EDA, and other agencies to utilize existing grant, loan or other funding programs to plan, design and construct a wastewater treatment system for the Brinnon Flats RVC. Telecommunications Utilities The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has laid a fiber optics cable along their electrical transmission lin es between Olympia and Port Angeles, with a drop point in Brinnon (one of many that connect to Peninsula communities). The next step is bringing BPA’s service to the user. PUD #1 of Jefferson County could be the agency to install the “last mile” that would bring the service into local buildings. Sprint now has redundant fiber optic/digital microwave network connections between Brinnon (among others) and Poulsbo. In Kitsap and Jefferson Counties, five central offices and eight remote fiber-fed switching centers feed to/from Sprint’s host central office in Poulsbo. Brinnon service is a fully fiber optic backbone, with copper as the last mile feeding the private connection. ISDN (Integrated Service Digital Network) service is available now through some Intern et Service Providers. Sprint has revealed no plans for deploying a DSL (Digital Satellite Link) in Western Washington, although DSL may be available via other providers. Future Objectives Continuously enhanced telecommunications capabilities, including re tail service connections that can be made available to Brinnon residents. Solid Waste Utilities Prior to 1997 Jefferson County operated a transfer station in Brinnon on the Duckabush River Road. Jefferson County closed the facility due to the excessively h igh cost of operation. The Board of County Commissioners permanently closed the facility by Resolution in 1999. Residential and commercial garbage and recycling pickup is available from a commercial garbage hauler. The nearest County-operated solid waste transfer station is in Quilcene. Recycling containers are currently located at the Dosewallips State Park. Future Objectives The Brinnon community desires to re -establish a transfer station in Brinnon. Jefferson County should continue to work with the community to explore creative solutions to the rural garbage problem. Appendix 104 100 Capital Facilities Element Preface to Capital Facilities Element The Growth Management Act requires that the Capital Facilities Element of a comprehensive plan include a six-year plan to fund proposed capital facilities. The Brinnon Subarea Plan suggests a County government commitment to establish a park and ride facility, community center, County park, US Highway 101 emergency by-pass road, solid waste transfer center, and visitor center. These projects would require revision to the County’s Capital Facilities Plan and the identification of project costs and revenue sources to fund these facilities. Considering the above, the following statements of future objectives, policies and strategies in the Capital Facilities Element of the Brinnon Subarea Plan should be considered advisory recommendations from the Brinnon Subarea Planning Group that should be reviewed in a subsequent process to update the Jefferson County Capital Facilities Plan in the context of an overall comprehensive examination of capital facilities priorities countywide. Community Centers Jefferson County implies that it supports a community center in Brinnon, by virtue of having the Brinnon Senior Center facility; this “community” center is considered by the County to be a County park. Jefferson County does not support a true community center in Brinnon, nor do we have a County park. Future Objectives That Jefferson County establish a County-supported community center and County park for Brinnon residents of all ages within the next five years. County Maintenance Facilities (See Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities.) Future Objectives To ensure that the County facilities are fully operational and able to provide State and County road maintenance for Brinnon residents during all seasons of the year. Parks and Recreation Background (See Essential Public Facilities and Public Purpose Facilities.) Future Objectives That Jefferson County establish a Co unty-supported community park, with adequate grounds for softball and soccer games, within the next five years. Storm Water/Flood Control Background (Refer to Flooding in the Introduction as well as the Natural Resource Element.) Appendix 105 101 Tourist Road Facilities Background (Also see Parks and Recreation, and Transportation.) Although the Brinnon area is the entryway to the Olympic Peninsula for visitors approaching on Highway 101 along Hood Canal from the Shelton area, Jefferson County has not utilized any of its tourism funds to post any visitor information or provide any tourist amenities in South County. Future Objectives A South County Highway 101 Corridor Visitor Center such as is being planned for Highway 104, with sufficient tourist amenities such as public restrooms, drinking water, and visitor information. P1.1 A County funded and maintained tourist and information center should be established with the use of Gateway Tourism funds. S1.1 Team with the WDFW Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory land acquisition and development staff in exploring the potential for coordinating and possible combining of the future Brinnon Visitor Center and the Point Whitney Shellfish Laboratory's Interpretive Center. S1.2 Form a committee of local citizens to work with community members and the local Chamber of Commerce (the authorized funding recipient of Gateway funds) in developing the tourist and information center. Appendix 106 102 Conclusion The Brinnon Subarea Planning Group believes that this Subarea Plan will provide an important cornerstone for the foundation of a sustainable Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. As the first of the Jefferson County rural communities to transform an existing Community Plan into a Subarea Plan following adoption of the GMA Comprehensive Plan, the Group u ndertook to craft a document that could stand as a model for similar committees in neighboring communities. The group updated the 1995 plan to fit the Comprehensive Plan format, which made it easier to address relevant topics identified in the countywide plan. The foundation of our research was the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act, including Amendment SB6094 and the County’s Unified Development Code. Members of the Subarea Planning Group agreed to reach decisions by consensus. We encouraged widespread in -depth discussions among our members when clarification or elaboration was required. Comment periods were provided at the beginning and conclusion of each meeting for public input. Many visitors provided valued input during the meetings. The Group focused on the uniqueness of the Brinnon area, remoteness from urban areas and services and the County seat of Jefferson County, and Brinnon’s need for additional commercial designation. The group’s primary challenge was to show the extent to which Brinnon’s uniqueness is self-limiting. The topography includes steep mountainsides, narrow valleys, swift rivers, and wide estuaries. US Highway 101 reaches Brinnon over a high mountain pass on Mt. Walker, runs along the waterfront with bordering steep slopes and a narrow residential shelf. Using performance standards as the basis for goals and policies stems, in part, from the self-limiting nature of the Brinnon planning district. Potable water, transportation, wastewater control, and terrain are all at issue. Commercial enterprises can best be located at three main intersections, close to population densities and accessible by the traveling public. Our interest in the tourism industry as a way of providing viable jobs developed into support for identifying an area suitable for a master planned resort. Appropriate areas for small-scale tourist and recreational uses were identified. Emphasis was placed on studying the need for low-income housing and assisted living facilities, and the community will continue to monitor this need. Group members also met with representatives from USDA -RD (US Department of Agriculture – Rural Development) to review the current public water systems and discuss the potential for grants and loans for future expansion. In the course of discussions and as the result of ongoing public input and suggestions, certain changes were recommended that were beyond the time frame available for working on the Subarea Plan with the County-funded consultant. Suggestions such as a sewer treatment plant and community water system will be investigated in upcoming years. The vision continues to be for a community that provides a rural, lightly populated structure and fosters a quality of life we currently enjoy. The Plan guidelines have been renewed or established to help maintain the rural character of the Brinnon Planning Area while encouraging growth under appropriate conditions. The Brinnon Subarea Planning Group members are proud of this plan and believe it provides Brinnon with effective guidance for continued future prosperity. Appendix 107 APPENDIX 1 Maps (Figures BR-1 through BR-14) Appendix 108 APPENDIX 2 Brinnon Historic Business List Appendix 109 | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis Philip Hunsucker User Name: Philip Hunsucker Date and Time: Saturday, November 9, 2024 7:03:00AM PST Job Number: 238209931 Document (1) 1. Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446 Client/Matter: -None- Search Terms: 159 Wn. App. 446 Search Type: Natural Language Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Cases Sources: WA state Appendix 110 Philip Hunsucker Caution As of: November 9, 2024 3:03 PM Z Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson County Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two August 30, 2010, Oral Argument; January 19, 2011, Filed No. 39071-0-II (consolidated with 39491-0-II) Reporter 159 Wn. App. 446 *; 245 P.3d 789 **; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173 *** BRINNON GROUP ET AL., Appellants, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY ET AL., Respondents. Prior History: [***1] Appeal from Clallam Superior Court. Docket No: 08-2-00127-2. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 03/09/2009. Judge signing: Honorable George Lamont Wood. Core Terms comprehensive plan, map, recommendation, ordinance, conditions, public participation, superior court, land use designation, intensities, acres, resort, phase, Subarea, provisions, regulations, policies, argues, planning, public comment, designated, complied, violations, writ of certiorari, proposed change, public hearing, residential, compliance, changes, effective notice, final decision Case Summary Procedural Posture Appellants, nonprofits, challenged an ordinance enacted by appellee county. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board concluded that the ordinance complied with provisions of Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A, ch. 36.70, and ch. 43.21C. Thurston County Superior Court, Washington affirmed the Board's order. Clallam County Superior Court, Washington dismissed the complaint for a constitutional and statutory writ. The corporations appealed. Overview The nonprofits argued that the ordinance included significant changes from the planning commission's recommendation and, therefore, the public should have been given the opportunity to comment on those changes. A plain reading of Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400 supported the Board's interpretation that the board of county commissioners (BOCC) did not violate public participation requirements under Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.035 by adopting the text amendment without prior referral to the planning commission. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400 did not require the planning commission to recommend any specific amendatory language to the BOCC and the planning commission complied with Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400 because its recommendation to the BOCC adequately described the MPR project. A fair comparison of the recommendation and the BOCC's text amendment illustrated that the BOCC's text amendment added only a few specific details to the planning commission's project description. Every one of those details was made available for public comment in the draft EIS. Thus, the public had ample opportunity to comment on the specific details that the BOCC ultimately included in the text amendment. Outcome The judgments of both superior courts were affirmed. The nonprofits' request for attorney fees was denied. LexisNexis® Headnotes Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments HN1[] Zoning, Local Planning The Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A limits urban growth to designated urban Appendix 111 Page 2 of 29 growth areas. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.110(1). Participating counties, however, may allow an exception to that rule by authorizing a master planned resort (MPR). Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.360(1). An MPR is 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. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.360(1). Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.360(4)(a) requires that counties adopt such policies before authorizing MPRs. Proposed MPR site owners must seek to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review. Additionally, the amendment process should evaluate the proposal's probable significant adverse impacts even if the proposal is to be developed in phases. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN2[] Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review The Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A provides counties with broad discretion to develop comprehensive plans. A county's discretion, however, is bounded by the goals and requirements of the GMA. The GMA's goals include limiting urban growth to urban areas, reducing sprawl, encouraging economic development, retaining open space, enhancing recreational opportunities, conserving habitat and protecting the environment, developing recreational facilities, and encouraging citizen involvement in the planning process. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board adjudicates GMA compliance and may invalidate noncompliant comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Board may also find that a county is not in compliance with the GMA's requirements and remand to enable the county to comply with the GMA's requirements. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.300(3)(b). The Board presumes that a county's comprehensive plan is valid upon adoption. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.320(1). Consequently, the Board must find that a county complied with the GMA unless the party challenging the plan demonstrates that the county's action was clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the GMA's goals and requirements. A county's action is clearly erroneous if the Board has a firm and definite conviction that the county made a mistake. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review HN3[] Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Standard of Review The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 34.05 governs judicial review of a growth board's actions. Under the APA, the party appealing a board's decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the board's actions. In reviewing the board's actions, the appellate court sits in the same position as the trial court and apply the APA standards directly to the administrative record. Thus, like the board, the appellate court defers to the county's planning action unless the action is clearly erroneous. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.320(3); Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.3201. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Exceeding Statutory Authority Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Substantial Evidence HN4[] Standards of Review, Exceeding Statutory Authority See Wash. Rev. Code ch. 34.05.570(3). Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > De Novo Standard of Review Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Substantial Evidence HN5[] Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 112 Page 3 of 29 An appellate court reviews the a board's legal conclusions de novo, giving substantial weight to its interpretation of the statutes it administers and the board's findings of facts for substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the correctness of the board's order. Administrative Law > Agency Rulemaking > Informal Rulemaking Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments HN6[] Agency Rulemaking, Informal Rulemaking A county planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A must establish a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.140. A comprehensive plan shall be amended with public participation as provided in Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.140. A county's procedures must provide for broad dissemination of proposals, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.140. A county's inexact compliance with its established public participation program and procedures, however, does not invalidate a comprehensive plan if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.140. Administrative Law > Agency Rulemaking > Informal Rulemaking Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments HN7[] Agency Rulemaking, Informal Rulemaking See Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.035. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > De Novo Standard of Review Governments > Legislation > Interpretation HN8[] Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review An appellate court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. The appellate court's primary goal is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent. Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Real Property Law > Zoning > Growth Control Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Growth Control Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning HN9[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans The legislature enacted the Planning Enabling Act (PEA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70 in 1959 in order to provide the authority for, and the procedures to be 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 113 Page 4 of 29 followed in, guiding and regulating the physical development of a county. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.010. The PEA includes procedures to assist counties in planning for development, including procedures to establish planning commissions, boards of adjustment, and comprehensive plans. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.010,.030,.200,.320-.340. The legislature enacted the Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A over 30 years later, and the GMA likewise addresses issues of urban development, seeking among other things to limit sprawl and conserve open space. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.020(1), (9). The Washington Supreme Court has observed, therefore, that the PEA and the GMA are two related statutes which should be read together to determine legislative purpose to achieve a harmonious total statutory scheme. Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning HN10[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Under the Planning Enabling Act (PEA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70, a majority of the county's planning commission must approve a comprehensive plan amendment. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400; Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.020(4). The commission's approval shall be by a recorded motion and the reasons for the commission's action and the motion shall refer expressly to the maps, descriptive, and other matters intended by the commission to constitute the. amendment. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400. The commission's approval shall be recorded on the map and descriptive matter by the signatures of the chair and the secretary of the commission. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400. The PEA also establishes that when the board of county commissioners (BOCC) considers a change in the recommendations of the planning agency to be necessary, the BOCC may initiate consideration of a comprehensive plan amendment. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.430. When the BOCC elects to initiate consideration of an amendment, the BOCC shall first refer the proposed change to the planning agency for a report and recommendation. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.430. Before the planning commission issues its report and recommendation, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed. change. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.430; Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.440. Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards HN11[] Zoning, Local Planning Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400 does not require the planning commission to recommend any specific amendatory language to the board of county commissioners. Rather, the statute requires that the commission refer to descriptive and other matters intended by the commission to constitute the amendment. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400. In other words, the commission's job is to adequately describe the amendment's effects, not to draft its specific language. Administrative Law > Agency Rulemaking > Informal Rulemaking Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning HN12[] Agency Rulemaking, Informal Rulemaking The language of Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.430 suggests that the legislature intended to require referral to the planning commission only when the board of county commissioners changes or additions to the comprehensive plan prevented the public from a full opportunity to comment on the county's proposed action. Moreover, by adopting Wash. Rev. Code ch. 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 114 Page 5 of 29 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i), the legislature signaled its intent to provide county legislative authorities like the board of county commissioners (BOCC) with greater flexibility in adopting proposed changes to their comprehensive plans. As long as those proposed changes appeared in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS), which the public may review and comment on, no additional opportunity for public comment is required. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i). Thus, the court must look not only at the commission's recommendation and the BOCC's adopted text amendment, but also at the information that the county made available for public comment in the draft EIS. Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Local Planning Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards HN13[] Zoning, Local Planning The Planning Enabling Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70, requires that the planning commission's approval shall be recorded on the map and descriptive matter by the signatures of the chair and the secretary of the commission. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70.400. Administrative Law > Agency Rulemaking > Informal Rulemaking Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN14[] Agency Rulemaking, Informal Rulemaking The Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A public participation requirements include notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to affected and interested individuals of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.035(1). The county code also mandates public meetings after effective notice. Jefferson County, Wash. Code 18.45.010(2). Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN15[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A, a comprehensive plan must be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. Growth Management Act (GMA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.070. That requirement means that differing parts of the comprehensive plan must fit together so that no one feature precludes the achievement of any other. Wash. Admin. Code § 365-196-500. A comprehensive plan may include a subarea plan that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.080(2). Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN16[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans See Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.070(1). Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > De Novo Standard of Review Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Environmental Law > Assessment & Information Access > Environmental Impact Statements Business & Corporate Compliance > Environmental & Natural Resources > Environmental Impact Statements HN17[] Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review The board of county commissioners has jurisdiction over petitions claiming that a county's comprehensive plan 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 115 Page 6 of 29 actions are not State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C compliant. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.280(1)(a). An appellate court reviews an environmental impact statement's (EIS) adequacy, the legal sufficiency of the environmental data in the EIS, de novo. An appellate court assesses the EIS's adequacy under the rule of reason. An EIS is adequate under the rule of reason when it presents decision makers with a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences. An appellate court accords substantial weight to an agency's determination of EIS adequacy. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C.090. Environmental Law > Assessment & Information Access > Environmental Impact Statements Business & Corporate Compliance > Environmental & Natural Resources > Environmental Impact Statements HN18[] Environmental & Natural Resources, Environmental Impact Statements The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C requires an environmental impact statement to include a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C.030(c)(iii). The required discussion of alternatives is of major importance, because it provides a basis for a reasoned decision among alternatives having differing environmental impacts. Environmental impact statement alternatives must include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. Wash. Admin. Code § 197-11-440(5)(b). Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > De Novo Standard of Review Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Rule Interpretation Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation HN19[] Standards of Review, De Novo Standard of Review An appellate court applies the Administrative Procedure Act's error of law standard to an agency's interpretation of a statute. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 34.05.570(3)(d). The appellate court interprets agency regulations as if they were statutes. Under the APA's error of law standard, the appellate court determines the meaning of statutes and regulations de novo but gives substantial weight to the agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation that falls within its area of expertise. Environmental Law > Assessment & Information Access > Environmental Impact Statements Business & Corporate Compliance > Environmental & Natural Resources > Environmental Impact Statements Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards Real Property Law > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments HN20[] Environmental & Natural Resources, Environmental Impact Statements A county may impose conditions on a proposed development in order to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C.060. Any mitigating conditions must be stated in writing and based on policies, plans, rules, or regulations that the county has formally designated as a basis for exercising its substantive authority. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C.060; accord Wash. Admin. Code § 197-11-660(1)(a), (b). Additionally, the decision maker shall cite the agency State Environmental Policy Act policy that is the basis of any condition. Wash. Admin. Code § 197-11-660(1)(b). Environmental Law > Assessment & Information Access > Environmental Impact Statements Business & Corporate Compliance > Environmental & Natural Resources > Environmental Impact Statements Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards Real Property Law > Zoning > Planned Unit 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 116 Page 7 of 29 Developments Business & Corporate Compliance > Real Property > Zoning > Planned Unit Developments HN21[] Environmental & Natural Resources, Environmental Impact Statements See Wash. Rev. Code ch. 43.21C.060. Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Abuse of Discretion HN22[] Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion An appellate court generally reviews a denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Civil Procedure > ... > Jurisdiction on Certiorari > Considerations Governing Review > State Court Decisions HN23[] Considerations Governing Review, State Court Decisions Superior courts have the power to issue writs of certiorari. Wash. Const. art. IV § 6. An appellate court reviews a superior court's decision to grant or deny a writ of certiorari de novo. A constitutional writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but, rather, is discretionary with the court. A superior court properly exercises its discretion to grant a writ of certiorari when no other adequate remedy at law is available and when the decision below is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. A constitutional writ of certiorari is unavailable, however, if the reviewing court's power to grant relief from an agency order under the Administrative Procedure Act will provide complete and full relief. Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards HN24[] Local Governments, Administrative Boards Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.280(1) limits the board of county commissioner's jurisdiction to certain subject matters. On its face, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.280 does not authorize the BOCC to hear and determine petitions alleging violations of the Planning Enabling Act, Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70. Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.280(1). Civil Procedure > ... > Jurisdiction on Certiorari > Considerations Governing Review > State Court Decisions Governments > Local Governments > Administrative Boards HN25[] Considerations Governing Review, State Court Decisions See Wash. Rev. Code ch. 36.70A.280(1)(a). Headnotes/Summary Summary WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY Nature of Action: In separate actions, two interest groups (1) petitioned for a constitutional writ of certiorari and a statutory writ of review to have the court void a county ordinance that amended the county's comprehensive plan to permit the development of a master planned resort and (2) sought judicial review of a growth management hearings board's decision that the ordinance complies with the Growth Management Act, including the Planning Enabling Act to the extent of satisfying the public participation program provisions of the Growth Management Act, and with the State Environmental Policy Act. Superior Court: In the writ proceeding, the Clallam County Superior Court, No. 08-2-00127-2, George L. Wood, J., on March 9, 2009, denied the plaintiffs' motion to stay the proceedings and dismissed the action with prejudice. In the proceeding for judicial review of the growth management hearings board's decision, the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 08-2-02605-9, Richard D. Hicks, J., on June 30, 2009, entered a judgment affirming the board's decision. The two cases were consolidated for review. Court of Appeals: Holding that the ordinance was enacted consistently with public participation requirements and that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law that precluded review by writ of certiorari, the court affirms the dismissal order in the writ proceeding and affirms the judgment in the action for 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 117 Page 8 of 29 judicial review of the growth management hearings board's decision. Headnotes WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES WA[1][] [1] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Planning Policies > Discretion > Limitation. While the Growth Management Act (ch. 36.70A RCW) provides counties with broad discretion to develop comprehensive plans, a county's discretion is bounded by the goals and requirements of the act. WA[2][] [2] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Administrative Review > Growth Management Hearings Board > Local Compliance With Act > Clearly Erroneous Test > In General. In consequence of the presumption created by RCW 36.70A.320(1) that a county's growth management comprehensive plan is valid upon adoption, a growth management hearings board adjudicating a dispute over a county's compliance with the Growth Management Act (ch. 36.70A RCW) must find compliance unless the party challenging the plan demonstrates that the county's action was clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act. A county's action is “clearly erroneous” if the board has a firm and definite conviction that the county has made a mistake. WA[3][] [3] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Administrative Review > Growth Management Hearings Board > Judicial Review > Governing Law. The Administrative Procedure Act (ch. 34.05 RCW) governs judicial review of an action by a growth management hearings board. WA[4][] [4] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Hearings Board Decision > Judicial Review > Burden of Proof. Under RCW 34.05.570(1)(a), a party petitioning for judicial review of a decision of a growth management hearings board has the burden of proving the invalidity of the board's actions. WA[5][] [5] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Hearings Board Decision > Judicial Review > Appellate Review > Board Record. An appellate court reviewing a decision of a growth management hearings board sits in the same position as the superior court and applies the review standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (chapter 34.05 RCW) directly to the administrative record. WA[6][] [6] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Hearings Board Decision > Judicial Review > Deference > County Planning Decisions. A court reviewing a decision of a growth management hearings board concerning a local planning jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Act (ch. 36.70A RCW) will defer to the local jurisdiction's planning action unless the action is clearly erroneous. WA[7][] [7] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Hearings Board Decision > Judicial Review > Conclusions of Law > Standard of Review. A growth management hearings board's conclusions of law are reviewed by a court de novo, with substantial weight given to the board's interpretation of the statutes it administers. WA[8][] [8] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Hearings Board Decision > Judicial Review > Findings of Fact > Standard of Review. 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 118 Page 9 of 29 A growth management hearings board's findings of fact are reviewed by a court for substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence” is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the correctness of the board's order. WA[9][] [9] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Inexact Compliance > Effect. Under RCW 36.70A.140, a county's inexact compliance with its established public participation program and procedures in amending its comprehensive plan does not render the amendment invalid “if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed.” WA[10][] [10] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Expiration of Comment Period > Further Consideration by Local Legislative Body > Additional Public Comment > Necessity. Under RCW 36.70A.035, additional public comment is not always required when a county's legislative body elects to consider a proposed comprehensive plan amendment after the time for comment on the proposed amendment has passed. WA[11][] [11] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Expiration of Comment Period > Further Consideration by Local Legislative Body > Additional Public Comment > Reliance on Draft Environmental Impact Statement > Sufficiency. Under RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i), no further opportunity for public review and comment is required before a county's legislative body may make a change or alteration to a proposed comprehensive plan amendment after the public comment period on the proposed amendment has passed if the change or alteration is addressed by a related draft environmental impact statement on which the public had an opportunity to comment. WA[12][] [12] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Hearings Board Decision > Judicial Review > Statutory Construction > Standard of Review. In the context of reviewing a decision of a growth management hearings board, a court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. WA[13][] [13] Statutes > Construction > Legislative Intent > Statutory Language > Plain Meaning > In General. A court's primary goal when interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. If the meaning of the statute is plain on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent. WA[14][] [14] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Planning Enabling Act > Relationship. The Planning Enabling Act of the State of Washington (ch. 36.70 RCW) and the Growth Management Act (ch. 36.70A RCW) are related statutes that should be read together to achieve a harmonious total statutory scheme. WA[15][] [15] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Expiration of Comment Period > Further Consideration by Local Legislative Body > Additional Public Comment > Reliance on Draft Environmental Impact Statement > Planning Enabling Act > Effect. The provision of RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) that an additional opportunity for public comment is not required when a county's legislative body proposes a change or alteration to a recommended comprehensive plan amendment if the public had the opportunity to consider the proposed change or alteration in the preparation of an environmental impact statement applies to a county's planning process as a whole, even if the county incorporates procedures from the Planning Enabling Act 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 119 Page 10 of 29 of the State of Washington (ch. 36.70 RCW) into its planning process. WA[16][] [16] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Expiration of Comment Period > Further Consideration by Local Legislative Body > Change or Alteration of Proposed Amendment > Change or Alteration Addressed in Environmental Impact Statement > Redrafting by Planning Commission > Necessity. A county's legislative body that proposes to change or alter a growth management comprehensive plan amendment recommended by the county planning commission is not required by the Planning Enabling Act of the State of Washington (ch. 36.70 RCW) to refer the change or alteration to the commission for further public comment and redrafting before the revised plan amendment may be adopted if the change or alteration to the plan does not differ in substance from language in a related draft environmental impact statement on which the public had an opportunity to comment. RCW 36.70.400 does not require the county planning commission to recommend any specific amendatory language to the county legislative body. The statute requires only that the commission refer to “descriptive[ ] and other matters intended by the [legislative body] to constitute the … amendment”; i.e., the commission's job is to adequately describe the effects of the amendment, not to draft its specific language. WA[17][] [17] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Expiration of Comment Period > Further Consideration by Local Legislative Body > Change or Alteration of Proposed Amendment > Change or Alteration Addressed in Environmental Impact Statement > Referral for Further Public Comment > Necessity. When a county's legislative body proposes to change or alter a growth management comprehensive plan amendment recommended by the county planning commission, RCW 36.70.430 does not require the legislative body to refer the proposed change or alteration to the planning commission for further public comment and redrafting before the revised plan amendment may be adopted if the public already has had a full opportunity to comment on the proposed change or alteration, such as when the change or alteration appears in a related draft environmental impact statement, which RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) recognizes as an exception to any requirement of further public review and comment. WA[18][] [18] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Map Amendment > Expiration of Comment Period > Further Public Comment > Necessity. A county's legislative body does not violate the county's public participation program as required for growth management planning under RCW 36.70A.140 by changing or altering a growth management plan map recommended by the county planning commission without referring the change or alteration for further public comment if the public had the opportunity to comment on the change or alteration in the context of commenting on a related draft environmental impact statement, the change or alteration is a corrective measure, the change or alteration involves the omission of land use designations that may be added at a later phase of the planning process, or the change or alteration incorporates identical or only slightly altered versions of conditions proposed by the planning commission. WA[19][] [19] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Public Participation Requirement > Plan Amendment > Additional Conditions > Referral for Further Public Comment > Necessity. A county's legislative body, in the course of adopting a growth management comprehensive plan amendment recommended by the county's planning commission, does not violate the county's public participation program as required for growth management planning under RCW 36.70A.140 by adding several conditions in addition to those proposed by the planning commission if the purpose of the additional conditions is to guide future development and the additional conditions are related to fostering the goals of the Growth Management Act (ch. 36.70A RCW) or to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts as identified in a related draft environmental impact statement. 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 120 Page 11 of 29 WA[20][] [20] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Comprehensive Plan > Plan Map > Revision > Recommendation > Required Signatures > Delay > Effect. A county planning commission's delay in providing the signatures of its chairperson and secretary on a comprehensive plan map containing revisions recommended to the county's legislative body for its consideration and approval as required by RCW 36.70.400 does not render the legislative body's approval of the plan void if the record shows that the delay in providing the signatures did not prevent the legislative body from understanding the planning commission's recommendation. WA[21][] [21] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Comprehensive Plan > Plan Map > Revision > Notice > Sufficiency > Consistency With Maps in Environmental Impact Statement. The public is provided sufficient notice of comprehensive plan map revisions recommended by a county's planning commission for approval by the county's legislative body where the recommended revisions are consistent with maps contained in a related draft environmental impact statement that was provided to the public for comment. WA[22][] [22] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Comprehensive Plan > Plan Map > Revision > Internal Consistency Requirement > Inconsistency With Subarea Map > Effect. A revised comprehensive plan map recommended by a county's planning commission for approval by the county's legislative body does not violate the internal consistency requirement of RCW 36.70A.070 by the fact that it affects a subarea without also amending the subarea planning map if the subarea plan states that its associated planning maps are provided only for discussion purposes and do not constitute land use designation proposals and the subarea planning maps remain subject to revision in later phases of the planning process. WA[23][] [23] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Comprehensive Plan > Development > Commercial Building Intensities > Limitation > Specification > Necessity. RCW 36.70A.070(1) requires growth management comprehensive plans to include “[a] land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land … that shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth” but does not require the comprehensive plan to specifically limit commercial building intensities. Commercial building intensities may be defined in a subsequent development phase. WA[24][] [24] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Administrative Review > Growth Management Hearings Board > Jurisdiction > Compliance With SEPA. Under RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a), a growth management hearings board has jurisdiction over petitions claiming that a county's growth management comprehensive plan actions are not compliant with the State Environmental Policy Act (ch. 43.21C RCW). WA[25][] [25] Environment > SEPA > Impact Statement > Adequacy > Judicial Review > Standard of Review. The “adequacy” of an environmental impact statement— i.e., the legal sufficiency of the environmental data in the statement—is reviewed by a court de novo. WA[26][] [26] Environment > SEPA > Impact Statement > Adequacy > Determination > Rule of Reason > Test. The adequacy of an environmental impact statement is judged by the rule of reason. Under the rule of reason, an environmental impact statement is adequate if it provides a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 121 Page 12 of 29 consequences. WA[27][] [27] Environment > SEPA > Impact Statement > Adequacy > Judicial Review > Administrative Determination > Substantial Weight. Under RCW 43.21C.090, a government agency's determination of the adequacy of an environmental impact statement is accorded substantial weight by a reviewing court. WA[28][] [28] Environment > SEPA > Impact Statement > Adequacy > Alternatives > Greater and Fewer Impacts. For purposes of RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii) and WAC 197- 11-440(5)(b), which require that an environmental impact statement include a detailed statement regarding the alternatives to the proposed action, and WAC 197- 11-786, which defines a “reasonable alternative” as an action that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation, a valid alternative can be one that presents greater impacts in some areas and fewer impacts in others. WA[29][] [29] Environment > SEPA > Impact Statement > Adequacy > Alternatives > Sufficiency of Analysis > Test > State Law. An environmental impact statement satisfies the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii) and WAC 197- 11-440(5)(b) of including a detailed statement regarding the alternatives to the proposed action if the statement presents sufficient information for a reasoned decision among alternatives having differing environmental impacts. WA[30][] [30] Administrative Law > Rules > Construction > Rules of Statutory Construction. A court interprets agency rules in the same manner as it interprets statutes. WA[31][] [31] Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Question of Law > Meaning of Rules > Deference to Agency > In General. An administrative adjudicator's interpretation of an agency rule is reviewed by a court under the error of law standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Under the error of law standard, the court determines the meaning of the rule de novo but gives substantial weight to the adjudicator's interpretation of the rule if the rule falls within the adjudicator's area of expertise. WA[32][] [32] Environment > SEPA > Impact Statement > Content > Mitigation Measures > Citation to Environmental Policy > Single Citation > Sufficiency. A single citation to a policy may satisfy the requirement of WAC 197-11-660(1) that the basis for a mitigation condition delineated in an environmental impact statement be supported by citation to an environmental protection policy. Nothing in RCW 43.21C.060, which authorizes mitigation conditions, or WAC 197-11-660(1), which establishes the citation requirement, requires a government agency to separately cite an environmental policy for each mitigation condition specified in an environmental impact statement. A single citation to an environmental policy in support of several mitigation conditions may be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the rule. WA[33][] [33] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Administrative Review > Growth Management Hearings Board > Reconsideration > Review > Standard of Review. A growth management hearings board's denial of a motion to reconsider a previously issued decision is reviewed by a court for abuse of discretion. WA[34][] [34] Certiorari > Constitutional Review > Review > Appellate 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 122 Page 13 of 29 Review > Scope > In General. A superior court's decision to grant or deny a constitutional writ of certiorari is reviewed de novo by an appellate court. WA[35][] [35] Certiorari > Constitutional Review > Actions Subject to Review > Discretion of Court. A constitutional writ of certiorari is discretionary with the superior court and is not granted as a matter of right. WA[36][] [36] Certiorari > Constitutional Review > Actions Subject to Review > Test. A constitutional writ of certiorari for review of an agency's action is not appropriate unless no other adequate remedy at law is available to the petitioner and the action is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. WA[37][] [37] Certiorari > Constitutional Review > Actions Subject to Review > Availability of Legal Remedy > Judicial Review Under APA. A constitutional writ of certiorari for review of an agency's action is unavailable to a petitioner if an action for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (ch. 34.05 RCW) would provide the petitioner with complete and full relief. WA[38][] [38] Counties > Land Use Controls > Growth Management Act > Administrative Review > Growth Management Hearings Board > Jurisdiction > Compliance With Planning Enabling Act > Requirement of Comprehensive Plan > Effect. Even though the growth management hearings boards do not have direct statutory authority to determine whether a comprehensive plan is consistent with the Planning Enabling Act of the State of Washington (ch. 36.70 RCW), a growth management hearings board may adjudicate a claim that a county violated the Planning Enabling Act in the course of amending its comprehensive plan if the county's comprehensive plan specifically requires the county to comply with the act's procedures when making comprehensive plan amendments. Where a county's comprehensive plan requires the county to comply with the procedures of the Planning Enabling Act when amending its comprehensive plan, the board may address arguments that the county failed to comply with the act as part of its broader review function under the Growth Management Act (ch. 36.70A RCW), including review of whether the county has complied with the Growth Management Act's public participation requirements. Counsel: Gerald B. Steel, for appellants. Juelie B. Dalzell, Prosecuting Attorney, and David W. Alvarez, Deputy; John T. Cooke and Alexander W. Mackie (of Perkins Coie LLP); and Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, and Christa L. Thompson, Senior Counsel, for respondents. Judges: AUTHOR: Joel Penoyar, C.J. We concur: David H. Armstrong, J., Marywave Van Deren, J. Opinion by: Joel Penoyar Opinion [*454] [**793] ¶1 PENOYAR, C.J. — In January 2008, Jefferson County (County) enacted an ordinance that amended its comprehensive plan to permit the development of a master planned resort (MPR) near Brinnon, Washington. Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition 1 challenged the ordinance by filing (1) a petition for review with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) and (2) a complaint for a constitutional and statutory writ in Clallam County Superior Court. The Board concluded that the County's ordinance had complied with provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW; the Planning Enabling Act of the State of Washington (PEA), chapter 36.70 RCW; [***2] and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW. Thurston County Superior Court affirmed the Board's order. Clallam County Superior Court dismissed the complaint for a constitutional and 1 We refer to both appellants as “Brinnon Group.” 159 Wn. App. 446, *446; 245 P.3d 789, **789; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***1 Appendix 123 Page 14 of 29 statutory writ after concluding that judicial review of the Board's decision offered Brinnon Group an adequate remedy to address its contentions that the County had violated the PEA. In this consolidated appeal, Brinnon Group appeals Thurston County Superior Court's affirmance of the Board's order and Clallam County Superior [*455] Court's dismissal of its complaint. We affirm the judgments of both superior courts. FACTS I. BACKGROUND ¶2 HN1[] The GMA limits urban growth to designated urban growth areas. See RCW 36.70A.110(1). 2 Participating counties, however, [**794] may allow an exception to this rule by authorizing an MPR. RCW 36.70A.360(1). An MPR is “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.” RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a “conceptual” MPR location. Administrative Record (AR) at 197. Brinnon is an unincorporated village near Highway 101 about 35 miles south of Port Townsend. The County apparently incorporated the subarea plan into its comprehensive plan. ¶4 The acreage that the County identified in the Brinnon Subarea Plan covered much of Black Point, an area of land that extends into Hood Canal immediately south of Pleasant Harbor. The acreage included multiple properties and owners. In the County's view, Black Point's existing “recreational and visitor support activities,” including two marinas, a recreational vehicle park, and other service-oriented businesses, made the area appropriate for an MPR. AR at 900. ¶5 The County's comprehensive plan and the county code include [***4] specific policies to guide MPR development. [*456] See RCW 36.70A.360(4)(a) (requiring that counties adopt such policies before 2 The [***3] legislature has repeatedly amended the GMA, the PEA, and SEPA since Brinnon Group filed its petition for review and complaint in early 2008. See, e.g., LAWS OF 2010, ch. 211; LAWS OF 2010, ch. 8; LAWS OF 2009, ch. 549. Because these amendments do not impact the present analysis, we cite to the current versions of these statutes. authorizing MPRs). Proposed MPR site owners must seek to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map “prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review.” AR at 371; see also JEFFERSON COUNTY CODE (JCC) 18.15.126(3). Additionally, the amendment process should evaluate the proposal's probable significant adverse impacts “even if the proposal is to be developed in phases.” AR at 371. ¶6 Significantly, for purposes of this appeal, the County's comprehensive plan also states that a comprehensive plan amendment must conform to the GMA's and the PEA's requirements. The County must process site-specific comprehensive plan amendments “pursuant to the procedures contained within [the PEA] and the Jefferson County development regulations.” AR at 378. II. STATESMAN'S APPLICATION ¶7 In March 2006, the Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. applied for a site-specific comprehensive plan amendment in order to develop an MPR on approximately 251 acres in the conceptual MPR area. Statesman's application included language for a proposed comprehensive plan [***5] amendment and detailed maps of specific portions of the proposed MPR. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS ¶8 On September 5, 2007, the County issued a draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) for the MPR project. The draft EIS identified two components to Statesman's proposed MPR: (1) a 220+-acre golf course and resort east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road and (2) a 37+-acre marina and a maritime village east of Highway 101 and north of Black Point Road. Under the proposal, Statesman would redevelop the northern portion of the existing marina into a “Maritime Village” with stores, restaurants, and a pedestrian promenade and would retain and refurbish the existing marina. AR at 1724. The draft [*457] EIS reduced the number of residential units from 1,270, the number in Statesman's application, to 890 units. ¶9 The draft EIS acknowledged that Statesman's proposed MPR fit within the subarea plan's conceptual MPR boundary. The draft EIS noted that the proposed MPR consisted of property that Statesman owned in addition to 15.2 acres of leased tidelands owned by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). ¶10 Unlike Statesman's site-specific application, the draft EIS did not include a proposed [***6] text 159 Wn. App. 446, *454; 245 P.3d 789, **793; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***2 Appendix 124 Page 15 of 29 amendment to the County's comprehensive plan. Instead, the draft EIS included a section entitled “Summary of the [**795] Proposal and Permitting Limitations,” which stated in relevant part: The drawings shown are conceptual, but any development must substantially reflect the orientation, layout, and composition of the proposal. Mandatory elements of any application shall include: • Total acres • Golf side—220± acres • Marina side—37± acres upland and 15.2± acres tidelands • Total units 890 project limits • Golf side—739 units • 52 staff apartments • Not more than 68 units (10% of resort properties) as permanent residences, plus any units transferred from the marina side • Not more than 40% of resort units for long-term tourist use (seasonal stays not to exceed six months) • At least 50% of resort units in short-term tourist pool • Marine [sic] side—no more than 151 units • Not more than 16 (10%) permanent residences (may be shifted to golf course side, but total permanent residences shall not exceed 84 units) • Not more than 30% seasonal tourist, not to exceed six months [*458] • At least 60% in short-term tourist pool • Impervious surface • Golf side—20% • Marina side—40% AR at 1728. ¶11 The draft EIS also included [***7] three alternatives to Statesman's proposal in order to comply with SEPA. See RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii). The “no action” alternative would permit Black Point to develop under current zoning regulations while the other two alternatives—the “Brinnon Subarea Plan” alternative and the hybrid alternative—would permit the MPR to develop on the full 310 acres that the subarea plan identified. Properties outside the areas of Statesman's proposal would develop at urban resort densities under the Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative and at rural residential densities under the hybrid alternative. ¶12 The County published a “Notice of Intent to Amend Comprehensive Plan” and ultimately received 413 written comments. AR at 1363. Of those individuals expressing an opinion, 127 favored the MPR and 112 opposed it. Brinnon Group submitted written comments in opposition, requesting that the County authorize fewer than 890 residential units, reduce the golf course from 18 to 9 holes, and preserve 50 percent (instead of 35 percent) of the land's natural space. Brinnon Group's comments addressed numerous other issues such as landscaping, tree removal, protecting water sources, and traffic. ¶13 On November 21, the County published [***8] a notice in the local newspaper that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) would hold a public hearing on December 3 to consider the MPR comprehensive plan amendment. The notice informed the public to contact the Community Development Department “[f]or further information.” AR at 1555. ¶14 On November 27, the County issued the final environmental impact statement (final EIS). The final EIS [*459] included the County's responses to the written public comments. B. AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ¶15 On November 28, a majority of the Planning Commission (the Commission) voted to recommend to the BOCC that it approve the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The Commission's chairman signed the majority recommendation. The Commission's recommendation included seven conditions and a map that explicitly referenced these seven conditions in a descriptive box. The Commission's map divided the proposed MPR into four categories (marina, open space, resort district, and tourist commercial). The Commission's chairman and secretary did not sign the Commission's recommended map until January 8, 2008. ¶16 After a public hearing before the BOCC, county staff informed the BOCC in a PowerPoint presentation that MPR development [***9] would occur in five phases. In phase [**796] one, the County would amend the comprehensive plan and create environmental impact statements (EISs). In phase two, the County would adopt relevant zoning regulations and development agreements, including land use and density requirements. In phase three, the County would process development permit applications. In phase four, the County would record plats and allow infrastructure construction. In phase five, the County would issue building permits. 159 Wn. App. 446, *457; 245 P.3d 789, **794; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***6 Appendix 125 Page 16 of 29 ¶17 On January 28, 2008, the BOCC enacted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. For purposes of this appeal, the ordinance amended the County's comprehensive plan in three significant ways. First, section one of the ordinance amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations map to reflect an underlying land use designation of MPR for parcels included in the Statesman proposal. Second, section two of the ordinance added the following text to the comprehensive plan: Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new Master Planned [*460] Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include [***10] additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units. AR at 1638. Third, section five of the ordinance incorporated the MPR boundary map that the BOCC attached to the approved ordinance into the comprehensive plan. ¶18 Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 also placed 30 conditions on the MPR development in finding 63. These conditions included identical or slightly altered versions of the 7 conditions that the Commission included in its November 28 majority recommendation. 3 The BOCC stated that it adopted these conditions pursuant to SEPA and its general police powers. III. BRINNON GROUP'S CHALLENGES TO THE ORDINANCE ¶19 Brinnon Group challenged the ordinance in two forums. On February [***11] 19, Brinnon Group filed a complaint for constitutional writ of certiorari and statutory writ of review in Clallam County Superior Court, asking the court to void the ordinance. The complaint, which named Statesman and the County as defendants, alleged that the County had failed to comply with the GMA's and PEA's requirements. Brinnon Group sought a constitutional writ of certiorari because it had “no other adequate remedy at law” to review the 3 Specifically, condition 1 is found in finding 63a, condition 2 is in finding 63c, condition 3 is in findings 63e and f, condition 4 is in finding 63h, condition 5 is in finding 63j, condition 6 is in finding 63s, and condition 7 is part of findings 63n-r. County's compliance with the PEA. Clallam Clerk's Papers (CCP) at 315. The complaint stated that Brinnon Group planned to exhaust its administrative remedies by filing a petition for review with the Board in order to address the County's alleged GMA and SEPA violations. [*461] ¶20 On March 19, Brinnon Group filed a petition for review with the Board, alleging that the County had failed to comply with the GMA and SEPA. The Board subsequently permitted Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, the purchaser of the affected property, and Pleasant Harbor Marina LLC, the purchaser of the affected marina, to intervene in proceedings. In its opening brief, Brinnon Group argued that the County's noncompliance with specific PEA provisions violated the County's [***12] public participation program under the GMA because, as noted above, the County's comprehensive plan explicitly states that the County must comply with the PEA when amending its comprehensive plan. A. THE BOARD'S DECISION ON THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ¶21 On September 15, the Board entered an order that the County had complied with the GMA when it enacted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. The Board also concluded that the County had complied with SEPA. With regard [**797] to Brinnon Group's challenge involving the PEA, the Board noted: Compliance with the [PEA] is a matter outside the Board's jurisdiction . … However, [Brinnon Group] point[s] to a provision of the County Comprehensive Plan which provides that the process for adopting site specific amendments to the Plan shall incorporate “the procedures contained within Chapter 36.70 RCW and the Jefferson County development regulations.” … While the Board does not have jurisdiction over Chapter 36.70 RCW, the [PEA], where the County has imposed the requirements of the [PEA] upon itself as part of its process for adopting site specific plan amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140, the Board has jurisdiction to review whether the County has complied with [***13] these provisions as a means of satisfying the GMA's public participation program provisions. AR at 2613 (footnote omitted). The Board rejected Brinnon Group's interpretation of the PEA provisions at issue. The Board subsequently denied Brinnon Group's motion for reconsideration. We detail the Board's 159 Wn. App. 446, *459; 245 P.3d 789, **796; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***9 Appendix 126 Page 17 of 29 conclusions and [*462] analysis for each challenged issue in the relevant sections below. ¶22 On November 10, Brinnon Group appealed the Board's final decision and order, and the Board's denial of its motion for reconsideration, to Thurston County Superior Court. Brinnon Group subsequently amended its appeal to include its SEPA challenge. On June 30, 2009, the Thurston County Superior Court affirmed the Board's order. B. COMPLAINT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY WRIT BEFORE CLALLAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ¶23 Meanwhile, on August 12, 2008, before the Board had issued its final decision and order, Statesman moved to dismiss Brinnon Group's complaint in Clallam County Superior Court. Statesman argued that Brinnon Group's complaint was not properly before the court because Brinnon Group's petition before the Board offered it an adequate remedy at law. ¶24 On September 22, after the Board had issued its final decision [***14] and order, Brinnon Group moved to stay the Clallam County proceedings until judicial review of the Board's final decision and order had been completed. Brinnon Group also responded to Statesman's motion to dismiss, arguing that it did not have any other adequate remedy at law because “[it] seeks to void challenged Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 from the beginning (void ab initio).” CCP at 115. Brinnon Group asserted that “[n]o other legal process is available to provide the relief of voiding the Ordinance from the beginning.” CCP at 115. ¶25 On March 9, 2009, while Brinnon Group's appeal to Thurston County Superior Court was still pending, the Clallam County Superior Court denied Brinnon Group's motion to stay the proceedings and dismissed its complaint with prejudice. In a memorandum opinion, the trial court stated: The critical inquiry in the present case is whether appeal of the [Board's] decision to the Thurston County Superior Court [*463] provides [Brinnon Group] with an “adequate remedy[.”] While the requested reliefs may not be identical, i.e. invalidity versus void, the substantive relief available to [Brinnon Group] on appeal of the [Board's] decision is essentially the same as that available [***15] through the writ process. . … Therefore, it is the Court's finding that [Brinnon Group has] an adequate remedy through appeal of the [Board's] Final Order and Decision. CCP at 15, 17. ¶26 In this consolidated appeal, Brinnon Group appeals (1) Thurston County Superior Court's order affirming the Board's final decision and order and the Board's order denying its motion for reconsideration and (2) Clallam County Superior Court's dismissal of its complaint with prejudice. 4 [**798] ANALYSIS I. JUDICIAL REVIEW, DEFERENCE, AND BURDEN OF PROOF IN GMA CASES WA[1][] [1] ¶27 HN2[] The GMA provides counties with broad discretion to develop comprehensive plans. King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 561, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). A county's discretion, however, “is bounded … by the goals and requirements of the GMA.” King County, 142 Wn.2d at 561. The GMA's goals include limiting urban growth to urban areas, reducing sprawl, [*464] encouraging economic development, retaining open space, enhancing recreational opportunities, conserving habitat and protecting the environment, developing recreational facilities, and encouraging citizen involvement in the planning process. RCW 36.70A.020(1)-(2), (5), (9)-(11). ¶28 The Board adjudicates GMA compliance and may invalidate noncompliant comprehensive plans and development regulations. Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488, 497, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) (citing RCW 36.70A.280, .302). [***17] The Board may also find that a county is not in 4 Brinnon Group assigns 45 errors to the proceedings below and lists 12 “Major Issues Before This Court.” Appellants' Br. at 15. One alleged error challenges 13 of the Board's findings of fact; another challenges 10 of the Board's conclusions of law. The 45 alleged errors, including those challenging the Board's findings and conclusions, run the gamut from minor typographical errors to alleged legal errors which, if sustained, would support Brinnon Group's argument that the Board erred by failing to enter a finding of noncompliance or a determination of invalidity. Rather than providing a “separate concise statement” of each alleged error, as RAP 10.3(a)(4) counsels, Brinnon Group discusses many of its assigned errors in [***16] lengthy footnotes that internally cross- reference other sections and footnotes. We address Brinnon Group's “major issues,” leaving aside discussion of alleged errors which, if sustained, would not affect the case's outcome. 159 Wn. App. 446, *461; 245 P.3d 789, **797; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***13 Appendix 127 Page 18 of 29 compliance with the GMA's requirements and remand to enable the county to comply with the GMA's requirements. RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b). WA[2][] [2] ¶29 The Board presumes that a county's comprehensive plan is valid upon adoption. RCW 36.70A.320(1). Consequently, the Board must find that a county complied with the GMA unless the party challenging the plan demonstrates that the county's action was “ ‘clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the [GMA's] goals and requirements.’ ” Lewis County, 157 Wn.2d at 497 (quoting RCW 36.70A.320(3)); see also RCW 36.70A.320(2) (stating that a challenger has burden to demonstrate that a county's action is not GMA- compliant). A county's action is “clearly erroneous” if the Board has a firm and definite conviction that the county made a mistake. Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 340-41, 190 P.3d 38 (2008). WA[3-6][] [3-6] ¶30 HN3[] The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, governs judicial review of a growth board's actions. Thurston County, 164 Wn.2d at 341; see also RCW 36.70A.300(5). Under the APA, “[t]he party appealing a board's decision has the burden of demonstrating [***18] the invalidity of the board's actions.” Thurston County, 164 Wn.2d at 341; see also RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). In reviewing the Board's actions, “ ‘we sit in the same position as the trial court and apply the APA standards directly to the administrative record.’ ” Suquamish Tribe v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 156 Wn. App. 743, 760, 235 P.3d 812 [*465] (2010) (quoting Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 112 Wn. App. 291, 296, 49 P.3d 135 (2002)), review denied, 170 Wn.2d 1019 (2011). Thus, like the Board, we defer to the county's planning action unless the action is “clearly erroneous.” See Quadrant Corp. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 154 Wn.2d 224, 238, 110 P.3d 1132 (2005); RCW 36.70A.320(3); see also RCW 36.70A.3201. ¶31 Under the APA, we grant relief from the Board's order after an adjudicative proceeding if we determine, in relevant part, that: HN4[] (b) The order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency conferred by any provision of law; . … (d) The agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; [or] (e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of [**799] the whole record before [***19] the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter. RCW 34.05.570(3). WA[7,8][] [7, 8] ¶32 HN5[] We review the Board's “legal conclusions de novo, giving substantial weight to its interpretation of the statutes it administers” and the Board's “findings of facts for substantial evidence.” Manke Lumber Co. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wn. App. 615, 622, 53 P.3d 1011 (2002). “Substantial evidence” is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the correctness of the Board's order. Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n, 148 Wn.2d 1, 8, 57 P.3d 1156 (2002). II. JEFFERSON COUNTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM ¶33 Brinnon Group first argues that the Board erred when it determined that the County complied with the public participation requirements of the GMA and the [*466] county code. See RCW 36.70A.140; JCC 18.45.010(2). As part of its GMA claim, Brinnon Group argues that the County violated two PEA provisions. See RCW 36.70.400, .430. These arguments fail. WA[9][] [9] ¶34 HN6[] A county planning under the GMA must establish a “public participation program identifying procedures providing [***20] for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans.” RCW 36.70A.140; accord RCW 36.70A.070 (“A comprehensive plan shall be … amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36.70A.140.”). A county's procedures must provide for broad dissemination of proposals, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. RCW 36.70A.140; accord JCC 18.45.010(2). A county's inexact compliance with its established public participation program and procedures, however, does not invalidate a comprehensive plan “if the spirit of the 159 Wn. App. 446, *464; 245 P.3d 789, **798; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***16 Appendix 128 Page 19 of 29 program and procedures is observed.” 5 RCW 36.70A.140. WA[10][] [10] ¶35 In a nutshell, Brinnon Group argues that the ordinance included significant “changes” from the Commission's recommendation and, therefore, [***21] the public should have been given the opportunity to comment on these “changes.” Importantly, however, the GMA does not always require additional public comment when a county's legislative body elects to consider a comprehensive plan amendment after the time for comment has passed: HN7[] (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, if the legislative body for a county or city chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan or development regulation, and the change is proposed after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the county's [*467] or city's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the local legislative body votes on the proposed change. (b) An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required under (a) of this subsection if: (i) An environmental impact statement has been prepared under chapter 43.21C RCW for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the environmental impact statement. RCW 36.70A.035 (emphasis added). WA[11][] [11] ¶36 As we discuss in detail below, we agree with Statesman that the substance of many [***22] of the BOCC's minor alterations to the Commission's recommendation appeared in the draft EIS. Thus, under RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i), we agree that no further opportunity for public comment was required for these alterations. We also conclude that Brinnon Group's remaining claims that the [**800] County violated its public participation program lack merit. 5 Brinnon Group, citing language from a service of process case, asks us to interpret compliance with “the spirit of the program and procedures” as meaning “substantial compliance.” Appellants' Br. at 38 (citing Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wn.2d 726, 903 P.2d 455 (1995)). We decline to do so. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT ¶37 Brinnon Group contends that the BOCC violated public participation requirements when it adopted the text amendment to the comprehensive plan. Brinnon Group relies primarily on two PEA provisions, RCW 36.70.400 and RCW 36.70.430, to argue that the BOCC cannot adopt a text amendment without first providing the exact language of the text amendment to the Commission, which must then elicit comment on the language at a public hearing. 1. Standard of Review WA[12,13][] [12, 13] ¶38 In addition to the general GMA standard of review, HN8[] we also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597, 607, 174 P.3d 25 (2007). Our primary goal is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 607. “ ‘[I]f the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give effect [***23] to that plain meaning as an expression [*468] of legislative intent.’ ” Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 607 (alteration in original) (quoting Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9- 10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). 2. PEA Requirements WA[14,15][] [14, 15] ¶39 HN9[] The legislature enacted the PEA in 1959 in order “to provide the authority for, and the procedures to be followed in, guiding and regulating the physical development of a county.” RCW 36.70.010; LAWS OF 1959, ch. 201. The PEA includes procedures to assist counties in planning for development, including procedures to establish planning commissions, boards of adjustment, and comprehensive plans. See RCW 36.70.010, .030, .200, .320-.340; see also Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139, 143, 492 P.2d 547 (1972). ¶40 The legislature enacted the GMA over 30 years later, and, as we noted above, the GMA likewise addresses issues of urban development, seeking among other things to limit sprawl and conserve open space. See RCW 36.70A.020(1), (9); LAWS OF 1990, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 17. Our Supreme Court has observed, therefore, that the PEA and the GMA are “two related statutes which should be ‘… read together to determine legislative purpose to achieve a harmonious total statutory scheme.’” Whatcom County v. Brisbane, 125 Wn.2d 345, 354, 884 P.2d 1326 (1994) [***24] (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting City of Ellensburg v. State, 118 Wn.2d 709, 159 Wn. App. 446, *466; 245 P.3d 789, **799; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***20 Appendix 129 Page 20 of 29 713, 826 P.2d 1081 (1992)). ¶41 Throughout this analysis, we are mindful of our Supreme Court's observation that the GMA and the PEA must be read together rather than in isolation. Thus, although the GMA—not the PEA—includes the provision in RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) that an additional opportunity for public comment is not required where a county's legislative body proposes a change to a comprehensive plan amendment as long as the public had the opportunity to consider the proposed change in an EIS, we conclude that this provision applies to a county's planning process as a whole [*469] even when the county incorporates procedures from the PEA into its planning process. To conclude otherwise would ignore the reality that these two statutes arise from a common purpose. Such an approach would create discord, not harmony. ¶42 Turning to the specific PEA provisions at issue, Brinnon Group points out that HN10[] under the PEA, a majority of the county's planning commission must approve a comprehensive plan amendment. RCW 36.70.400; see also RCW 36.70.020(4) (defining “commission”). The commission's approval [***25] “shall be by a recorded motion … and the reasons for [the commission's] action and the motion shall refer expressly to the maps, descriptive, and other matters intended by the commission to constitute the … amendment.” RCW 36.70.400. The commission's approval “shall be recorded on the map and descriptive matter by the signatures of the chair and the secretary of the commission.” RCW 36.70.400. ¶43 The PEA also establishes that when the BOCC “considers a change in the recommendations of the planning agency to be necessary,” the BOCC may “initiate consideration” of a comprehensive plan amendment. [**801] RCW 36.70.430. When the BOCC elects to “initiate consideration” of an amendment, the BOCC “shall first refer the proposed … change … to the planning agency for a report and recommendation.” RCW 36.70.430. Before the planning commission issues its report and recommendation, the commission “shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed … change.” RCW 36.70.430; see also RCW 36.70.440 (discussing the procedures for the BOCC's approval of the Commission's recommendation). 3. Board's Conclusion WA[16,17][] [16, 17] ¶44 The Board rejected Brinnon Group's argument that the PEA prohibited the BOCC from [***26] adopting the text amendment without prior referral to the Commission. In the Board's view, RCW 36.70.430 “[did] not require the exact wording of the text amendment to be included in the [*470] Planning Commission's recommendation.” AR at 2614. Because the text amendment's language “did not differ in substance from the site specific plan amendment described in the [draft EIS] and the [final EIS] and the recommendation of the Planning Commission,” the Board determined that interested citizens had the opportunity to comment on the substance of the proposal embodied in the text amendment. AR at 2614. Accordingly, the BOCC did not violate public participation requirements by adopting the text amendment. 4. Text Amendment Analysis ¶45 A plain reading of the PEA supports the Board's interpretation. HN11[] RCW 36.70.400 does not require the Commission to recommend any specific amendatory language to the BOCC. Rather, the statute requires that the Commission refer to “descriptive[ ] and other matters intended by the commission to constitute the … amendment.” RCW 36.70.400. In other words, the Commission's job is to adequately describe the amendment's effects, not to draft its specific language. The Commission [***27] complied with RCW 36.70.400 because its recommendation to the BOCC adequately described the MPR project as follows: “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.” AR at 1550. ¶46 Brinnon Group characterizes the BOCC's adopted text amendment as a “change[ ] to the [Commission's] recommended MPR amendment.” Appellants' Br. at 39. Accordingly, in its view, RCW 36.70.430 prohibited the BOCC from adopting the text amendment without first referring this “change” to the Commission for a public hearing and the Commission's subsequent report and recommendation. ¶47 But whether the text amendment contains changes that require referral to the Commission under the language of RCW 36.70.430 does not entirely depend on the precise [*471] words that the amendment uses. HN12[] The language of RCW 36.70.430 suggests that the legislature intended to require referral to the Commission only when the BOCC's changes or additions to the comprehensive plan prevented the public from a full opportunity to comment on the County's proposed action. Moreover, as we noted 159 Wn. App. 446, *468; 245 P.3d 789, **800; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***24 Appendix 130 Page 21 of 29 above, [***28] by adopting RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i), the legislature signaled its intent to provide county legislative authorities like the BOCC with greater flexibility in adopting proposed changes to their comprehensive plans. As long as these proposed changes appeared in the draft EIS, which the public may review and comment on, no additional opportunity for public comment is required. RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i). Thus, in addressing Brinnon Group's claim, we must look not only at the Commission's recommendation and the BOCC's adopted text amendment, but also at the information that the County made available for public comment in the draft EIS. ¶48 A fair comparison of the Commission's recommendation and the BOCC's text amendment illustrates that the BOCC's text amendment added only a few specific details to the Commission's general project description. Significantly, every single one of these details, except a pronouncement that the County designated the MPR in 2008, was made available for public comment in the [**802] draft EIS. 6 Thus, 6 The following specific details appear in the BOCC's text amendment but not in the Commission's recommendation: • The County designated the MPR in 2008; • The MPR includes the Pleasant Harbor area; • “Permanent and transient housing” will include “townhouses and villas” and staff housing; • Specified facilities, including the golf course and resort, will be located in “[t]he Black Point area of the new resort”; • “Commercial space” will include a restaurant and resort center; and • A community center will be built. Compare AR at 1550, with AR at 1638. But the draft EIS contains information that is nearly identical to the information in the BOCC's text amendment: The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Gold Resort Master Plan proposal involves two components: • The Golf Course and resort located on the Black Point portion of the property south of Black Point Road. • The marina and Maritime Village adjacent to the current Pleasant Harbor Marina and north of Black Point Road. . … [*472] the public had ample opportunity to comment on the specific details that the BOCC ultimately included in the text amendment. We disagree, therefore, that the County violated public [***29] participation requirements when it adopted the text amendment. B. BOCC'S MAP AMENDMENT WA[18][] [18] ¶49 Brinnon Group also contends that the BOCC violated public participation requirements when it added to the comprehensive plan an MPR boundary map that made “substantial changes” to the Commission's recommended map. Appellants' Br. at 42. This argument fails. ¶50 Brinnon Group observes that the BOCC's adopted map differs from the Commission's map in four ways: (1) the BOCC's map includes 15.2 acres of leased DNR tidelands, unlike the Commission's map; (2) the BOCC's map does not include four small parcels, 7 each less than an acre in size, that are included in the Commission's map; (3) the BOCC's map does not include marina, open space, resort district, and tourist commercial designations, as the Commission's map does; and (4) the BOCC's map does not refer to the seven conditions, like the Commission's map does. [*473] ¶51 The Board did not specifically address this issue, but it did enter a finding, which Brinnon Group challenges on appeal, that the BOCC did not alter the The MPR for the Black Point Lands … includes: • [a] championship 18-hole golf course … • [a] 60,000 square foot resort center … • [a] [r]estaurant and [***30] lounge with outdoor lanai • [a] [c]onference center and reception … . • 462 – two-story garden townhomes • 97 – one level villas • 52-unit staff housing … . • [a] 200-seat community center AR at 1715, 1717, 1728. 7 The parcels in question are the Stevens (0.6 acres), Dowd (0.4 acres), Voetberg (0.8 acres), and DNR (0.2 acres) parcels at the MPR's northern [***31] tip. 159 Wn. App. 446, *471; 245 P.3d 789, **801; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***27 Appendix 131 Page 22 of 29 Commission's recommendation “except to add additional conditions.” AR at 2643. ¶52 We conclude that the BOCC's minor adjustments to the Commission's map complied with the County's public participation program. First, the public had the opportunity to comment on the inclusion of the DNR tidelands, which appeared in the draft EIS. Second, Statesman's application did not include the four small parcels that appeared in the Commission's map; thus, the BOCC's exclusion of these parcels was a corrective measure. Third, although the BOCC's map does not include the Commission's land use designations, the County may add these designations at a later phase. Finally, the BOCC incorporated identical or slightly altered versions of the Commission's seven conditions into the ordinance at finding 63. C. INCLUSION OF CONDITIONS WA[19][] [19] ¶53 Brinnon Group argues that the BOCC made “substantial changes” to the Commission's recommendation by adopting 30 conditions instead of the 7 conditions that the Commission recommended. Appellants' Br. at 10 n.49. Brinnon Group [***32] maintains that the public should have had an opportunity to comment on the BOCC's additional conditions. This argument lacks merit. ¶54 The Board concluded that the BOCC's additional conditions did not violate the GMA's or the county code's public participation requirements. See RCW 36.70A.140; [**803] JCC 18.45.010(2). The Board noted that the county code requires the BOCC to hold an additional public meeting after its regularly scheduled public hearing only if the BOCC determines that a change to the Commission's amendment recommendation is necessary. See JCC 18.45.080(2)(b). The Board observed that the comprehensive plan amendment was “the first step of a five step process” and concluded that the conditions did not alter the Commission's recommendation [*474] except to respond to public input about “how the project should be conditioned during subsequent phases of approval.” AR at 2616-17. ¶55 The BOCC's adoption of additional conditions to guide the MPR development was not clearly erroneous. As the Board noted, these conditions guide future development. Many conditions are directly related to fostering GMA goals like encouraging regional economic development, involving stakeholders, conserving habitat, [***33] and protecting the environment. See RCW 36.70A.020. Others are SEPA- related, and, under SEPA, the County has specific authority to impose conditions on a proposed development in order to “mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts.” RCW 43.21C.060. SEPA does not require the County to remand these conditions for public comment. See RCW 43.21C.060. D. COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO SIGN MAP AMENDMENT WA[20][] [20] ¶56 Brinnon Group next argues that the Commission violated the PEA—specifically, RCW 36.70.400—because the Commission's chair and secretary failed to sign its recommended map until January 8, over a month after the BOCC's public hearing. As we noted above, HN13[] the PEA requires that the commission's approval “shall be recorded on the map and descriptive matter by the signatures of the chair and the secretary of the commission.” RCW 36.70.400. Brinnon Group characterizes this as a “fundamental error” that prevented the BOCC from “understand[ing] the exact material that the [Commission] recommend[ed] for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan.” Appellants' Br. at 7 n.41. We disagree. ¶57 The Board rejected this argument. The Board agreed that the Commission's failure to include a signed map did not “fulfill the [***34] exact requirement of RCW 36.70.400,” but the Board concluded that “this failure is not one that ‘renders’ this comprehensive plan amendment ‘invalid’ as the County fully described and referred to the [final EIS] map of the proposal that was consistent with the one eventually adopted.” AR at 2623. [*475] ¶58 We agree with the Board that the Commission's failure to deliver a timely signed map to the BOCC did not prevent the BOCC from understanding the Commission's recommendation. The Commission's chairman signed the majority recommendation, which described the size, location, and nature of the MPR project. A county staff report delivered to the BOCC stated that the Commission recommended approval of the MPR proposal that appeared in the final EIS. The final EIS describes the project in great detail. Thus, the record does not support Brinnon Group's argument that the BOCC did not understand the Commission's recommendation. E. EFFECTIVE NOTICE WA[21][] [21] ¶59 In a related argument, Brinnon Group argues that the County did not provide the public 159 Wn. App. 446, *473; 245 P.3d 789, **802; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***31 Appendix 132 Page 23 of 29 with “effective notice” of the Commission's map because the Commission's map was not “signed and available” to the public until January 8, after the BOCC stopped accepting public [***35] comments. Appellants' Br. at 9 n.44. Brinnon Group suggests that this did not allow the public an adequate opportunity to prepare comments for the BOCC. Again, we disagree. ¶60 HN14[] The GMA's public participation requirements include “notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to … affected and interested individuals … of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans.” RCW 36.70A.035(1). The county code also mandates “public meetings after effective notice.” JCC 18.45.010(2). ¶61 In rejecting Brinnon Group's argument, the Board observed that the county code does not establish a time frame for when the Commission's recommendation [**804] must be publicly available. The Board also noted that the County's November 21 published notice informed the public that it could contact the Community Development Department for “further information.” AR at 2620. Although the Board described this notice as “less than ideal,” it concluded that “interested persons could obtain information about the [Commission's] recommendation after November 21, 2007.” [*476] AR at 2620. Finally, the Board determined that the Commission's signed map was consistent with the draft EIS maps, which the public saw and commented [***36] on. ¶62 We agree that the public had effective notice of the MPR proposal at the time of the BOCC's public hearing. Brinnon Group's argument rests on its challenge to the Board's conclusion that the Commission's recommended map was inconsistent with the draft EIS maps that the County provided to the public for comment. Although Brinnon Group exhaustively details the minor differences between these maps, these differences do not support Brinnon Group's contention that the public lacked effective notice of the overall MPR proposal. As we detailed above, the BOCC's adopted boundary map is consistent with the maps that the public viewed in the draft EIS. Thus, the public had effective notice of the proposal that the BOCC adopted. Moreover, even assuming that the ordinance “changed” the proposed amendment, the County was not required to provide an additional comment period under RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) since the information in the draft EIS clearly reflected the BOCC's changes. III. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WA[22][] [22] ¶63 Brinnon Group next argues that the BOCC created an internal inconsistency in the County's comprehensive plan because section one of the ordinance amended the existing [***37] Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map to reflect an underlying designation of “MPR” on the affected properties without contemporaneously amending the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map in the subarea plan. We disagree. ¶64 HN15[] Under the GMA, a comprehensive plan must be “an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.” RCW 36.70A.070 (emphasis added). This requirement means that differing parts of the comprehensive plan “must fit together so that no one feature precludes the achievement of any other.” [*477] WAC 365-196-500(1). 8 A comprehensive plan may include a subarea plan that is “consistent with the comprehensive plan.” RCW 36.70A.080(2). A. BOARD'S CONCLUSION ¶65 The Board rejected Brinnon Group's argument. The Board, noting that the County “intends to employ a phased process” to develop the MPR, stated that the County would modify the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map during the [***38] second phase of the development process, which includes zoning changes. The subsequent modification would make the two maps consistent. B. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS ¶66 We agree with the Board that there is no inconsistency between the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map. As the Board recognized, the County can amend the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map during the second phase. More importantly, however, the Brinnon subarea plan states, “The land use maps provided are for initial discussion purposes only and do not constitute land use designation proposals.” AR at 1529. Because the land use designations on the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map are only conceptual, they do not “preclude[ ] the achievement” of the MPR land use 8 When Jefferson County enacted the ordinance, this language appeared in a different chapter of the Washington Administrative Code. See former WAC 365-195-070(7) (1992), repealed by Wash. St. Reg. 10-03-085 (Feb. 19, 2010). 159 Wn. App. 446, *475; 245 P.3d 789, **803; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***34 Appendix 133 Page 24 of 29 designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map. See WAC 365-196-500. [**805] IV. BUILDING INTENSITIES WA[23][] [23] ¶67 Brinnon Group argues that the County violated RCW 36.70A.070(1) by failing to include the MPR's nonresidential building intensities in the comprehensive plan text amendment. RCW 36.70A.070(1) states: [*478] HN16[] Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, [***39] or design for each of the following: … [a] land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land … . The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. We reject Brinnon Group's argument. A. BOARD'S CONCLUSION ¶68 The Board concluded that the County did not violate RCW 36.70A.070(1). The Board stated that the comprehensive plan's “goals and policies” would control the MPR's development. AR at 2633. The Board also cited the County's multiphase development process and determined that the County would “define[ ] and limit[ ]” building intensities during the County's subsequent phase. AR at 2633. B. BUILDING INTENSITIES ANALYSIS ¶69 As an initial matter, we note that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map does, in fact, include land use designations and rural residential building intensities for the Black Point area. Thus, the County is not in violation of RCW 36.70A.070(1)'s plain language that requires a county's comprehensive plan to include “[a] land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the [***40] uses of land … includ[ing] building intensities.” ¶70 We are not persuaded by Brinnon Group's argument that RCW 36.70A.070(1) also requires the comprehensive plan to specifically limit commercial building intensities. Here, the comprehensive plan amendment limits the MPR's size to 256 acres and lists the MPR's commercial structures. We agree with the Board that the County may define commercial building intensities during a subsequent development phase. We also note that the County's development regulations for the MPR, including those defining commercial building intensities, must be consistent with the comprehensive [*479] plan amendment. See RCW 36.70A.040(3)(d), (4)(d). The amendment, therefore, restricts the scope of the MPR's development. Brinnon Group cites no authority to demonstrate that the County must include commercial building intensities as part of its initial comprehensive plan amendment. ¶71 Further, the comprehensive plan contains policies called LNPs that limit the MPR's building intensities. LNP 24.5 and LNP 24.6 describe the residential and nonresidential facilities allowed within the MPR. Under these policies, the MPR “shall consist of predominantly short-term visitor accommodations” [***41] but may include “some other permanent residential uses,” like staff housing and vacation properties. AR at 371. LNP 24.9 requires the MPR to 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.” AR at 372. The building intensities that the County adopts during the subsequent phase must be guided by these policies and the construction limitations that the ordinance adopted. ¶72 Essentially, Brinnon Group highlights problems that might result should the County fail, at a future date, to set commercial building intensities that are consistent with its comprehensive plan. These future theoretical problems do not demonstrate a flaw in the current ordinance, only that the development process is ongoing. V. SEPA ¶73 Brinnon Group further argues that the County violated SEPA by (1) issuing an inadequate final EIS that failed to include reasonable alternatives to Statesman's proposal and (2) failing to cite a specific policy for each of the 30 conditions that the County included in the ordinance. Brinnon Group asks us to vacate the comprehensive plan amendment on these grounds. We agree [***42] [**806] with the Board that the County complied with SEPA. [*480] A. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES IN THE EIS ¶74 Brinnon Group contends that the County's final EIS is inadequate as a matter of law because the alternatives considered in the final EIS do not attain the proposal's objectives at a lower environmental cost than the proposal. Brinnon Group argues that “[b]ecause 159 Wn. App. 446, *477; 245 P.3d 789, **804; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***38 Appendix 134 Page 25 of 29 both alternatives allow the Statesman Proposal inside the project boundaries and then allow increased development outside the project boundaries, neither alternative can be ‘at lower environmental cost.’” Appellants' Br. at 49. We disagree. 1. Standard of Review WA[24-27][] [24-27] ¶75 HN17[] The Board has jurisdiction over petitions claiming that a county's comprehensive plan actions are not SEPA-compliant. RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a). We review an EIS's “adequacy”—i.e., the legal sufficiency of the environmental data in the EIS—de novo. King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wn.2d 161, 183, 979 P.2d 374 (1999); Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d 619, 633, 860 P.2d 390, 866 P.2d 1256 (1993). We assess the EIS's adequacy under “the rule of reason.” Citizens Alliance to Protect Our Wetlands v. City of Auburn, 126 Wn.2d 356, 361, 894 P.2d 1300 (1995). [***43] An EIS is adequate under the rule of reason when it presents decision makers with a “ ‘reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.’ ” Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wn.2d 275, 311, 197 P.3d 1153 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste, 122 Wn.2d at 633). We accord substantial weight to an agency's determination of EIS adequacy. See RCW 43.21C.090; 9 accord King County, 138 Wn.2d at 183. [*481] 2. EIS's Alternatives ¶76 HN18[] SEPA requires an EIS to include a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii). The required discussion of alternatives “is of major importance, because it provides a basis for a reasoned decision among alternatives having [***44] differing environmental impacts.” Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 38, 873 P.2d 498 (1994). EIS alternatives must 9 Washington courts have not explored the interplay between the rule of reason and RCW 43.21C.090's principle of agency deference. See RICHARD L. SETTLE, THE WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: A LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS § 14.01[1][b] at 14-22 (2009) (observing that Washington courts have never explained “how much, if at all, [RCW 43.21C.090] reduces the level of judicial scrutiny”). “include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” WAC 197-11-440(5)(b). ¶77 At the outset, we note that the potential for alternatives with less environmental impact was somewhat limited in this case by the intensity of the proposed MPR development itself: 890 units of permanent and transient housing, an 18-hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina. Thus, any “reasonable alternative” had to allow this intense development but attempt to do so at a lower environmental cost. ¶78 The EIS proposed three alternatives. The first alternative, the no action alternative, did not allow for resort development at all. The County does not challenge the Board's conclusion that this alternative did not comply with WAC 197-11-440(5)(b) because it did not feasibly attain or approximate the proposal's objective. WA[28][] [28] ¶79 We conclude that the final EIS contains evidence that the other two alternatives, the Brinnon Subarea Plan and hybrid alternatives, could attain the [***45] proposal's objectives at a lower environmental cost despite occupying a larger footprint (310 acres) than Statesman's proposed MPR (256 acres). For example, the Brinnon Subarea Plan alternative would (1) make the resort more self- sustaining, which would reduce traffic trips; (2) add a sewer system to the marina, which would eliminate a septic system close to [**807] [*482] Pleasant Harbor; and (3) permit the drilling of wells further inland, thus reducing the possibility of saltwater contamination. Although the final EIS contemplates greater environmental impacts than Statesman's proposal in some respects—for example, increased impervious surfaces and increased development intensity west of Highway 101—our Supreme Court has approved EIS alternatives that “present[ ] greater impacts in some areas, and fewer impacts in others.” King County, 138 Wn.2d at 185.10 10 In King County, the court considered the EIS for a proposed 2,250 unit housing development on a 1,000-acre parcel. 138 Wn.2d at 172-73. The court concluded that a less dense one- unit-per-acre alternative was reasonable under WAC 197-11- 440(5)(b). 138 Wn.2d at 185. Although the alternative “presented greater impacts in some areas,” it would [***46] develop 2,000 fewer residences, require 121 fewer acres of impervious surface, produce 45 percent less carbon 159 Wn. App. 446, *480; 245 P.3d 789, **806; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***42 Appendix 135 Page 26 of 29 WA[29][] [29] ¶80 Additionally, we note that the final EIS described in detail how the Brinnon Subarea Plan and hybrid alternatives would impact shellfish, water, shorelines, fish and wildlife, and critical areas, and described mitigation measures for each alternative. Finally, as the Board noted, Brinnon Group offered no evidence that the County failed to consider an alternative that achieved the proposal's objectives [***47] at a lower environmental cost. Because the final EIS presented the BOCC with sufficient information for a reasoned decision among alternatives having differing environmental impacts, we conclude that the County complied with its SEPA obligations under WAC 197-11- 440(5)(b). B. FAILURE TO CITE SPECIFIC POLICIES IN THE ORDINANCE ¶81 Brinnon Group relies on WAC 197-11-660(1) to argue that the County violated SEPA by failing to cite a specific policy to justify the inclusion of each of the 30 [*483] conditions in the ordinance. Brinnon Group does not assign error to the inclusion of any of the conditions. This argument has no merit. 1. Standard of Review WA[30,31][] [30, 31] ¶82 HN19[] We apply the APA's error of law standard to an agency's interpretation of a statute. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 778, 790, 51 P.3d 744 (2002) (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)). We interpret agency regulations as if they were statutes. Roller v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 128 Wn. App. 922, 926, 117 P.3d 385 (2005) (quoting Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wn. App. 402, 409, 97 P.3d 17 (2004)). Under the APA's error of law standard, we determine the meaning of statutes and regulations de [***48] novo but give substantial weight to the agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation that falls within its area of expertise. See Pub. Util. Dist. No. monoxide, lead to less water consumption, and have a lower potential to alter groundwater flow than the proposed development. 138 Wn.2d at 185. Brinnon Group suggests that King County articulates a rule that for an alternative to be “reasonable” under SEPA, it must have “intermediary impacts” between the proposal and the no action alternative. Appellant's Reply Br. at 29 (quoting King County, 138 Wn.2d at 184). While the King County court indeed described the one-unit-per-acre alternative as “present[ing] intermediary impacts” between the proposal and the no action alternative, the court approved the alternative because it had “fewer impacts” in some areas. 138 Wn.2d at 184-85. 1 of Pend Oreille County, 146 Wn.2d at 790. 2. BOCC's Conditions in the Ordinance WA[32][] [32] ¶83 HN20[] A county may impose conditions on a proposed development in order to “mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts.” RCW 43.21C.060; 11 City of Olympia v. [**808] Drebick, 156 Wn.2d 289, 301, 126 P.3d 802 (2006). Any mitigating conditions must be stated in writing and based on policies, plans, rules, or regulations that the county has formally designated as a basis for exercising its substantive authority. RCW 43.21C.060; accord WAC 197-11-660(1)(a), [*484] (b). Additionally, “[t]he decision maker shall cite the agency SEPA policy that is the basis of any condition.” WAC 197-11-660(1)(b). ¶84 Here, the BOCC included 30 conditions of approval in finding 63 of the ordinance. In doing so, the BOCC referenced JCC 18.40.770, a provision that incorporates SEPA's legislative purposes as the basis for the county's exercise of authority. 12 The Board determined that the BOCC's reference to JCC 18.40.770 was a sufficient citation to the SEPA policies under WAC 197- 11-660. The Board concluded that WAC 197-11-660 did 11 RCW 43.21C.060 states in relevant part: HN21[] Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to this chapter: PROVIDED, That such conditions or denials shall be based upon policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes which are formally designated by the agency (or appropriate legislative [***49] body, in the case of local government) as possible bases for the exercise of authority pursuant to this chapter. Such designation shall occur at the time specified by RCW 43.21C.120. Such action may be conditioned only to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared under this chapter. These conditions shall be stated in writing by the decisionmaker. 12 Specifically, finding 63 stated that the BOCC entered [***50] the conditions “pursuant to the authority that is granted the County legislative authority under SEPA by RCW 43.21C.060, WAC 197-11-660 and Jefferson County Code 18.40.770.” AR at 1632. JCC 18.40.770(3)(b) appears in the article of the county code entitled “[SEPA] Implementation” and states in relevant part, “The county designates and adopts by reference … as the basis for exercise of county authority pursuant to this article … [t]he policies enumerated in RCW 43.21C.020.” 159 Wn. App. 446, *482; 245 P.3d 789, **807; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***46 Appendix 136 Page 27 of 29 not require the County to “cite the supporting SEPA policy after each and every condition of approval.” AR at 2636. Brinnon Group acknowledges that the County cited to the county code in the ordinance but argues that the Board erred “by allowing citation to such a laundry list.” Appellants' Br. at 12 n.55. ¶85 The plain language of RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11-660 supports the Board's interpretation. Nothing in the plain language requires a governmental entity to cite a specific SEPA policy for each mitigating condition that it imposes on a project. Rather, mitigation conditions must be based on “formally designated” policies. RCW 43.21C.060; WAC 197-11-660(1)(a). Here, the County based its written conditions on the general SEPA policies in RCW 43.21C.020, a statutory section that the County adopted by reference in JCC 18.40.770. ¶86 Brinnon Group relies on Levine v. Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 807 P.2d 363 (1991), to support its position. Levine is distinguishable, however, because it involved a situation where [***51] the county did not consider any identifiable policies in attaching mitigative restrictions to a building permit. 116 Wn.2d at 581. Levine does not require the [*485] County to cite a specific SEPA policy for each condition of approval in the ordinance. VI. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WA[33][] [33] ¶87 Brinnon Group assigns error to the Board's denial of its motion for reconsideration. HN22[] We generally review a denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lilly v. Lynch, 88 Wn. App. 306, 321, 945 P.2d 727 (1997). Here, the trial court's denial was proper. ¶88 Brinnon Group based its motion on WAC 242-02- 832(2)(a) and (c), arguing that the Board made “[e]rrors of procedure or misinterpretation of fact or law” and “[c]lerical mistakes in the final decision and order.” Specifically, Brinnon Group argued that the Board erred when it concluded that (1) the Brinnon Subarea Plan and hybrid alternatives did not violate SEPA, (2) the County could modify the Brinnon Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations map during the zoning phase, and (3) the PEA did not require the Commission to submit the exact wording of the text amendment to the BOCC. ¶89 Our decision has addressed each of these arguments on the merits and concluded [***52] that the Board did not err in rejecting them. Thus, the Board properly exercised its discretion in denying Brinnon Group's motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we decline to address Brinnon Group's extensive discussion of whether its motion presented “new argument” or “more precise and thorough” argument. See Appellants' Br. at 57. [**809] VII. CLALLAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT'S DISMISSAL OF BRINNON GROUP'S COMPLAINT ¶90 Finally, we must determine whether Clallam County Superior Court erred when it dismissed Brinnon Group's complaint for a constitutional writ of certiorari. 13 We affirm the superior court's dismissal. [*486] A. STANDARD OF REVIEW WA[34][] [34] ¶91 HN23[] Superior courts have the power to issue writs of certiorari. Wash. Const. art. IV, § 6. We review a superior court's decision to grant or deny a writ of certiorari de novo. See Torrance v. King County, 136 Wn.2d 783, 787, 966 P.2d 891 (1998) (citing Thomsen v. King County, 39 Wn. App. 505, 514- 15, 694 P.2d 40 (1985)). WA[35-37][] [35-37] ¶92 A constitutional [***53] writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but, rather, is discretionary with the court. Torrance, 136 Wn.2d at 787. A superior court properly exercises its discretion to grant a writ of certiorari when “no other adequate remedy at law is available and when the decision below is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Torrance, 136 Wn.2d at 787-88. A constitutional writ of certiorari is unavailable, however, if the reviewing court's power to grant relief from an agency order under the APA will provide complete and full relief. See Torrance, 136 Wn.2d at 791; see also RCW 34.05.574 (describing the relief that a court may provide under the APA). B. BRINNON GROUP'S CLAIMS BEFORE CLALLAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WA[38][] [38] ¶93 Brinnon Group correctly notes that HN24[] RCW 36.70A.280(1) 14 limits the Board's 13 In this appeal, Brinnon Group appears to acknowledge that it is not entitled to a statutory writ. See Appellants' Br. at 32 (noting that a statutory writ is not available for legislative decisions like comprehensive plan amendments). 14 The statute states, in relevant part: 159 Wn. App. 446, *484; 245 P.3d 789, **808; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***50 Appendix 137 Page 28 of 29 jurisdiction to certain subject matters. On its face, that subsection does not authorize the Board to hear and determine petitions alleging violations of the PEA. See RCW 36.70A.280(1). Brinnon Group contends, therefore, that because the Board had no statutory authority to consider any of the County's alleged PEA violations that were unrelated to the GMA's public [*487] participation requirements, judicial review [***54] of the Board's order did not provide it with an adequate remedy to address these alleged PEA violations. 15 We disagree. 1. The PEA's Applicability to the County's Action ¶94 As we noted above, the PEA is implicated here because the County's comprehensive plan specifically requires the County to comply with the PEA's procedures when amending its comprehensive plan. In its petition for review before the Board, Brinnon Group alleged that the County's ordinance violated the GMA [***55] and SEPA but did not allege that the County violated the PEA. Consequently, Brinnon Group filed a complaint for a constitutional writ in Clallam County Superior Court in order to seek a remedy for the alleged PEA violations. Even though Brinnon Group did not allege PEA violations in its petition for review before the Board, its opening brief to the Board explicitly argued that the County's noncompliance with two PEA provisions—specifically, RCW 36.70.400 and RCW 36.70.430—violated the “spirit” of the County's public participation program under the GMA. 2. The Board's Decision ¶95 As we noted above, the Board's final decision openly acknowledged that the Board [**810] lacked jurisdiction under RCW 36.70A.280(1) to review the HN25[] The growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging … … [t]hat, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter … or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW. RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a) (emphasis added). 15 Essentially, this is an argument under the APA that the portion of the Board's order related to PEA compliance is “outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency conferred by any provision of law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(b). County's alleged PEA violations. But the Board determined that it had jurisdiction to review the County's alleged PEA violations as part of its overall review of the County's compliance with the GMA's public participation provisions. 3. Jurisdiction Analysis ¶96 Brinnon Group acknowledges in its brief that the Board acted properly by considering its contention that “the County violated the GMA statute, RCW 36.70A.140, because [*488] of violations of PEA statutes.” Appellants' Br. at 28. [***56] Despite that Brinnon Group agrees with the Board's decision to address its PEA-related arguments on the merits, it argues that the two provisions of the PEA that the County allegedly violated, RCW 36.70.400 and RCW 36.70.430, are not merely “public participation” provisions incorporated into the GMA; rather, in Brinnon Group's view, the County must also “substantially comply” with these provisions in order “to have authority under the PEA to adopt comprehensive plan amendments.” Appellants' Br. at 3 n.22. This strained argument is meritless. ¶97 We agree that the Board had jurisdiction to consider Brinnon Group's arguments that the County violated RCW 36.70.400 and RCW 36.70.430 in the context of Brinnon Group's overall challenge to the County's compliance with the GMA's public participation requirements. Again, we emphasize the importance of reading the GMA and the PEA in harmony. The GMA gives the Board jurisdiction to review allegations that the County violated the GMA, including the GMA's public participation requirements. RCW 36.70A.280(1). Brinnon Group itself argued to the Board that the County violated the GMA's public participation requirements by failing to comply with RCW 36.70.400 [***57] and RCW 36.70.430. ¶98 Because the Board had jurisdiction to consider Brinnon Group's arguments that the County violated RCW 36.70.400 and RCW 36.70.430 as part of its broader GMA review, the Board could fully assess Brinnon Group's claims that the County's comprehensive plan amendment did not comply with these PEA provisions. Likewise, Thurston County Superior Court's review of the Board's order under the relevant APA standards provided Brinnon Group with an adequate remedy. Consequently, Brinnon Group had another adequate remedy at law and the Clallam County [*489] Superior Court did not err by dismissing 159 Wn. App. 446, *486; 245 P.3d 789, **809; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***53 Appendix 138 Page 29 of 29 Brinnon Group's complaint for a constitutional writ. 16 ¶99 We deny Brinnon Group's request for attorney fees. We affirm the judgments of the Clallam and Thurston County Superior Courts. ARMSTRONG and VAN DEREN, JJ., concur. References Washington Administrative Law Practice Manual Richard L. Settle, Washington State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal & Policy Analysis Annotated Revised Code of Washington by LexisNexis End of Document 16 In this appeal, the parties do not address, as they did below, whether the Land Use Petition Act, chapter 36.70C RCW, also offered Brinnon Group an adequate alternative remedy. 159 Wn. App. 446, *489; 245 P.3d 789, **810; 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 173, ***57 Appendix 139 pg. 1 Updated 3/19/18 Tribal Record of Comments/Meetings Regarding Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Project (Disclaimer – This list may not be a complete) Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives May 14, 1997 Comment Letter to John Holgate, Jefferson Co. DCD Draft EIS for Brinnon Sub-Area Plan Peter Bahls, Habitat Biologist, PGST Jun. 21, 2001 Email Reply from Linda Tudor, Settlers Real Estate Formal Request to Review Brinnon Sub- area Plan for PGST Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Jul. 28, 2001 Email from Mark Rose Request to review Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Aug. 6, 2001 Email from Ted Labbe Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Aug. 8, 2001 Comment Letter from Ted Labbe Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Oct. 17, 2001 Comment Letter from Ted Labbe Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Oct. 18, 2001 Comment Letter from Marty Ereth Brinnon Sub-area Plan Marty Ereth, Habitat Biologist, Skokomish Dec. 21, 2001 Comment Letter to Jefferson County Jefferson County’s SEPA on Brinnon Sub-area Plan Point No Point Treaty Council (PGST, JKT, Skokomish) Jan. 14, 2002 Memo to BOCC from John Holgate, Jefferson Co. DCD Brinnon Sub-area Planning Process – Public Participation Highlights Skokomish, PGST Appendix 140 pg. 2 Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives Jan. 22, 2002 Excerpt from Natural Areas Journal Elk in Olympic National Park: Will They Persist Over Time? (Submitted by Ted Labbe at the Brinnon SEPA Meeting) Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist PGST Jan. 22, 2002 Resources Northwest, Inc. Letter (dated May 11, 1993) Management Recommendations for Elk (Submitted by Ted Labbe at the Brinnon SEPA Meeting on January 22, 2002) Steve Moddemeyer, PGST Jan. 22, 2002 Written Meeting Summary of Verbal Comments Jefferson County SEPA Meeting on Brinnon Subarea Plan & UDC Amendments Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders Feb. 6, 2002 Minority Report to Jefferson Co. BOCC Verbal Comments Jefferson County BOCC Hearing: Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders Mar. 12, 2002 Written Testimony of Ted Labbe to BOCC Jefferson County BOCC Hearing: Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST Sep. 30, 2002 Comments on 2002 Jeff. Co. Comprehensive Plan & UDC Amendments Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ronald G. Charles, Tribal Chair, PGST Jan. 27, 2003 Letter to DCD County’s Adoption of 2001 DOE Stormwater Management Manual For Western Washington Ronald G. Charles, Tribal Chair, PGST Oct. 20, 2003 Meeting Summary of Verbal Comments Jefferson County Informal SEIS Scoping Brinnon Sub Area Plan Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders Apr. 20, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD 2nd Notice/DS, Notice of Public Meeting and Expanded Scoping Skokomish, PGST, Elwha, Jamestown S’Klallam & PNPTC Appendix 141 pg. 3 Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives Apr. 28, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Contacts for the Point No Point Treaty Signers N/A May 8, 2006 Transcript of EIS Scoping Meeting Public Testimony during EIS Scoping Meeting for Brinnon MPR Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST May 10, 2006 Newspaper Article from the Port Townsend- Jefferson County Leader Brinnon Resort Plan Mike Jones, PGST May 19, 2006 Comment Letter to Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County 2006 Comp Plan Amendment MLA06- 00087 Master Planned Resort Brinnon Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST May 26, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Proposed Meeting with First Nations and Archaeologist N/A Jun. 23, 2006 Letter from Camille A. Mather, Archaeologist Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort Marie Hebert, PGST Jun. 28, 2006 Letter to Dr. Camille Mather, Archaeologist Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort Delbert Miller, THPO Skokomish Tribe Jun. 30, 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment by Western Shore Heritage Services (Technical Report #274) Cultural Resource Assessment Report sent to various Tribes Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Skokomish Tribe; PGST; Squaxin Island Tribe; Suquamish Tribe Jul. 13, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Proposed Scheduling of First Nations Meetings N/A Appendix 142 pg. 4 Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives Aug. 8, 2006 Email Requesting Tribal Contacts from Scoping Meeting Request for Tribal Contacts N/A Aug 8, 2006 Email from James Mazak, Director of Planning, Statesman Corp. Review List of Tribal Contacts Elwha, Jamestown, PNPTC, PGST, Skokomish Aug. 23, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Letter re: Findings on the Consultant Reports and Summary Document for (MLA06-87) Draft EIS Sections N/A Aug 28, 2006 Email w/attached minutes from James Mazak, Statesman Group Minutes from Aug. 11, 2006 Presentation to Skokomish Tribe Skokomish, DCD, DAHP, Western Shore Heritage Services, Wessen & Associates, GeoEngineers, Largen Aug. 31, 2006 Letter from Statesman Group Transportation and Cultural Resources Assessment Sections (working w/Skokomish Tribe) N/A Sep. 11, 2006 Email Exchange between County, Statesman & PGST Invite to Statesman from Hans Daubenberger, PGST, to Discuss Proposal at Sept. 25, 2006 Meeting PGST, Jamestown & Lower Elwha Tribes Sep. 27, 2006 Email between Statesman & Hans Daubenberger, PGST PGST List of Natural Resource Concerns for Sept. 25, 2006 Meeting Hans Daubenberger, Habitat Biologist, PGST Sep. 27, 2006 Email between Statesman & Delbert Miller, Skokomish Meeting/Site Visit for Sept. 15, 2006 & Meeting with Skokomish Tribe for Sept. 27, 2006 Delbert Miller, Skokomish Tribe Appendix 143 pg. 5 Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives Sep. 27, 2006 Skokomish Tribal Meeting Notes Stacie Hoskins (DCD) hand written notes from meeting Skokomish Tribe Oct. 24, 2006 Email invite to DNR for cultural resources site visit on Nov. 2, 2006 FPA Pertaining to “Archaeological and Historic Sites and Artifacts and Traditional Religious, Ceremonial and Social Uses and Activities of Affected Indian Tribes” N/A Dec. 18, 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment by Western Shore Heritage Services (Technical Report #288) Report is collaborative effort between Statesman, Jeff. Co., DAHP, Skokomish Tribe & Western Shore Heritage Services based on meetings of Aug. 11, Sep. 15 & 27, & Oct. 20, 2006 Skokomish Mar. 14, 2007 Memo from DCD re: Tribal Contacts List compiled for the 2007-Critical Area Ordinance Review – Tribal Contacts Document that Includes the Cultural Resources Contacts N/A Oct. 23, 2007 Comment Letter to Stacie Hoskins, DCD Comments on DEIS for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Marty Ereth, Habitat Biologist, Skokomish Oct. 24, 2007 Comment Letter to Karen Barrows, DCD Comments on Cultural Resource Assessment Report Kris Miller, THPO,Skokomis h Tribe Dec. 6, 2007 Comment Letter to BOCC Jefferson County Jefferson County Master Planned Resort in Brinnon (MLA06-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Hans Daubenberger, Habitat Biologist, PGST Dec. 9, 2007 Comment Letter to BOCC Jefferson County Jefferson County Master Planned Resort in Brinnon (MLA06-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Coordinator, Point No Point Treaty Council Appendix 144 pg. 6 Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives Sept 15, 2008 Site Visit Sign in Sheet List of Names of Persons Attending the Site Visit Skokomish Sept. 24, 2009 On-site Meeting with Statesman developers (Did not include DCD staff) Jefferson County Brinnon Master Planned Resort Scoping for SEIS Jessica Coyle, Tim Cullinan, Hans Daubenberger, Cynthia Rossi Nov. 24, 2009 Comment Letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Comment Letter on Scoping for SEIS Paul McCollum Nat. Resources Dir, PGST; Scott Chitwood, Nat. Resources Dir., Jamestown S’Klallam; Randy Harder, Executive Director, Point No Point Treaty Council Mar. 16-17, 2010 Email Exchange to Garth Mann, Statesman Corp., David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County BOCC Conditions for Pleasant Harbor Resort Jessica Coyle, PGST Mar. 27, 2012 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Plan for Periodic Archaeological Monitoring of Construction Excavations for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, PGST, Skokomish, Squaxin, & Suquamish Tribes May 10, 2010 Email from Vicki Morris with PBST Statement of Concerns Statement of Concerns with Regard to the Conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 Jessica Coyle, PGST May 11, 2012 Letter from Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Submittal of Cultural Resources Management Plan to PGST for review Josh Wisniewski, PGST Appendix 145 pg. 7 Jan. 14, 2013 Letter to David Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Concurrence with Proposed Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Plan for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Kris Miller, THPO, Skokomish Tribe Jan. 14, 2013 Letter to David Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Concurrence with Proposed Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Plan for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Gretchen Kaehler, Assistant State Archaeologist, DAHP Jan. 5, 2015 Comment Letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County Draft SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Feb. 18, 2015 On-Site Meeting with Craig Peck, Project Mgr. and David W Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County Draft SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, Hans Daubenberger, Dave Fuller, Hydrogeologist, Tim Cullinan, Cynthia Rossi Feb. 19, 2015 Email from David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD to Donna Simmons, HCEC On-site meeting with Project Engineer and PGST – Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort PGST Jun. 9, 2016 Letter from BOCC to Cynthia Koan & Planning Commissioners Revised Deadline for Planning Commission Recommendations on Draft Development Regulations; County Continues Consultation with PGST N/A Dec. 16, 2015 Comment Letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission Jefferson Co. FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08- 00188, ZON 08-00056 Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Jan. 6, 2016 Public Testimony to Jefferson County Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that includes testimony Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Appendix 146 pg. 8 Jan. 22, 2016 Email from Roma Call, PGST Planning Commission and DCD Staff granted 60-day Extension for Tribal Consultation Process Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Feb. 22, 2016 Email from Roma Call, PGST PGST to Provide FSEIS Response to Planning Commission at the March 16, 2016 Meeting Roma Call, PGST Feb. 29, 2016 Email from Roma Call, PGST PGST’s Draft Response Letter on FSEIS to Planning Commission Roma Call, PGST Mar. 11, 2016 Comment Letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission Kettles B & C; Traditional Cultural Properties Laura Price, PGST Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Mar. 15, 2016 Comment Letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission Comments on FSEIS & Intent to Amend the UDC Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Mar. 23, 2016 Invitation to BOCC to a government-to- government meeting Government-to- government meeting to discuss Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Mar. 29, 2016 Note to file: Comment Letter from David W. Johnson, DCD Staff response to PGST letter dated March 15, 2016 N/A Apr. 6, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Presentation to Planning Commission by PGST Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Laura Price, PGST THPO Appendix 147 pg. 9 Apr. 18, 2016 Agenda Request with BOCC for government-to- government consultation meeting with PGST Statement of issue and analysis regarding tribes concerns about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. Recommendation to conduct a government- to-government meeting Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair; Laura Price, PGST Tribal Historic Preservation Officer; Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Apr. 18, 2016 Discussion of proposed government-to- government meeting and Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort with BOCC and PGST during regular meeting Presentation by PGST on potential impacts of Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort on the Tribe’s cultural resources and treaty rights Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair; Laura Price, PGST THPO; Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. May 3, 2016 Letter from BOCC to Planning Commission Request for Planning Commission’s Recommendation on Development Regulations; County continues consultation with Tribe N/A May 9, 2016 Letter from PGST to Board of County Commissioners Proposed Government- to-Government Consultation Plan Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair May 13, 2016 Email from Don Coleman, Statesman Representative Written Summary of Site Visit on May 11, 2016 Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Laura Price, PGST THPO Jun 23, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator to Statesman Web link provided to Statesman regarding the Point no Point Treaty adopted in 1855 N/A Jun 23, 2016 Email from Statesman to Philip Morley, County Administrator Comments on the Treaty, kettles, hunting and fishing rights. Statesman’s minutes of June 21, 2016 meeting with Philip Morley N/A Appendix 148 pg. 10 Jun 24, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator to Statesman Philips hand written edits to Statesman’s minutes of June 21, 2016 N/A Jul. 8, 2016 Email w/Attached Letter to BOCC Planning Commission Letter to Accompany their Recommendations PGST Jul. 18, 2016 Email to BOCC and David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Follow-up to consultation process Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Aug. 5, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator DCD staff to proceed with meetings with PGST N/A Aug. 24, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator Continued consultation process with PGST N/A Sep. 7, 2016 Email from David Sullivan, County Commissioner to Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, PGST County, PGST, applicant proposed consultation process Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Oct. 3, 2016 Letter to Jeromy Sullivan from Garth Mann, Statesman Statesman’s informal proposed changes dated August 19, 2016 to golf course, grading, stormwater, etc. Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Oct. 4, 2016 Letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, PGST to Garth Mann, Statesman Path forward regarding proposed informal changes as identified in document dated August 19, 2016 by Statesman Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Dec. 14, 2016 Meeting Notes and Agenda Final meeting notes summary from December 14, 2016 Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Dec. 15, 2016 Email between Patty Charnas, DCD Director & Roma Call. Env. Program Mgr., PGST Follow-up from December 14, 2016 meeting Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Jan. 19, 2017 Email from Roma Call, PGST Draft Agenda for January 15, 2017 web meeting and summary of some major concerns of PGST Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Appendix 149 pg. 11 Jan. 26, 2017 Technical workgroup regarding Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Meeting reviewed in more detail the questions and concerns of the proposed development relative to PGST tribal treaty rights and resource issues specific to shellfish, water quality, stormwater and wildlife. Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Laura price, THPO; Tamara Gage, Shellfish Program Manager; Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist Mar. 15, 2017 Email Exchange from Michelle Farfan to PGST Don Coleman, Garth Mann, Stuart Whitford Draft Water Quality MOU from 2011 regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. May 1, 2017 Comment Letter to Michelle Farfan, Jefferson Co. DCD Statesman Group’s Proposed Water Quality Monitoring Plan Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist, PGST May 17, 2017 Thank you letter to Sam Phillips, PGST Thank you for comment Letter dated May 1, 2017 Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist, PGST Aug. 9, 2017 Comment letter to BOCC Request that the BOCC arrange a consultation with the tribe regarding concerns about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair Aug. 10, 2017 Letter from Kathleen Kler, Chair, BOCC Continued Government- to Government Consultation Jeromy Sullivan, Chair, PGST Aug. 31, 2017 Response to request for comments Wildlife Management Plan for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Timothy Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager Sep. 7, 2017 Email from Sam Phillips, PGST Submitted questions for September 8, 2017 discussion Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist, PGST Appendix 150 pg. 12 Sep. 8, 2017 Final Meeting Notes Summary Final meeting notes from web meeting that includes Joe Callaghan, wildlife biologist & Jennifer Dadisman, wildlife biologist, both from GeoEngineers Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Sam Phillips, PGST Environmental Scientist; Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Mgr, Point No Point Treaty Council Sep. 15, 2017 Email Exchange between Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner, DCD & Roma Call, Env. Program Mgr., PGST Draft Excerpt from Draft Development Agreement regarding “Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance” Roma Call, Environmental Program Mgr., PGST Sep. 29, 2017 Letter to Dr. Allyson Brooks, DAHP Reevaluation of Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Stormy Purser, THPO, PGST Oct. 2, 2017 Letter from Gretchen Kaehler, DAHP Request to submit documentation related to Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) Stormy Purser, THPO, PGST Oct. 4, 2017 Letter to Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST from Kathleen Kler, Chair BOCC Response to August 9, 2017 letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST Appendix 151 pg. 13 Oct. 13, 2017 Final Meeting Notes Summary Summary Notes of Government-to- Government Meeting with PGST Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST; Amber Penn-Roco, Attorney PGST; Roma Call, Env. Program Mgr., PGST; Stormy Purser, THPO, PGST; Laura Price, Director of Cultural Arts and History, PGST Oct. 19, 2017 DCD Final Meeting Notes Summary Summary of site visit conducted on October 19, 2017 (including DFW) regarding Elk/Wildlife Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Mgr., Point No Point Treaty Council; Charin Godbolt, Wildlife Biologist, PGST Oct. 26, 2017 Letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST to BOCC Response to BOCC letter dated October 4, 2017 Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, PGST Nov. 3, 2017 DCD Final Meeting Summary Government- to- Government Meeting with the Skokomish Tribe Skokomish members present: Guy Miller, Chairman; Joseph Pavel, Dir. of Natural Resources; Alex Gouley, Habitat Manager/Tribal Council; Kris Miller, Cultural Resources Specialist; Dave Herrera, Fish and Wildlife Policy Adviser Appendix 152 pg. 14 Dec. 8, 2017 Letter to Michelle Farfan, DCD from Tim Cullinan, Point No Point Treaty Council Comments Pertaining to the Revised Wildlife Management Plan Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager, Point No Point Treaty Council Jan. 11, 2018 DCD Final Meeting Summary Roll-out of Development Agreement and Development Regulations PGST Jan. 12, 2018 DCD Final Meeting Summary Notes Roll-out of Development Agreement and Development Regulations Skokomish Feb. 12, 2018 Email Exchange between Patty Charnas, DCD Director & Roma Call, PGST Where to find Information on County Web Page on Draft Development Regulations, Draft Development Agreement and BOCC Public Hearing Roma Call, Environmental Program Mgr., PGST Appendix 153 April 9, 2018 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 j eftbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us SENT VIA EMAIL Dear Board of County Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding Jefferson County's proposed Development Agreement and proposed Development Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). I am writing on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (Tribe) to provide comments and inform the Jefferson County (County) Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that the draft Development Agreement does not comply with the specific conditions of Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 and does not meet the required state and local regulations. In addition, it does not provide appropriate mitigation for potentially significant adverse effects. Although the County has met with representatives of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe on several occasions, our concerns have not been addressed in the proposed documents. Therefore, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe opposes the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement as written. The Tribe also opposes the adoption of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 17 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County code. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes that were signatories to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933.1 The Treaty reserved for the Tribe the right to engage in fishing, hunting and gathering in its usual and accustomed areas. These rights were not granted to the Tribe; rather, these were pre-existing rights that were reserved when the Treaty was signed. Port Gamble S'K\allarn Tribal members have deep ancestral ties to their traditional use areas, which pre-date the signing of the Treaty by thousands of years. Based on Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribal members' unique historic relationship with and knowledge of these areas and the natural resources in these areas, they will experience significant impacts from the proposed MPR project. For at least 17 years, the Tribe has commented on the proposed MPR at every step in the review process, beginning with the County's first proposal for a Brin non Subarea Plan in 2001. The Tribe has repeatedly commented about concerns that potentially harmful effects were not being addressed and that important resources would be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. During the course of the process, the County has consistently minimized or completely ignored the Tribe's concerns. Here again, the proposed Development Agreement and Development 1 United Stales v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. l 020. 1039 ( W .D. Wash. 1978) (hereinafter Boldt ff). Appendix 154 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 Regulations give only a minimal mention of the local tribes and reflect the County's inadequate process for tribal consultation. Requests for the protection of culturally significant resources have been ignored. Requests for the development of a Stewardship Plan that ensures tribal access, in order to allow members to hunt and gather, have been ignored. The lack of any meaningful consultation in order to ensure the protection of important cultural and natural resources has resulted in an unacceptable proposal, which the Tribe must oppose. 1. Need to Correct Inappropriate Development Agreement Language Concerning Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign nation, meaning that it exists separate and apart from both the Federal and State government. The Tribe is an independent nation, with an independent government. The Tribe has undertaken its own study of the project area and has determined that the kettles and wetlands in the project area contain cultural resources, in need of protection and preservation. The Tribe has made both the County and the Developer aware of this fact, on multiple occasions, and has urged the preservation of the kettles and wetlands. The proposed Development Agreement contains a provision on cultural resources, titled "Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance." In the provision, the County and the Developer propose that only one kettle will be preserved, and only if "prior to Developer applying for a grading or building permit ... the PGST applies for and receive a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places , , ." Accordingly, the Developer is: (1) only required to preserve one kettle; and (2) only if the Tribe receives: ( a) a determination on the listing of the project area; (b) before the Developer applies for grading and building permits. These requirements are unacceptable. First, the preservation of the kettles and wetlands, that a tribal government has already determined is a cultural resource, should not depend on the validation of a state government. The importance of the site, as recognized by the Tribe, should be sufficient to warrant protection and preservation of the site by the Developer, regardless of any listing with the State. Second, the Tribe already submitted an application with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to list the property as a Traditional Cultural Place. However, the review process is time intensive and involves the gathering of information that is not readily available. The review process could potentially take years. Under the proposed Development Agreement, if the Tribe does not obtain a determination on the listing of the site prior to the Developer applying for its permits (i.e., the next stage in the process after the Development Agreement and Development Regulations are finalized), then the kettles will not be preserved. This time requirement is highly inappropriate, as it subjects the preservation of important cultural resources to Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 2 Appendix 155 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 the administrative review process of the State. Essentially creating a race between the Tribe and the Developer, seeing which entity can have its documents processed faster. This is an unacceptable way to provide for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. Despite the title of the section, the Tribe fails to see how its provisions recognize the cultural significance of the area. The Developer Agreement should require the Developer to preserve the kettles and wetlands, without mention or reference to any State processes. 2. Significant Errors and Areas of Noncompliance in the Proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations The Tribe has several concerns with the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations related to density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, sequencing issues with the Development Regulations, and failure to meet the required provisions and conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. The following sections describe each of these issues in more detail. a. Need for More Appropriate Density Allowance for the Proposed Master Planned Resort The Tribe is very concerned about the massive size and scope of the MPR, which is planned for construction in a highly sensitive area that was previously zoned rural residential. To address these concerns, we propose a decrease in the overall density allowance. We also recommend implementing a conditional approval structure for each phase of the development, based on the Developer's ability to meet reg uired performance standards. i. Need for a Reduction in Overall Density of Master Planned Resort The Draft Development Agreement, Section 8.1. proposes 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space, and indoor and outdoor recreation spaces. This will essentially create a large town on the outskirts of Brin non, significantly changing the landscape and greatly increasing the intensity of land use in the Brinnon area. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Brinnon's total population was 797 in 2010.2 With the proposal for 890 residential units associated with the MPR, and assuming 2.5 persons per household, we would expect to see an additional 2,225 people residing in the area at full build out. The number would more than double the population of Brinnon and would be comparable to the population of Port Ludlow, which had a population totaling 2,603 residents in 2010.3 Under the current proposal, the rural character of the Brinnon area will be lost and replaced by a more urban land use. Having short-term homes for a portion of the 2 American Fact Finder. United States Census Bureau. Brinnon CDP Washington. 2010 Total Population. 3 American Fact Finder. United States Census Bureau. Port Ludlow CDP Washington. 2010 Total Population. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 3 Appendix 156 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 total residential units does not necessarily limit environmental impacts and may actually increase the amount of vehicle traffic, vessel traffic and recreational shellfish harvesting, The Tribe recommends that the County re-consider the total density of the M PR in comparison with that of nearby rural towns and resorts. The County should reduce the total number of residential units, both permanent and temporary, to a more appropriate and manageable number, by at least two-thirds of what is currently proposed. ii. Need for a Conditional Approval Structure for Master Planned Resort Development Under the Development Agreement proposal, the Developer may be expected to correct any areas of noncompliance before being allowed to continue to full build out. However, the proposal gives the Developer unlimited time to do so and guarantees the approval of full build out to 890, units no matter the circumstance. As proposed, the Development Agreement does not provide the County with options for holding the Developer accountable if things go wrong. The proposal does not describe how the County would respond to any areas of noncompliance that occur after full build out. Additionally, the development would proceed even if there are failures that cannot be corrected, such as with saltwater intrusion in groundwater wells, for example. According to the proposed Development Agreement, if saltwater intrusion occurs the Developer would be required to provide potable water to the affected residents but then would be allowed to continue to full build out, even with the aquifer being permanently degraded. Given the enormous size and intensity of the proposed development in a highly sensitive natural area, the Development Agreement does not go far enough to hold the Developer accountable for potentially significant harmful effects to the environment. The County should implement better safeguards to protect our valuable resources. We recommend that the County consider removing the full build out of 890 units from the draft Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Instead, the Development Agreement would include only the first phase of the development on a conditional basis. Remaining phases would be approved at a future date, based on the Developer's ability to meet specific measurable performance criteria. The development under Phase 2 would not be approved unless the Developer was able to demonstrate in Phase 1 that performance standards had been met, as specified. For example, the Developer would demonstrate that no saltwater intrusion was present in groundwater wells: degradation of water quality had not occurred; all monitoring requirements had been completed; wildlife management criteria had been met; wastewater treatment facilities had been approved and constructed; downgrades or closures in nearby shellfish harvest areas had not occurred; required mitigation measures had been implemented, and so on. Failure to meet specific performance standards during the build out period may indicate a likelihood that impacts would continue into future phases and even after the Phone: (360) 297-4 792 Fax: (360) 297-4 791 4 Appendix 157 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 build out is complete. Therefore, during Phase 1 the Developer would be required to correct any areas of noncompliance and would not be approved for any further development if performance standards were not achieved. In the event of failure to meet performance requirements, Phase 1 would be considered the end of the MPR build out and no further development would be allowed. Likewise, if Phase 2 indicated failures in performance, the Developer would not be approved to continue to Phase 3. Given the enormous size and intensity of the proposed development and its risks to the integrity and character of the area, a system of conditional approval would provide a useful tool for holding the Developer accountable and preventing significantly harmful impacts in future phases or after build out. b. Need for Enforceability and Specificity in the Development Agreement and Development Regulations The draft Development Regulations and draft Development Agreement lack the specificity and enforceability that are necessary to ensure the protection of resources over the term of the agreement and after build out. It is not clear in the documents whether or not the County will have the appropriate measurable criteria to enforce the development standards. For example, County staff recommended revisions (Development Regulations Matrix Item #5) require that Development Regulations include the following restrictions: "Short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone." This requirement is consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08 Condition 63aa, which calls for 65% of rental and time-share residents per JCC 18.15.123(2). However, the Development Regulations do not explain how Jefferson County will track and enforce a 65% short-term residency and for how long. Without specific enforceable measures in place, the Developer or a future owner would be able to replace short-term residents with permanent residents during and after the build out period. A transformation from short-term to permanent residents is likely to have a significant impact on the wastewater system, water supply and water quality in the area. The environmental impact assessment did not consider these effects. According to the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan, the vision for the MPR was very different from the Port Ludlow MPR. It states that, "We envision the Black Point MPR to be significantly different and smaller in scale than the Port Ludlow MPR in that it would be less structured towards development of permanent residential accommodations and more so towards providing recreational opportunities and support services for the traveling public in a manner that will benefit local residents."4 Without a specific method for tracking and enforcing the short-term residencies over the course of the M PR build out and after build out, it is highly likely that we will see an increase in permanent residents at the MPR, which would more truthfully resemble the Port Ludlow MPR, ~ BOCC Preferred Alternative Draft. Brinnon Subarea Plan. May I. 2002. p. 45. Phone: (360)297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 5 Appendix 158 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 Other sections of the Development Agreement that will need more specificity and enforceability include water quality monitoring (Section 6.2 and Appendix NJ, water supply monitoring (Section 6.2, Appendix 0), wastewater treatment (Section 6.2, Appendix I), wildlife management (Section 8.8.4, Appendix P) and others. These sections of the Development Agreement lack enough specificity to ensure appropriate implementation and lack provisions for establishing a County tracking and enforcement system. The Development Agreement and Development Regulations should outline more specific requirements, such as type and frequency of monitoring, frequency of reporting, and a more detailed process for identifying and selecting a wildlife fence in coordination with other entities. Additionally, a more measurable system of enforcement and penalties for any noncompliance both during and after the build-out period should be clearly identified. c. Need for More Appropriate Agreement Terms and Build-Out Period The draft Development Agreement Section 2.2 states that its Term is as follows: The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date to five (5) years after the end of the build-out period described in Section 2.3. The Build-Out Period is defined in Section 2.3 as follows: The build-out period for purposes of RCW 36.708.180 shall be twenty-five (25) years from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases described in Section 10, whichever is later. In essence, the language as written provides the Developer with an endless Development Agreement term and limitless time period for the MPR build out. It is not clear why the County has provided the Developer with this extraordinary build-out term. The term of the Agreement should have a firm expiration date with a specific limited period for MPR build out. We recommend a ten to fifteen-year build-out period and Development Agreement term that is from the effective date to the end of the build-out period. d. Need for More Appropriate Sequence for Development Agreement and Development Regulations Review Process The process for reviewing the draft Development Agreement, its appendices, and draft Development Regulations is puzzling at best. According to State law, RCW 36.708.170(1), "a development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36. 70A RCW." The County's proposed Development Regulations set forth the permitted uses, density standards and zoning development standards and cannot duplicate existing local Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 6 Appendix 159 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 codes for storm water, critical areas, land division and site development.5 Therefore, it is understood that Development Regulations would be in place before determining whether or not the Development Agreement is consistent with them. The MPR Development Agreement Section 8.1, Permitted Uses and Density Standards; Zoning, gives reference to an Appendix A, which is Chapter 17.60 of the Jefferson County Code, the proposed amendment to the Development Regulations. However, Development Agreement Appendix A is blank, and the Chapter is not actually provided because it has not yet been adopted by the BOCC. The simultaneous review of both documents is highly problematic for reviewers. Since standards and zoning regulations are only provided in draft form, it is impossible to make an appropriate assessment of Development Agreement compliance. We support the July 6, 2016 comments of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, which include the following paragraphs: In the absence of such regulatory directives as required ... we find the draft regulations specific to this site and Statesman's specific development proposal now before the PC out of sync with WA state code and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policy. That policy /code, when enacted, should clearly spell out a sequence for creating and approving the comprehensive plan designation of a new MPR, when and how regulations governing that MPR should be drafted and adopted, what action prompts SEPA Review, how applications for specific MPR development proposals are to be reviewed and approved, and how the development agreement should relate in timing and in fact to the regulations governing the MPR site and the application for the specific MPR development. In line with the above comments, we recommend that the County first consider whether or not the Development Regulations are appropriate before attempting to consider any adoption of the Development Agreement. The approved Development Regulations, rather than the draft version, must be made available to reviewers so they may determine whether or not the draft Development Agreement is consistent with the regulations. e. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Jefferson County Ordinance 01-012B-OB Conditions In January 2008, the BOCC approved Ordinance 01-0128-08, adopting a proposal for the MPR with conditions. According to the County's staff, the Development Agreement "is the best vehicle to ensure compliance with 30 conditions."6 However, it is ; Jefferson County Informational Briefing Presentation. January 8.2018. p.16. 6 Jefferson County Informational Briefing Presentation. January 8. 20 I 8. p. 8. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 7 Appendix 160 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 clear that the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations fail to meet the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. The Tribe has identified multiple areas of noncompliance, as described in the following section. i. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(j) for Tribal Consultation The Tribe has attempted, on several occasions, to meet with the County in order to participate in meaningful government-to-government consultation regarding the MPR project. The Tribe has been operating under the assumption that they were invited to meet with the County in order to provide a detailed discussion of the Tribe's concerns in regards to the MPR Project, in other words, to have their voice heard by the County and the Developer. To date, the Tribe does not feel as though its concerns have been heard or addressed. The Tribe is concerned that it was invited to participate in discussions merely to fulfill a procedural consultation requirement and that neither the County, nor the Developer, feel any need to resolve or address the Tribe's concerns. There have been several meetings that have brought the same issues to light, again and again, with no resolutions reflected in the proposed documents. This is not meaningful consultation. For example, the Tribe has emphasized to the County, on multiple occasions, that the Kettle Ponds and Black Point hold cultural significance to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has asked that the County and the Developer modify their proposed plan to destroy the integrity of the Kettles. The Development Agreement language that the County put forth to respond to the Tribe's request does not address the Tribe's concerns. Instead it evokes further frustrations and puts pressure on the Tribe to take responsibility to prove the cultural significance of the Kettles. Then, the Tribe was asked to review the proposed language and did so in a meeting with the Developer and the County. The Tribe submitted comments on the Development Agreement language. The revisions the Tribe made to the language were not taken into consideration and the suggested changes from the Tribe were not made. In essence, all of the Tribe's efforts and discussions were a waste. In addition, although we discussed the development of a stewardship plan that would ensure access for hunting and gathering by tribal members, such a plan was not included in the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Recently, a neighboring Tribe has expressed views that do not align with the views of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. However, the County must remember that the tribes are sovereign nations, meaning that each tribe is separate and individually govern themselves in all aspects, including cultural heritage. No other tribal, state, or federal government has the right to dictate to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe the cultural significance of the area. As each tribe has differing historical accounts, each tribe may ascribe a different cultural significance to the area. The County should recognize that one tribe does not speak for all of the tribes in the area. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4 79 l 8 Appendix 161 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 ii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for Protection of Nearby Natural Resources including the Protection of Shellfish Harvesting Areas Ordinance 01-0128-08(60)(iv) finds that pursuant to JCC Section 18.45.0B0(l)(c), the subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and anticipated land use development, including compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Development Agreement, Section 6.1, calls for the Developer to recognize the importance of Hood Canal being "just as important to the success of the MPR as it is to those who use Hood Canal for recreation and subsistence." Section 6.2 requires the Developer to address demonstrated impacts of the MPR on nearby natural resources, including water quality both on-site and off-site. ]CC Section 18.15.126(g) for master planned resorts requires the following; A description of how the M PR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the development. The Development Agreement fails to provide any protection for shellfish resources adjacent to the MPR, as required. The Development Agreement does not include a description of how the M PR would minimize or eliminate any harmful effects to the shellfish beds, does not consider the potentially significant effects that 2,225 new residents would have on nearby shellfish harvest areas and does not include any action plan to address potential closures or downgrades of shellfish harvest areas. The proposed MPR would be located just minutes from two adjacent public beaches, on the Duckabush and the Dosewallips Rivers, which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to the Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area and to the general public. The proposed MPR will create an increase in recreational harvesters, both short-term and permanent residents, intensifying the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Natural recruitment of bivalves in Hood Canal is sporadic and increased pressure from additional harvesters without an annual enhancement would result in a decline in the existing resource over time. We are also concerned that additional contaminated stormwater runoff, increased vessel traffic and contaminated groundwater could result in significant water quality degradation in Hood Canal leading to additional downgrades in the status of the shellfish harvest areas. In 2015, the Washington State Dept. of Health (DOH) reported that one water sampling location on Dosewallips and two Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 9 Appendix 162 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 locations on Duckabush were in Threatened status and additional locations on each tideland were falling into a concerned status, In 2017, we received notice from DOH regarding Hood Canal #3 Growing Area on the Duckabush River. In response to DOH marine sampling results from areas near the mouth of the Duckabush River, failing the 90th percentile fecal coliform NSSP standard in 2016 and 2017, DOH will be downgrading a portion of the Hood Canal #3 Growing Area to Conditionally Approved status. The presence of the MPR, in addition to other development, increasing vessel traffic, stormwater runoff, and other impacts in the region will have a cumulative effect on shellfish species. Additional water quality impacts from the proposed MPR in these sensitive areas would likely result in additional shellfish area downgrades and closures. These impacts have a significant cultural and economic impact on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has proposed a mitigation plan for the shellfish impacts of the MPR (See Appendix A) to the County and the Developer; the mitigation plan included seeding beaches on the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers with clam and oyster seed. The shellfish mitigation proposal is based on only 1 % of the MPR population, while an even larger increase in recreational harvesters is likely. In addition, the mitigation proposal does not include the harvest of other shellfish species, such as crab, that are also likely to be impacted by the MPR. However, the shellfish beach mitigation, as proposed, would provide a benefit to the Tribe, and to all tribes that harvest in the area, as well as the general public. The Tribe has not received any official response from the County or the Developer regarding its shellfish mitigation proposal. The Tribe's shellfish mitigation plan was not included in the draft Development Agreement or Development Regulations. The County cannot claim it has met its requirements under Ordinance 01-0128-08(63)(j) for consultation with the tribes while at the same time ignoring the Tribe's proposed mitigation for impacts to shellfish in the adjacent areas. In addition, the BOCC cannot claim it has met the requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for the protection of nearby natural resources. iii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and Chapter 18.2 2 JCC for Protection of Critical Areas State law requires that counties ensure any Master Plan Resort is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas (RCW 36. ?0A.360 ( 4)( d) Master Planned Resorts). The Development Agreement Section 8.4 Critical Area Standards states that the allowed uses within the critical areas of the MPR "shall be determined based upon the Jefferson County Critical Area requirements, Chapter 18.22 JCC", which is found in Development Agreement Appendix C. In addition, Development Agreement Section 8.8.7 addresses compliance with Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01-Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 10 Appendix 163 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 0128-08, which describes a required "conservation easement protecting any wetlands and their respective buffers identified or created on the Property." We are very troubled by the Developer's plan to remove 20,700 sq. ft. of wetland and associated buffers in and around Wetland B of the MPR, in direct conflict with state and local regulations, and Sections 8.4 and 8.8.7 of the Development Agreement. The MPR includes the placement of 300,000 cubic yards offill in Wetland 8 for the purpose of placing a plastic liner and creating a stormwater /wastewater storage basin in Kettle 8 (see Development Agreement, Section 10.1.3 Phase 1 and FSEIS). Therefore, the proposal is in direct conflict with Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance and Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 for the protection of wetlands. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations lack any explanation for why the County would allow these variances to their development standards and regulations. The County fails to provide any rationale for allowing the Developer to design the entire MPR project around this exemption for the purposes of creating a catchment basin in Kettle B. Therefore, the County cannot claim that the Development Agreement and Development Regulations have met the required conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and required Critical Area Ordinance (JCC Chapter 18.22) while the MPR design for Wetland B remains audaciously noncom pliant. iv. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) for the Examination of Ecological Impacts As stated previously, the Tribe is concerned with the MPR plans to retain stormwater in Kettle 8 with dual functions of stormwater treatment by way of retention and infiltration and water supply for fire safety and irrigation. Condition H of Ordinance 01-0128-08 clearly states that, "the possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved." To date we have seen no documentation that this condition has been achieved. We support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to conduct "a thorough independent review of the hydro logic function and relationship between surface water, groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this particular aquifer as both a sole-source ( or near sole-source) aquifer for the residents of Black Point and the significant aquifer recharge area, potential for contamination by pollutants in runoff or any other contributions to the aquifer from treated sources." We also support the Planning Commission's recommendation for "a detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff generated on site will be treated and infiltrated onsite." Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 11 Appendix 164 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 Additionally, it is unclear how the ecological impact of filling a wetland to construct a storm water pond may be mitigated. The ecology of a natural wetland, especially not one that exists in the context of an extraordinary geological feature such as Kettle 8, will not be replicated by typical constructed wetlands. The likelihood of success for achieving any ecological function with a constructed wetland is yet to be determined. Overall, the Tribe is highly concerned that the County has not examined the Developer's water plan in more detail and independently from the Developer before proposing to move forward with the Development Agreement. The BOCC cannot claim to be compliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) until a comprehensive ecological examination has been completed and all concerns have been addressed with regard to the Developer's water plan that alters unique geological features and wetlands. v. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) for the Development of a Water Quality Monitoring Plan The proposed water quality monitoring plan is lacking in scope and sample frequency. We previously informed the County of these concerns in a comment letter, dated May 1, 2017. However, despite our concerns, the sample locations remain as originally proposed by the Developer, the sample locations are limited to three sites within Pleasant Harbor, despite Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) requiring "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program." The sites within Pleasant Harbor should not be considered offsite, due to their close proximity to Statesman's own marina. Monitoring within the marina area will be more likely to detect pollution from vessel activities such as illicit discharges of bilge water or sewage than from additional stormwater runoff. The language in condition R, "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading", of/site is intended to mean waters which may receive pollution from sources associate with the resort including stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or atmospheric deposition from vehicle emissions. We do not expect these potential effects to be limited to or concentrated in Pleasant Harbor. Additional sites must be located in marine waters downgradient from the proposed infiltration basins, due to the direct connection between the sea-level aquifer and the nearshore marine waters. We support the use of monitoring wells to detect contamination of groundwater by pollutants but given that the groundwater will ultimately discharge to marine water, it is prudent to sample marine water where groundwater receiving infiltrated stormwater would be expected to discharge. Discharge and/or contaminant loading is intended to mean that concentrations and discharge are to be measured to calculate a contaminant load. By measuring concentration and discharge at points along the assumed pathways of pollution transport, one can better understand the connection between pollution source and sink, which would be useful for understanding where pollutants are being removed and whether by degradation, attenuation and/or filtration. This language supports our Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 12 Appendix 165 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 request for consideration of the fate and transport of contaminants expressed in our comments dated May 1. 2017 and January 19, 2017. The parameters to be measured are limited to the basic parameters listed for general aquatic life criteria. Additional parameters are needed to ensure marine water quality is not degraded by increased concentration of metals and organic pollutants, including copper, lead, zinc, PAHs, nutrients and pesticides and herbicides. Section VIl(A)(2) states "sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies, to avoid duplication of effort data from other agencies may be used if possible." Mussel cages were deployed this year by the Tribe, in coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, as part of the Puget Sound Mussel Monitoring program for Stormwater Action Monitoring. Data from these mussel cages should be used, both to establish a baseline and to detect exceedances, as stated in our comments dated May 1, 2017 and January 19, 2017. The water quality monitoring plan Vl(2) states prior to the first development permit application being submitted, a report will be provided to Jefferson County Public Health describing the proposed best management practices for protection of water quality. We expect the BMPs proposed include stormwater pretreatment upstream of infiltration basins. Infiltration of stormwater in a kettle will not be sufficient by itself, as the capacity for removal of contaminants by soil is finite. Soil chemistry must be considered to adequately remove contaminants by soil, 7 and condition ( q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires it. Section VI(lO) of the plan states that methodology and quality assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the BMPs are approved. This provision suggests an opportunity for development of an adaptive management plan, as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08 (r). Adaptive management is intended to increase the ability to fashion timely responses in the face of new information and in a setting of varied stakeholder objectives and preferences. Section Vl(S) states that "For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort". It seems this would cover how to respond to a water quality exceedance, but it is unclear how adaptive management will inform the appropriate responses and how they will be agreed upon. Additional work is needed to craft an appropriate adaptive management plan. Vlll(A) states sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable water quality standards for a period of five years. Sample frequency should not be reduced until the build out of the resort has been achieved. Exceedance criteria in monitoring wells must be as stringent as drinking water standards, whether or not the sentinel wells sampled are utilized for drinking water Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 13 Appendix 166 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 purpose. Sentinel wells are not only an early warning system but must trigger a response required under Vl(S). The water quality monitoring plan must be corrected to address these issues before the County considers it complaint with the Ordinance. vi. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(n) for the Development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan We have yet to see any Wastewater Treatment Plan for the MPR project. Currently the Development Agreement, Appendix I, includes a reference to pages 931 -93 2 of the FEIS, which includes a preamble stating the intention for the development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan, but none is provided. To date a plan has not been produced, according to email communications between PGST and Statesman via the County. Because the Developer plans to discharge treated wastewater into Kettle 8 for reuse in irrigation and fire suppression, it is important to ensure an adequate system of treatment. Without any plans for a system we are unable to determine whether the proposed project will be appropriate. Until a Wastewater Treatment Plan is provided, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed MPR will meet the requirements of Chapter 246-272B WAC, Jefferson County Code 08.15.100, Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(n) and Development Agreement Section 8.10. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant. vii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(t) for Addressing Impacts of the Pleasant Harbor Marina Ordinance 01-0128-08 ( 63) (t) states the following: The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village. (Italics added) The Development Agreement fails to address the adaptive management program requirement, as identified by Condition T. We are concerned with the potential for additional vessel traffic as a result of this project causing degradation of water quality. While a pump-out station is located within Pleasant Harbor, we seek assurances that operators of the proposed MPR will actively enforce the rules prohibiting discharge of sewage from vessels, as well as discharges of grey water, bilge water or fuel. Covenants for the marina will need updating. Per the 2006 Marina Impacts Analysis, water quality monitoring station #293 "meets standards but with some concerns." An increase in the intensity of use associated with the marina and Pleasant Harbor as a result of the MPR will likely generate additional concerns. The County cannot claim it has met the Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 14 Appendix 167 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 requirements of this condition without providing an appropriate adaptive management program to address potentially significant impacts to Pleasant Harbor. Additionally, the Developer's economic analysis of the MPR should include an assessment of impacts to fisheries and commercial shellfish as a result of the increase in vessel traffic from the additional MPR residents. viii. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(p) for the Development of a Neighborhood Water Policy We are unclear how Condition P of Ordinance 01-0128-08 has been satisfied. The Ordinance requires that a Neighborhood Water Policy be established which requires Statesman to provide access to their water supply in the event that the neighbors waters supply is affected by seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusions would occur in response to pumping of the aquifer and given that the neighboring wells would draw from the same aquifer, shifting production from one well to another would not improve the aquifer condition in the long term. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(p). ix. Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(1) for the Protection of Wildlife The proposed Development Agreement, by virtue of its adoption by reference of the November 2017 Revised Wildlife Management Plan (RWMP), contains incomplete, inadequate and ineffective provisions to mitigate the impacts of the MPR on wildlife, particularly on the Duckabush elk herd. The RWMP only partially meets the requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance O 1-012 8-08 condition 63(1). The RWMP still contains outdated information about the life history and ecology of the Duckabush elk herd, including the erroneous statement that it is a migratory herd. If the RWM P is to be used as a blueprint for mitigating the impacts of the M PR on wildlife, it must be based on the best available scientific information. Erroneous information detracts from the credibility of the Development Agreement. Second, the RWMP does not contain a definitive, enforceable commitment that wild animals will not be killed when conflicts arise. Despite Ordinance 01-0128-08's requirement that non-lethal means must be used to address wildlife damage, the Development Agreement and RWMP do not specifically prohibit lethal removal of animals. The Development Agreement and/or RWMP must contain an enforceable provision that wild animals will not be killed to prevent wildlife damage, except in cases where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety. The Development Agreement and RWMP fails to adequately recognize and mitigate the risk that the elk herd will shift its home range and occupy the MPR site. The new provision relating to the installation of a deterrent fence contains only a single, ambiguous sentence, stating only that "the Applicant has agreed to satisfy the concerns Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 15 Appendix 168 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 of PGST to install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access." Furthermore, the RWMP is internally inconsistent, stating that the fence will be built only "as a last resort." There is a need for the Development Agreement and RWMP to describe the fence in sufficient detail (including where and when it will be built) to allow the Tribes and the Jefferson County staff to evaluate whether the applicant has met the County's expectations for mitigating the impacts of the MPR on wildlife. The major shortcoming in the revised plan is that it still does not describe management actions in sufficient detail to allow the assessment of risk or the likelihood of success. Evaluating the potential efficacy of management actions, or their impacts on wildlife is not possible because the descriptions of these actions are vague and incomplete. Any statement of proposed actions that is intended to be legally binding must contain performance standards that are objective, quantifiable, and measureable. The Development Agreement and RWMP fails to identify such standards. It does not adequately describe the conditions under which remedial management actions will be taken and leaves too much discretion to the Developer to decide when such actions are necessary. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe cannot afford wildlife losses brought about by poor planning and a lack of commitment to wildlife stewardship by the Developer. Every elk removed from the population by vehicle collisions is an elk that cannot serve the ceremonial and subsistence needs of tribal members. Every hour that the elk spend in high human density areas inaccessible to tribal hunters is an hour that our tribe is denied its treaty right to hunt. In addition to these comments, we support the letter submitted by Tim Cullinan, Point No Point Treaty Council, concerning the proposed Wildlife Management Plan. 3. Conclusion As proposed, the Development Agreement includes inappropriate language with regard to the recognition of culturally significant areas. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations present errors and areas of noncompliance related to density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, inappropriate sequencing of the review, and the failure to meet required provisions and conditions of Ordinance O 1-0128-08. Our concerns with regard to cultural resources, shellfish harvest areas, impacts to wetlands, water quality degradation, and effects on wildlife have not been addressed. Therefore, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe opposes the adoption of the proposed Development Agreement and proposed Ordinance amending Title 17 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County code. We would appreciate being informed about any actions related to the MPR project that Jefferson County's Board of County Commissioners and Department of Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 16 Appendix 169 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 Community Development plan to take now or in the future. We look forward to continuing a meaningful process for government-to-government consultation. Thank you. Je omy Sullivan Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4 791 17 Appendix 170 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE-Kingston, WA 98346 APPENDIX A Shellfish Seeding Mitigation The increase in residents into the Pleasant Harbor MPR area will have an impact on the public beaches in the area. Both the Duckabush and the Dosewallips are minutes away from the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR project. In order to mitigate the impact from increased non-treaty intertidal harvest, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe proposes the following: 1) 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years to be split between Duckabush and Dosewallips 2) 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips Shellfish Seeding Mitigation Calculations The calculations used to determine the quantities and frequencies of the proposed shellfish seeding mitigation are as follows. 890 residential units with an average occupancy of 2.5 persons per unit will increase the seasonal local population by an estimated 2,225 persons. This number does not include the projected increase in daytime visitors that will be drawn to the area by the golf course and other retail establishments associated with the project, or the projected increase in the local population stemming from new employment created by the project. If 1 % of the new Black Point residents harvest clams and oysters on each of the approximately 90 daylight low tides 0 M LLW or lower between the months of March and September, then harvest effort will increase by approximately 2,000 person-harvest-days per year (0.01 x 2225 x 90). Assuming that each person harvests their limit of 40 Manila clams on each low tide, the 2,000-person harvest days will result in a harvest of 80,000 clams per year and 240,000 clams over three years. Manila clam seed takes three years to reach harvestable size and survival during this period ranges from 5-25%. Based on this survival the 1 million clam seed proposed as a seeding amount every three years would be expected to produce between 50,000 and 250,000 harvestable clams. This range encompassed the harvest increase of 240,000 clams that the project is expected to generate. Assuming that each person harvests their limit of 18 Pacific oysters on each low tide, the 2,000-person harvest days will result in a harvest of 36,000 oysters per year and 144,000 oysters over 4 years. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4 791 18 Appendix 171 PORT GAMBLE S'KlALLAM TRIBE NA TURAl RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE -Kingston, WA 98346 Each bag of seeded oyster cultch yields 240-900 adult oysters (this is based on an average of 300 shells per bag, 8-12 spat per shell, and 10-25% survival of spat to adulthood) after four years of growth. Based on these assumptions, the 400 bags of seeded cultch proposed as a seeding amount every four years would be expected to produce between 96,000 and 360,000 harvestable oysters. This range encompasses the harvest increase of 144,000 oysters that the project is expected to generate. Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 19 Appendix 172 Appendix N Water Quality Monitoring Plan, including Amendment 1 Appendix 173 Water Quality Monitoring Plan For Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort June 4, 2018 Appendix 174 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan ......................................................................................................... 3 I. Part of Development Agreement ................................................................................................ 3 II. Ordinance Requirement for a Water Quality Monitoring Plan .............................................. 3 III. Use Designation ...................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Numerous Potential Impacts on Water Quality in and around Pleasant Harbor .................... 3 V. Comparison of Water-Related Impacts of Current and Planned Development by Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP Compared to Other Operations in the Area .................................... 4 VI. Performance Standards ........................................................................................................... 4 VII. Pleasant Harbor Sampling ...................................................................................................... 5 B. Surface Water Quality Criteria ............................................................................................... 5 VIII. Black Point Groundwater. ................................................................................................... 6 X. Actions to be Taken, if Sampling Results Show Increasing Concentrations in Water Quality Parameters ....................................................................................................... 7 X.A. Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................................................. 7 X.B. Sampling Management ................................................................................. 7 2 of 10 • • • • .. - ·- • . --- • ... Appendix 175 Water Quality Monitoring Plan Water Quality Monitoring Plan I. Part of Development Agreement This Water Quality Monitoring Plan is a part of and is enforceable under the Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, the developer of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort in Brinnon, Washington. The primary goal of this Water Quality Monitoring Plan is to comply with Ordinance No. 01- 0128-08 Condition 63-R is to establish the requirements for a comprehensive water quality monitory plan to provide a means of ensuring that the Resort does not add to any existing water quality challenges. To that end, this Water Quality Monitoring Plan provides a system to verify that the no impact plan of the Resort is and will be effective to protect sensitive natural resources. II. Ordinance Requirement for a Water Quality Monitoring Plan Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 Condition 63-R requires the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort to prepare and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan: A County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site specific action, utilizing the best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program. III. Use Designation Per WAC 173 -201A-600 and WAC 173 -201A-610, Pleasant Harbor carries an "Extraordinary" marine water quality use designation. IV. Numerous Potential Impacts on Water Quality in and around Pleasant Harbor In addition to the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina and the proposed resort to be built by Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP (Resort), there are a number of other uses that potentially could negatively impact water quality in Pleasant Harbor other than the Resort. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Home Port Marina in Pleasant Harbor; 2. Vessels anchored in Pleasant Harbor, sometimes unattended for weeks or months; 3. Land owned by the State of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), including a WDFW boat launch; 4. At least 6 private docks; 3 of 10 Appendix 176 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 5. Private development owned by a number of persons, including at least 10 private residence structures on septic systems visible from the water, including one house owned by Pleasant Harbor Marina; 6. Septic system failures in the Duckabush and Dosewallips River watersheds; 7. On-going construction on at least one building site on the southeastern bluff of the harbor. V. Comparison of Water-Related Impacts of Current and Planned Development by Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP Compared to Other Operations in the Area 1. The new WDFW public boat launch sees increased use each year, including extensive commercial use by Tribal fisheries. 2. With the improvements at the parking area and access to the State Park dock near the entrance of the harbor, the dock attracts more visitors; 3. The proposed Master Planned Resort development will not increase the number of moorage slips; 4. Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced and improved fuel dock and fuel systems to meet strict environmental requirements; 5. Pleasant Harbor Marina replaced and improved the marine sewage pump out system to offer more pump out stations and more reliable equipment to the public; 6. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently offers the only pump out service and fuel for visiting boaters in Central Hood Canal; 7. Pleasant Harbor Marina strictly enforces Best Management Practices (BMP's) including a no discharge policy concerning black water, contaminated bilge water, fuel, oil or any other chemicals hazardous to the environment; 8. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently is recognized as a Washington Clean Marina and has achieved the EnviroStar Clean Marina certification; 9. Pleasant Harbor Marina currently publishes a monthly newsletter with information reinforcing the BMP's of the Marina; 10. The Resort Development will follow strict environmental standards during and after construction. In the context of the affected environment described above, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP (Resort) proposes to participate in a program to monitor the impact of developments, both private and public, to the water quality of Pleasant Harbor. VI. Performance Standards 1. The Resort will not cause a violation of any water quality criteria. 4 of 10 - Appendix 177 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 2. Prior to the date of application of the application for the first development permit, the Resort must provide a report to the Jefferson County Public Health's Water Quality Division (JCWQ) of the best management practices to be applied so that when all appropriate combinations of individual best management practices are utilized, the Resort will not cause a violation of water quality criteria. 3. Best management practices for the Resort established in pursuant to this Water Quality Monitoring Plan permits, orders, rules, or directives of Ecology or JCWQ shall be reviewed annually and shall and modified, as appropriate, so as to achieve compliance with water quality criteria. 4. If the Resort is applying all best management practices appropriate or required by the Washington Department of Ecology ("Ecology") or JCWQ and a violation of water quality criteria occurs, the Resort shall notify JCWQ within 48 hours. 5. For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort. 6. If any violation of water quality criteria occurs, the Resort shall modify existing best management practices or apply further water pollution control measures, selected or approved by Ecology or JCWQ, to achieve compliance with water quality criteria. 7. Activities which potentially contribute to nonpoint source pollution shall be conducted utilizing best management practices to prevent violation of water quality criteria. 8. Activities which potentially cause pollution of stormwater shall be conducted so as to comply with the water quality criteria. The primary means to be used for requiring compliance with the water quality criteria shall be through best management practices required by Ecology or JCWQ for activities which generate stormwater pollution. 9. Performance standards will meet Washington State Ecology requirements in WAC 173 -201A and 173 -200 as appropriate and as may be revised. 10. Methodology and Quality Assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the best management practices for this program are approved. VII. Pleasant Harbor Sampling A. Locations 1. Initial sampling locations will be the THREE locations identifies as points 1, 2 and 5 on Figure 2 (page 3) of Appendix 2 of the 2007 DEIS (copy attached). 2. Sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies, to avoid duplication of effort data from other agencies may be used if possible. B. Surface Water Quality Criteria Table 1 below illustrates proposed water quality parameter goals for the marine sampling locations in Pleasant Harbor based on WAC l 73-201A-210. 5 of 10 - Appendix 178 Water Quality Mo nitoring Plan Table 1 """-"'"""'-"""'"""'""--------· ----�·-·----·-·-.... -... -·--'""""""""''"'----· Water Quality Parameter Category Criteria Ecology ---·············--··-·-···········"·"····----!--------t--J�.egulations Aquatic Life pH ___ ,,,_,,_, _____ _ Aquatic Life Turbidity Within the range of7.0 to 8.5 with a WAC 173_20lA-Extraordinary human-caused variation of less than 210(l)(t) .0.2 units Extraordinary Turbidity must not exceed: 5 NTU over background when background is 50 NTU or less: or A IO percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU WAC 173-201A- 2IO(l )(e) ·------"''""'"'"'"'"""'"''"''--�· --1-------+ ............. __ , ___ __, Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen ____ Q?._Q)., ___ _ Aquatic Life Temperature .. ,_,, __ ,_, ____ ------r Water Contact Recreation Bacteria Criteria C. Monitoring Schedule Phase Schedule Pre-construction Quarterly Construction Monthly Post-Construction Monthly Extraordinary 7.0 mg/L for lowest I-day minimum WAC 173-201A- 21 O(l)(d) Extraordinary 13 degrees Celsius for highest I-day WAC 173-20 IA- ___ m�ximum (l -DMax) ............... _,__?,lO_Q).(sL ...... _ Fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 colonies/l OOml, with not more than 10 percent of all samples ( or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean WAC l73-201A- 2I0(3)(b) --�-v_al_u_e exceeding 43 colonies/I o.9_m_L_..._. .......... -·····-·-·-·�-� Comments Establish baseline conditions in marine waters of Pleasant Harbor Monitor water quality during construction As analyses are evaluated and results are favorable, the sampling can be modified with approval from JCWQ VIII. Black Point Groundwater A. Sampling Location and Frequency Developer shall also conduct semi-annual sampling from MW 2, MW 5, MW 7 and MW 8 depicted on Figure 1 of the map prepared by the Subsurface Group LLC. Sampling shall begin no later than the date of the application for the first development permit. Developer shall sample groundwater for primary and secondary contaminants list in Table 1 of WAC 173 -200-040. Sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable groundwater standards for a period of five years. B. Criteria Sample results shall be compared to Washington groundwater standards set forth in WAC 173- 200-040. 6 of 10 -r i - -.... I I -- Appendix 179 Water Quality Monitoring Plan IX. Reporting of Sampling Results. Sampling results must be reported to JCWQ immediately, but no later than within 48 hours after receipt by the Resort. X. Actions to be Taken, if Sampling Results Show Increasing Concentrations in Water Quality Parameters A. Investigation If sampling results show three consecutive increases in concentrations of any one of the water quality parameters sampled under this Agreement the Developer shall take steps to identify the cause of the increase. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the increase in the water quality parameters, including but not limited to inspecting, sampling, or testing to determine the cause, nature and extent of the increase. JCWQ may require the Developer to provide a plan for investigation within the time determined by JCWQ as necessary to address the increasing concentrations in the water quality parameters. B. Remediation Under the direction of the JCWQ, THE Developer shall eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential threat to human health or the environment posed by increasing concentrations that are caused by the construction or operations of the Resort, including taking steps to eliminate, or modify the source to insure applicable groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. X.A. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data submitted must include verification of appropriate Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). To meet this requirement, the Resort must prepare a Quality Assurance Plan (QAPP) in accordance with the requirements of the latest version of Ecology's Publication No. 04-03-030, December 2016 Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies and the most recent versions of EPA Documents QA/R-5, EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, and QA/G-5, Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. See Ecology's Publication No. 04-03-030, Appendix D. A template for an acceptable QAPP is in Ecology's Publication No. 04-03 -030, Appendix K. X.B. Sampling Management This water quality monitoring plan may be modified based on an analysis of results, comparison of existing data sources and consultation with JCWQ as results exceeding applicable water quality criteria are analyzed. The monitoring plan may be revised over time so that it remains effective, complies with applicable law, and industry standards. Examples of revisions that may be addressed include but are not limited to: 1. Sampling sites may be added or removed depending on appropriateness of sampling locations to final design; 2. Monitoring schedule may be modified based on the evaluation of results; 3. Updated or improved sampling techniques based on new technology; and, 7 of 10 Appendix 180 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 4. Revise parameters to reflect changes in existing environmental concerns. 8 of 10 Appendix 181 Water Quality Monitoring Plan ,j: •I '=' "' .... C @ 'Miter Quality Sample Lo�ation and ID Site n �': Mn� � ' lll;r loailj)f'lio r.r Ji I i'A;'IIIM' 5hfYN1 .llll �j:111:'<slrol». .. :! It,� 1J1�"!1 '! 11.>" nl'l<rollJ, pu·� t I! 111.,.d!.'d lo .-,ucl •n � •ll:r:.i"!J ,. Ill�� oJ ,.,, ...... , ,.,,,.,, ........ cJ,.,., ..... ,.�"'''· ('<!�r-,,, .. ,,.,..-, Jn1: ::in nal II g-:i·lie:l 11c �-·::c, a-.: «irnc:nl ct a c:lrcnlc 11Qs. Th.:1111�.,ir r 1� •= !It:� t, GtaCn;i nee111 In:, :ii·d .,. , =-er,,e, .n lh, c.lJd:il 111!:crd :, .&:. t·t, � iO ,,11W'Jtli 11 l �-I.ls u"l't).v"ql � :.i,t,,· :,t r41'W�.ail � llnr P• 1 11 A:ft:/ .. r..t·.:a ·"" :,i,t,t1+¥;,l 1."'1! u· 111!'$:I t', '.\T:"l."•J: r�n,�s: 1.m D:t'.ol Seu "()Cl:, IYlll�-:il.l:S, i;l.:m :oms. ;ir,: rc.a:11. .. � .. TlOER 2)00. t] L::io. ntt I;!:,,. >:i..,r,,s, ,:r:,:-s. �nd ,1,;i�xc e� l'rcm Cei,�1:..,. JI Etclcsb·. � b.Nfl•1 11·,-:111:11-"1:h .;.huN 1"4'1. · .. ,...,." 1M•a 1111:itll (1::-"1 T1i111>t� ... ·>, -1,i�:.i ·r.ol Jo.llv ;o,e: � L:,·OM -:t·l:} , ..... =,.. -... •.-w� • ·Y�•· a .... -�.� •. ,.. h'A1·. t.._. ,,,.>i., ,,,.>,.· .:.a .. -. .. ,�tr1 ct)J C - --- Marin@ Survey Water Quality Lo-cations P·easam Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Brinnor., WaSihington GeoENGINEERS CJ Figure 2 f.L.:':�::.:'.,::._·"11:._ ___________________ ..========================:::'.J 9 of 10 ~ ''*'' ~ ,-,cg• • • " I ~ I I I .I ~ Appendix 182 Water Quality Monitoring Plan otes: 1) Well locations are apprnximate. Domeseic well locatiom. typically to nearest quarter quarter UDJ:ess better known. 2) See Appendix fur well logs Subsurface Group, LLC Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort GrowidwaterlmpactEvaluanon Statesman Cmporntion 10 of 10 Monitoring Well Location (MW= monitorilllr well; VWP = vilmiting wile piezomrter - Water Supply Well Locatim Domestic Well and Monitoring Well Locations Figure I Praject N11111m SG0601-03 Appendix 183 AMENDMENT 1 TO W AIER QU ALITY MONITORING P:CAN This Water Quality Management Plan is amended as follows: (1) Section X. is renumbered as Section X.A and Section XI. is renumbered as Section X.B.; and, (2) A new Section Xis added as follows: X. Actions to be Taken, if Sampling Results Show Increasing Concentrations in Water Quality Parameters A. Investigation. If sampling results show three consecutive increases in concentrations of any one of the water quality parameters sampled under this Agreement the Developer shall take steps to identify the cause of the increase. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the increase in the water quality parameters, including but not limited to inspecting, sampling, or testing to determine the cause, nature and extent of the increase. JCWQ may require the Developer to provide a plan for investigation within the time determined by JCWQ as necessary to address the increasing concentrations in the water quality parameters. B. Remediation. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential threat to human health or the environment posed by increasing concentrations that are caused by the construction or operations of the Resort, including taking steps to eliminate, or modify the source to insure applicable groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. This Amendment 1 shall be attached to the Water Quality Management Plan. 35 Appendix 184 Appendix O Neighborhood Water Supply Program Appendix 185 PLEASANT HARBOR NEIGHBORHOOD WATER SUPPLY PLAN January 8, 2018 Appendix 186 Table of Contents 1 Purposes of this Policy. ........................................................................................ 4 2 Definitions. ........................................................................................................... 4 a. Baseline Standard. ........................................................................................ 4 b. Black Point. ................................................................................................... 4 c. County. .......................................................................................................... 5 d. County Board of Health. ............................................................................... 5 e. DCD. ............................................................................................................. 5 f. Development Agreement. ............................................................................. 5 g. Department. ................................................................................................... 5 h. Developer. ..................................................................................................... 5 i. Developer’s Property. ................................................................................... 5 j. Ecology. ........................................................................................................ 5 k. Environmental Health Director. .................................................................... 5 l. Groundwater Monitoring Plan. ..................................................................... 5 m. High Risk SIPZ. ............................................................................................ 6 n. Neighboring Well. ........................................................................................ 6 o. Ordinance. ..................................................................................................... 6 p. Permit. ........................................................................................................... 6 q. Pleasant Harbor Water System. .................................................................... 6 r. Pleasant Harbor Wells. ................................................................................. 6 s. Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op. ........................................................................ 6 t. Pleasant Tides Operator. ............................................................................... 6 u. Pleasant Tides Wells. .................................................................................... 6 v. Policy. ........................................................................................................... 7 w. Potential Threat. ............................................................................................ 7 x. Public Water System. .................................................................................... 7 y. Regulation. .................................................................................................... 7 z. Safe Drinking Water Act. ............................................................................. 7 aa. Satellite System Management Agency. ........................................................ 7 bb. Seawater Intrusion Policy. ............................................................................ 7 cc. SIPZ. ............................................................................................................. 7 dd. State Board of Health. ................................................................................... 8 ee. Term of the Development Agreement. ......................................................... 8 Appendix 187 ff. Well Construction Standards. ....................................................................... 8 3 Compliance with All Requirements of the Permit, the Ordinance, and the Seawater Intrusion Policy. ........................................................................................... 8 4 Compliance with Groundwater Monitoring Plan Requirements. ......................... 8 5 Compliance with Condition 63(p) of the Ordinance. ........................................... 8 a. Required Consultation. ................................................................................. 8 b. Initial Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 9 c. Reserve Areas Required. ............................................................................... 9 d. Replacement Water Required for Affected Neighboring Wells. .................. 9 Appendix 188 1 Purposes of this Policy. The Developer (defined below) proposes to operate a Public Water System (defined below) at the Developer’s Property (defined below). The purposes of this Pleasant Harbor Neighborhood Water Policy (this Policy) are to: (a) Fulfill the requirements of paragraph 63(p) of the Ordinance; (b) Assure that the Developer and the Pleasant Harbor Water System (defined below) take investigative or corrective action necessary to assure that its groundwater wells do not cause saltwater intrusion and compromise the safety and reliability of the underlying aquifer; (c) Establish monitoring and mitigation measures that meet and exceed the requirements for municipal water supply well installation or operation in a High Risk SIPZ (as defined below), even though the Developer’s Property (defined below) is not located in a High Risk SIPZ, consistent with the Developer commitment to assure its neighbors and the County (defined below) that the aquifer beneath the Developer’s Property is used wisely and is protected from salt water intrusion. 2 Definitions. a. Baseline Standard. “Baseline Standard” means: (i) for the Pleasant Tides Wells, the average of the results for the constituents measured and reported in the last three annual reports filed by the Pleasant Tides Operator (defined below) prior to the start of construction at the Developer’s Property;[1] and, (ii) for individual wells, obtain approval from Ecology and the Director of DCD (in consultation with the Environmental Health Director) for sampling at least one individual well located waterward of the Developer’s Property in each direction to the East and South of the Developer’s Property. Then, the Developer shall provide to Ecology and the Director of DCD the results from samples from the selected individual wells not less than 30 days prior to the start of construction. Prior to construction, the Developer also shall provide Ecology and DCD copies of the last three annual reports filed by the Pleasant Tides Operator. b. Black Point. “Black Point” means the Black Point area in Brinnon, Washington where the Developer’s Property is located. [1] See, for example: http://www.wawater.com/ccr/. Appendix 189 c. County. “County” means Jefferson County, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. d. County Board of Health. “County Board of Health” means the Jefferson County Board of Health. e. DCD. “DCD” means the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. f. Development Agreement. “Development Agreement” means the development agreement to which this Policy is attached. g. Department. “Department” means the State of Washington Department of Health. h. Developer. “Developer” means Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership, and any successor or assign. i. Developer’s Property. “Developer’s Property” means the master planned resort proposed by the Developer that is the subject of the Ordinance. j. Ecology. “Ecology” means the State of Washington Department of Ecology. k. Environmental Health Director. “Environmental Health Director” means the Director of Environmental Health Section of the Jefferson County Public Health Department or designee. l. Groundwater Monitoring Plan. “Groundwater Monitoring Plan” means the Revised Pleasant Harbor Groundwater Monitoring Plan prepared by Subsurface Group, LLC dated February 22, 2010, attached as Appendix A, as is now in effect or as may be amended with the concurrence of the Department, Ecology, and the Director of DCD in consultation with the Environmental Health Director. Appendix 190 m.High Risk SIPZ. “High Risk SIPZ” means a SIPZ where areas within 1,000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses over 200 mg/L. n.Neighboring Well. “Neighboring Well” means any municipal, community or individual water supply well on Black Point that is not located on the Developer’s Property, located between the Developer’s Property and Hood Canal and that exists as of the effective date of the Development Agreement. Neighboring Wells include the Pleasant Tides Wells (defined below). o.Ordinance. “Ordinance” means Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08. p.Permit. “Permit” means the permit issued by Ecology on June 16, 2010 under Application Number G2-30436, attached as Appendix B, as is now in effect or as may be amended. q.Pleasant Harbor Water System. “Pleasant Harbor Water System” means the proposed Public Water System for the Developer’s Property. r.Pleasant Harbor Wells. “Pleasant Harbor Wells” means the water supply wells in the Pleasant Harbor Water System. s.Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op. “Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op” means the holder of the ground water permits issued by Ecology under applications G2-21134C (Black Point Water Co Inc), G2-2363C (Black Point Water Co Inc) and G2-27964 (Pleasant Harbor Beach Tract). t.Pleasant Tides Operator. “Pleasant Tides Operator” means Washington Water Service Company, P.O. Box 336, Gig Harbor, Washington 98335-0336, Phone: (253) 851-4060, or any subsequent Satellite System Management Agency operating the Pleasant Tides Wells. u.Pleasant Tides Wells. “Pleasant Tides Wells” means the Pleasant Tides Co-Op’s municipal water supply wells at Black Point. Appendix 191 v. Policy. “Policy” means this Neighborhood Water Supply Policy. w. Potential Threat. “Potential Threat” means increasing levels of chlorides as demonstrated by data collected and analyzed from groundwater pursuant to the standards required by the Regulation when: (i) chloride in such well exceeds Baseline Standard by 15%, resulting in chloride levels above 200 mg/l; or, (ii) chloride levels increase by 30%, resulting in levels above 100 mg/l over a 12-month period. x. Public Water System. “Public Water System” means a public water system as defined in WAC 246-290- 010(204) and WAC 246-290-020(1). y. Regulation. “Regulation” means Ch. 246-290, WAC. z. Safe Drinking Water Act. “Safe Drinking Water Act” means the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq. as is now in effect or as may be amended and any regulations that implements it. aa. Satellite System Management Agency. Satellite System Management Agency means a satellite system management agency established under RCW 70.116.134 that meets all the requirements of Ch. 246-295, WAC and is on the Department’s Office of Drinking Water’s List of Approved Satellite Management Agencies for Jefferson County.1 bb. Seawater Intrusion Policy. “Seawater Intrusion Policy” means the Jefferson County Seawater Intrusion Policy contained in JCC 18.22.130(8). cc. SIPZ. “SIPZ” means seawater intrusion protection zone, an area where aquifers and land overlaying aquifers has some degree of vulnerability to seawater intrusion. See JCC 18.10.190. 1 See: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4200/SMA_List.pdf. Appendix 192 dd. State Board of Health. “State Board of Health” means the Board of Health for the State of Washington. ee. Term of the Development Agreement. “Term of the Development Agreement” means the term of the Development Agreement. ff. Well Construction Standards. “Well Construction Standards” means the minimum standards for construction and maintenance of wells contained in Ch. 173-160, WAC, as it may be amended, and JCC 18.22(8). 3 Compliance with All Requirements of the Permit, the Ordinance, and the Seawater Intrusion Policy. The Developer shall comply with all requirements of the Permit, the Ordinance, and the Seawater Intrusion Policy. Compliance with the Ordinance includes full compliance with Condition 63(p) which states: A Neighborhood Water Policy shall be established that requires Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for additional recharge wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause mounding. For purposes of the Seawater Intrusion Policy, the Developer shall treat the Developer’s Property as a High Risk SIPZ to provide the maximum protection of the aquifer that can be required under the Seawater Intrusion Policy. 4 Compliance with Groundwater Monitoring Plan Requirements. The Developer shall comply fully with the Groundwater Monitoring Plan, as attached as Appendix A, as is now in effect or as may be amended with the concurrence of the Department, Ecology, and the Director of DCD in consultation with the Environmental Health Director. 5 Compliance with Condition 63(p) of the Ordinance. a. Required Consultation. The Developer shall consult with the Department, Ecology, the Director of DCD in consultation with the Environmental Health Director and the Pleasant Tides Operator if groundwater data demonstrates a Potential Threat to any municipal, community or Appendix 193 individual water supply wells on the Developer’s Property or waterward of the Developer’s Property. The Parties will attempt to determine the cause of the Potential Threat and identify additional monitoring and mitigation measures if the Potential Threat is the result of the Pleasant Harbor Wells. b. Initial Mitigation Measures In the event of a Potential Threat the Developer shall, after consultation required in paragraph 5.a., pursue one of the following mitigation measures to address the Potential Threat: (i) construction of a recharge well(s); or (ii) lowering pumping rates and/or adding additional points of withdrawal (“Initial Mitigation Measures”). The Developer may, in its sole discretion, forego the Initial Mitigation Measures and provide a replacement water source for impacted Neighboring Wells, as specified in paragraph d of this section. c. Reserve Areas Required. The Developer shall reserve areas for recharge and/or additional water supply wells for use if there is a Potential Threat to any Neighboring Wells. d. Replacement Water Required for Affected Neighboring Wells. If Initial Mitigation Measures do not address the Potential Threat, the Developer shall provide a replacement water source for affected Neighboring Wells if it the Potential Threat is caused by the Pleasant Harbor Wells. The Developer, in its sole discretion and at its sole cost, may: (i) Allow connection to the Pleasant Harbor Water System; or, (ii) drill a substitute water supply well to replace the affected Neighboring Well. If the Pleasant Harbor Water System provides replacement water in response to a Potential Threat, it may apply for consolidation of the water rights under RCW 90 44.105, decommission the affected Neighboring Well consistent with the requirements of state and local law, at the sole cost of the Pleasant Harbor Water System, and request that the owner of the affected Neighboring Well release any claims against the Developer and the Pleasant Harbor Water System for any impairment of the water right in exchange for providing replacement water. 7. Termination. This Policy shall terminate under the following scenarios, whichever occurs later: (a) Termination of the Development Agreement; or (b) five (5) years after a Potential Threat is discovered during the Term of the Development Agreement, then is addressed and available data demonstrates that the Potential Threat no longer exists. (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) Appendix 194 1 PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA A ML / -. ----~-~'""---'--":......J.J M, Garth Mann, Title: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP Date: ;;;;(. ( I 2< / (~ lint Directo't' of Cornmuni1 DeveJo 1ment: C/~ Patty Clwnas, Jefferson County Director of Community Development Date: B/ 101£_~ t I Neighborhood Water Supply Plan -Page 10 Appendix 195 EXHIBIT A Attached Revised Pleasant Harbor Groundwater Monitoring Plan Prepared by Subsurface Group, LLC, dated February 22, 2010 Appendix 196 ME:f'v10RANDUM To: Tom McDonald From: Sco tt Bend er SUBSURFACE GROUP LLC 11220 Fieldstone Lane N.E. Oalnbrldge l81and, Washl119lon 9811 o Tel: (200) 778-8074 Fa"; (206) 780-5669 CC: Cra ig Peck, Garth Mann ~· Date: February 22, 2010 RE: REVISED PLEASANT HARBOR GROUNDWATER MONJTORJNO PLAN Thi s mem orandum presents the groundwater monitoring pl an to be used durin g construct ion and operation of the Pleasant Harbor Golf a11d Marina Resort The plan is based on several rneetings and discussions with the Department of Ecology an d Pacfic Groundwater Group. Grm111dwater mon.itoring will be perfonned to document water quality a11<1 clrawdown conditions related to the deve lopment. figure 1 presen ts 11 map of the existing and prop osed gro und water monito ring instrume11 tat io11 . Two addition al monitoring wells will be insat lled, labe led M\1/-7 and MW-8 ns shown on the att ac hed map., Th es e will be standard 2-inch di ameter monitoring wells completed to a minimum of lO feet below the water tab le, The exi sting monitoring wells are labeled on tl1e map MW-2, MW-4, and MW-5. Wells la beled VWP-1, VWP -3, and VWP-6 were gcotechn ical boring.~ with vibrating wire piezometers in stalled ln them to meas ure groundwater pressures. Tile hi ghest groundwater demund at !he site will be during site developme nt prior to the construction of the central pond . About one month before construction and during this period data.loggers will be connected to all of the well s at the site. TI1e program will co llect measurements on groundwate r pressu re and fluid conductivity (whi ch can be correlated to salinity). Dataloggers that record groundwater pressu re will be installed at YWP-l , VWP-3, MW-5, an d VWP-6. Datalogge rs that measure bo th groundw ater pressure and flu id conductivity (which can be corre lated to salinity) will be in stalled al MW-2, MW-4, MW-7, and MW-8 . These un its will record groundwater measurements on a 0,5 hour bas is. The clatuluggers wi 11 be downloaded every two months duri ng the construction seaso n esti mat ed from April l to November 1, and every three months in the non-construction period, estimate d November J ro April I when there will be minima l well use. · During construct ion, water qua lity sam ples will be collected from th e two su pply wells and tvlW-4, MW-7, and MW-8 if an anornalous conductivity trend is observed. The sa mples wil! be sent to a water q11al ity laboratory for analysis of chl oricle and nit rates. SUBSURFACE GROUP, LLC SG0601•D3 Appendix 197 Memorandum to Statesman Corporation Februa1y 22, 2010 Page 2 After const ruction is completed and th e occ upancy of rhe resM units commences, al\ of the dataloggers wil l be downloaded quarterly. Water quality samples will be collected from the supply wells quarterly, This program will be continued for fi ve years or until the resort has achieved full build-out, whicheve r is longer; at which tim e the monitoring plan will be adjusted based on the results of the progra m. The data will be tra nsmitted to Ecology for their rev iew. .,. Ple as ant Harbor will perform a mlni rh um 72-hour aqt1 ifer test at eac h new wa ter supp ly wefl insta!\ecl for the project. Dudng testing the wells will be sa1r1pled for electricfll conductivity and chloride concentrations. Pleasa nt Harbor will use its best effo rt s to sample a minimum of two coastal domestic wel.ls for electrical conductivity and chloride concentrntions twice a-year in April and August. Sampling will be deiJendent llpon obt ain ing the perm issi on, cooperation and ava il ab il ity of the owner of the domestic well. Ecology has identified four potential candidaws; Pleasant Harbor will prioritize these wells, and wil l seek others if the listed wells are not available. For consisten cy , Pleasant Harbo1· wi!I attempt to establish a long-term relationship with those well owners. SUBSURFACE GROUP, LLC SG0601-03 Appendix 198 ~ ·-~ Notes: MW-8 1'ropo,n'CI Ne,t W~H 1,ocation 1) Well locations are approidmate. Domestic well locations typlcal!y to nearest quarter quarter unless better known. / I ' 2) See Appendix for well logs Subsurface Group, LLC Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Reso rt Groundwater Impact Evaluation Statesrn an Corporation Monitoring Well Location (MW • monitoring well: VWP., vibrating wire pie20meter Waler Supply Well Location Domestic Well and Monitoring Well Locations P1ojec:1 Numb~, SO0601·03 Figure 1 Appendix 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KITSAP COUNTY The BRINNON GROUP, a Washington non-profit corporation, Petitioner/Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Respondent/Defendant, and PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership, Additional Parties. No. 18-2-01758-18 LUP A DECISION AND ORDER This Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action is brought by Petitioner, the Brinnon Group, appealing the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' (BOCC) June 4, 2018 approval and adoption of Ordinance No. 04-0604-18, approving and authorizing the execution of the Development Agreement (DA) for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort between Jefferson County (County) and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Course, LLP (Developer). The Superior Court has jurisdiction to review the BOCC's authorization of the Development Agreement under RCW Chapter 36.70C. Petitioner alleges that the BOCC committed multiple reversible errors in its authorization of the Development Agreement. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 1 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 FACTS This case concerns the proposed development of the approximately 23 8-acre Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Black Point peninsula, on the west side of Hood Canal, south of Brinnon, Washington, in Jefferson County.1 This process began in 2002 when the Black Point area was identified in the Brinnon Subarea Plan as an area that "may be an appropriate location for a possible future Master Planned Resort."2 In 2006, the Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. applied to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan to designate the Black Point area as a Master Planned Resort3, prompting the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A Draft EIS was issued September 5, 20074, with a final version issued November 27, 2007 (FEIS)5. On January 28, 2008, the County approved Ordinance 01-0128-08, amending the County's Comprehensive plan, giving the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort at Black Point area "an underlying land use designation of Master Planned Resort."6 A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) was issued in December of 2015, which included "Alternative 3," a new project-level alternative that is "similar to Alternative 2, except that the size of the golf course is reduced to 9-holes and more natural area is preserved."7 On June 4, 2018, the BOCC approved Ordinance 03- 0604-18, amending the County's Uniform Development Code and adopting new zoning provisions for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort.8 That same day, in a separate hearing, the BOCC approved Ordinance 04-0604-18, authorizing the DA.9 1 Ordinance No. 04-0604-18, Exhibit2018-104-00001. 2 Brinnon Subarea Plan, Exhibit 2002-007-00048. 3 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Application for Formal Site Specific Comprehensive Amendment; Exhibit 2006-001-00001. 4 This version contemplated a 256-acre development, which included an 18-hole golf course. The development plan has since changed to be a roughly 238-acre development with a 9-hole golf course. Exhibit 2007-014-00003. 5 Exhibit 2007-025. 6 Ordinance No. 01-0128-08; Exhibit 2008-003-00001. 7 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS; Exhibit 2015-129-00005. 8 Ordinance No. 03-0604-18; Exhibit 2018-105-00002. 9 Ordinance No. 04-0604-18; Exhibit 2018-104-00001. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 2 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 On June 25, 2018, Petitioner filed this Land Use Petition, appealing the decisions by the BOCC adopting 03-0604-18 and 04-0604-18. By Order entered October 10, 2018, this Court dismissed Petitioner's claims regarding Ordinance 03-604-18, finding that the Western Washington Growth Management Board had jurisdiction over those claims. The Court heard oral argument as to Petitioner's claims under Ordinance 04-0604- 18 on December 19, 2018. At the end of the hearing, the Court requested additional briefing from the parties on the issues of whether the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina was part of the MPR and whether the DA required construction of the golf course and/or recreation center. The Court's decision on the Petition follows. STANDARD OF REVIEW RCW 36.70C.130, which sets the standards for granting relief on a LUPA appeal, states in relevant part: (1) The superior court, acting without a jury, shall review the record and such supplemental evidence as is permitted under RCW 36.70C.120. The court may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the standards set forth in (a) through (f) of this subsection has been met. The standards are: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; ( c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; ( d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; ( e) The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision; or (f) The land use decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief. (2) In order to grant relief under this chapter, it is not necessary for the court to find that the local jurisdiction engaged in arbitrary and capricious LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 3 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 conduct. A grant of relief by itself may not be deemed to establish liability for monetary damages or compensation. Standards (a), (b), (e), and (f) are questions of law, which are reviewed de novo.10 Under the substantial evidence standard of standard ( c ), "there must be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true" while "review[ing] the evidence and any reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest forum exercising fact finding authority."11 As to standard (d), a "clearly erroneous" application of the law to the facts occurs "when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."12 As to the deference required under RCW 36.70C.130(l)(b), [t]he statute does not require a court to show complete deference, but rather, such deference as is due. Thus, deference is not always due-in fact, even a local entity's interpretation of an ambiguous local ordinance may be rejected. Instead, the interpreting local entity bears the burden to show its interpretation was a matter of preexisting policy. No deference is due a local entity's interpretation that was not part of a pattern of past enforcement, but a by-product of current litigation. A local entity's interpretation need not be memorialized as a formal rule but the entity must prove an established practice of enforcement.13 The Developer argues in its Response that "[t]he Board of County Commissioners has expertise with these provisions and this Court must provide deference that is due."14 However, neither the Developer nor the County provide any "pattern of past enforcement" nor do they show "an established practice of enforcement" as to the BOCC's interpretation of any ambiguous local ordinances. Nor is any argument made that any interpretation by the BOCC was "a matter of preexisting policy." Therefore, where the Court encounters ambiguous language in the local ordinances, little, if any, deference may be granted to the BOCC's interpretation. 10 Whatcom Cty. Fire Dist. No. 21 v. Whatcom Cty., 171 Wn.2d 421,426,256 P.3d 295 (2011). 11 Nagle v. Snohomish Cty., 129 Wn. App. 703, 709, 119 P.3d 914 (2005). 12 Whatcom Cty. Fire Dist. No. 21, 171 Wn.2d at 427 (internal quotation omitted). 13 Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas Cty., 179 Wn.2d 737, 753, 317 P.3d 1037 (2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 14 Response Brief of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP at 8-9. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 4 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ANALYSIS I. Whether the MPR and DA Comply with the Criteria for Approval under the Jefferson County Code and Ordinance 01-0128-08 A. Whether the description of facilities provided in the DA and its incorporated maps and documents violates JCC 18.15.126(1)(b) and (d) JCC 18.15.126 provides Jefferson County's application requirements for master planned resorts. JCC 18.15.126(1) states in relevant part: 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: (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. ( 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. Petitioner argues that the description of facilities of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and depiction of them on land use maps are inadequate, inconsistent, and ambiguous, such that the DA and its incorporated documents fail to satisfy JCC 18.15.126(1)(b) and (d). More specifically, Petitioner voices concerns over (1) the golf terrace recreation center and conference center, and an alleged lack of description of the uses for the buildings; (2) what amenities will actually be included in the development, where they will be located, and during which phase they would be built; and (3) the lack of a specific location of short term visitor accommodations (STVA) and in which phase the STVA's will be built. Respondents argue that the ordinance does not require the level of detail sought by Petitioner, as the ordinance states that "[a] master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide a framework for project development and operation." Respondents argue that a "framework," under its plain and ordinary meaning, does not LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 5 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 require exacting details. Further, the County argues that many of the allegedly deficient details are provided in the FSEIS 15 , which is incorporated into the Master Plan by JCC 17.60.040 16 and paragraph 3.2 of the DA17 . A review of the amenities 18 listed in the DA and building details from the FSEIS provides numerous details as to each building, including specific details about the use of the Golf Terrace recreation and conference center.19 Petitioner fails to show the plain language of the code requires further detail. As to the details regarding "short-term visitor accommodations" (STVA), Petitioner argues that the provided information is insufficient, stating that none of the maps show where the STVA's will be, or in what phase they will be constructed. Respondents argue that sufficient descriptions of the STVA are addressed by JCC 17.60.07020 and the FSEIS, satisfying JCC 18.15.126(1)(b). Respondents further argue that the location of the STVA within the proposed residential buildings and the timing of when they will be built is not required by the plain language of JCC 18.15.126(1)(d) and that JCC 18.15.126(1)(d) is 15 See Exhibit 2015-129-00097; 107. 16 JCC 17.60.040 states: For the purposes of this division, the master plan for future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR consists of: the regulations set forth in this division, along with: the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; the conditions and requirements published in two environmental impact statements, the November 27, 2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort, and the December 2015 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Impact Statement, including maps, mitigation measures, phasing plan; and any development agreement between Jefferson County and the developer. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Art. 1)] 17 Exhibit 2018-121-00008; 9. 18 See exhibit 2018-104-00025, providing a list of five amenities is included in the DA at paragraph 10.3, stating that the MPR shall have, at a minimum (1) a 9-hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; (4) pool; and (5) water slides. 19 Pursuant to the FSEIS, the "Golf Terrace 1 building" will include "a restaurant, lounge, spa, conference and meeting rooms, chapel and billiards room." Exhibit 2015-129-00106. 20 JCC 17.60.070 states: Pursuant to Ordinance 01-0128-08, the Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of up to 890 residential units; provided, however, short-term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone. Short-term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units shall be construed to mean occupancies equal to or less than 30 days. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 56,608 square feet of resort commercial, retail, restaurant, and conference space. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Art. 1)] LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 6 JUDGESALLYF.OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 satisfied by the inclusion of the locations of residential development and non-residential development and the percentage of STV A to be offered, without including which specific buildings will house the STV A and in what numbers. JCC 18.15.126(1)(d) requires the land use map or maps show "the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential development types and location." This requires the inclusion of the size and location of residential and non-residential buildings, along with the total percentage of STV A's to be provided. The depiction of the "development types" refers to whether the buildings are residential or nonresidential, not whether the buildings are STV A or long-term visitor accommodations. If the code required further distinction such language would have been included to state that such a distinction was required. Further, there is nothing in JCC 18.15.126(l)(d) requiring any details as to the timing of the development of the STVA. Petitioner does not argue any specific standard under which it seeks review as to this alleged error by the BOCC. However, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden under any of the six LUPA standards ofreview, as to the DA's alleged violation of JCC 18.15.126(1)(b) and (d). B. Whether deforestation and grading will occur prior to installation of the water supply, contrary to condition 63(m) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 Petitioner argues that Ordinance 01-0128-08, condition 63(m), requmng "no deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply"21 contradicts the DA's phasing of development, which describes site clearing and grading in Phase la and construction of a drain field and water storage tank and distribution piping in Phase 1 b.22 The Pleasant Harbor FSEIS states: The water rights were granted by the Washington Department of Ecology on June 15, 2010. The existing on-site well within the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated plus a second well would be drilled in one of two 21 Exhibit 2008-003-00012. 22 Exhibit 2018-121-00019. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 7 JUDGESALLYF.OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 potential locations. The two wells would be available to provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. 23 Petitioner does not dispute that the project has established adequate water rights and that an adequate water supply has been identified, it instead argues that establishing a water supply means the installation of a physical water system. This is not what the plain language of condition 63(m) requires. Petitioner does not argue a specific standard under which it seeks review as to this alleged error by the BOCC. However, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden under any of the six LUP A standards of review, as to the DA's compliance with condition 63(m) of Ordinance 01-0128-18. Therefore, Petitioner's argument fails on this issue. C. Whether the DA fails to provide maps and descriptions sufficient to meet the criteria of JCC 18.15.126(l)(i) and JCC 18.15.135 regarding the phasing of development Petitioner argues that the phasing requirements are not adequately addressed in the DA because it lacks sufficient detail to determine whether each phase will operate successfully on its own and also fails to show how the MPR criteria will be met if construction ends after Phase I, as required under JCC 18.15.126(1) and JCC 18.15.135. Paragraph 10.1.2 of the DA states: JCC 18.15.135 requires that if a master planned resort will be phased, each phase must contain adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the Pleasant Harbor MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. The Developer will comply with JCC 18.15.135 and will complete or bond all necessary infrastructure to support a phase or sub-phase sufficient for each phase or sub-phase to stand alone, prior to obtaining approval for a subsequent phase. The Developer argues that the DA's Section 10.1.2 application of JCC 18.15.135(3) applies to "future development" applications, and its function is to provide the County with the authority to ensure that permit applicants demonstrate that the new completed phase 23 Exhibit2015-129-00038. LOP A DECISION AND ORDER 8 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ., 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 will be such that it can "stand alone." However, this does not explain why the DA can then adopt a 3-phase development in paragraphs 10.1.3-10.1.5 that is in direct contradiction with the minimum requirements for the MPR's required amenities, as provided in paragraph 10.3 of the Development Agreement and Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. The Developer next argues that the existing marina provides all necessary recreational opportunities such that it will satisfy the MPR requirements and JCC 18.15.135.24 Petitioner argues that the Marina cannot be considered as part of the MPR because, among other things, it is not listed in the list of amenities under 10.3. However, as stated by Pleasant Harbor in its supplemental briefing, E:xinbit 1 to the DA2 5 specifically lists the Marina in the list of parcels bound by the DA, and the zoning map adopted by the County for the MPR includes the Marina, as well as JCC chapters 17.75 and 17.80. Further, the fact that the Marina is not included as an amenity in the DA is logical given that it already exists and its later development does not need to be planned or agreed to by the parties. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Marina is a part of, and an amenity of, the MPR. Howev~r, while including the Marina, the authorized phasing of the DA still fails to provide "all other conditions of the Pleasant Harbor MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed" at the completion of Phase 1. Upon the completion of Phase 1, according to the DA, there would be the marina, 202 housing units, and a cleared site for the 9-hole golf course, with no golf course being built. In addition to lacking a golf course, Phase 1 fails to provide a spa, sports courts, pool, or water slides, all of which the MPR is required to provide pursuant to paragraph 10.3 of the DA.26 Phase 1 also fails to 24 Exhibit 2018-104-00023; Paragraph 10.1.3 of the DA describes Phase 1 as consisting of the following: Phase la consists of site clearing and grading for golf course, road network, building footprints, and Kettle B. Construct Highway 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements. Commence road construction with services and begin implementation of the vegetation management plan. Create construction materials processing location on the golf course site. Phase lb consists of construction of the LOSS drainfield (wastewater treatment plant back up system), water storage tank with distribution piping at Tee 5, transit stop, construct sanitary sewer pump stations, Sea View Villas (170 units), GolfVistas (32 units) and utility district. 25 Exhibit 2018-104-00037 through 00041. 26 "The Pleasant Harbor J\1PR shall, at a minimum, shall contain the following resort amenities (1) a 9-hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; (4) pool; and (5) water slides. These amenities shall be LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 9 J1JDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 provide a community center, a recreation center, a conference center, staff-quarters, a maintenance building, or commercial space.27 The Developer argues in its supplemental briefmg that it can phase development of recreational opportunities in an MPR "commensurate with demand" and that Petitioner identifies no authority prohibiting this.28 This argument is in direct conflict with the plain language of the DA, paragraphs 10.1.2 and 10.3, JCC 18.15.135, and Ordinance 01-0128- 08. It would require the Court to replace the word "must" from paragraph 10.1.2 from the DA with "commensurate with demand." It would also require the Court to replace the phrase "shall, at a minimum" from paragraph 10.3 with the phrase "commensurate with demand." Because the phasing of the development adopted by the DA is in direct conflict with the plain language of JCC 18.15.135(3), Petitioner has met its burden of showing that the BOCC's adoption of the DA was an erroneous interpretation of the law. D. Whether the DA fails to provide descriptive maps sufficient to meet the criteria of JCC 18.15.126(1)(e) and conditions 63(u) and 63(v) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 Petitioner argues that the DA fails to provide maps with sufficient detail to satisfy JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), which requires: ( 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. completed consistent with completion of the phase in which the amenity is proposed and made available to members of the general public for a fee to be established by the Developer." Exhibit 2018-104-00025. 27 See Ordinance 01-0128-08, Exhibit 2008-003-00016, which states that "[t]he Black Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center." 28 See Supplemental Brief of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, at 6-7. The Developer also argues that because the clearing of the golf course is required in Phase 1, with that expense already incurred, it would be motivated to then build the golf course. Id. If the Developer is committed to building the golf course, there is no explanation why it was not included in Phase 1, along with the other amenities explicitly required by the DA. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 10 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Petitioner also argues that the design fails to satisfy conditions 63(u)29 and 63(v)30 from Ordinance 01-0128-08, requiring the preservation of existing greenbelts and screening and incorporation of new buildings into the present landscape. 31 Respondents argue that such details are not required at this stage, more detail will be provided at later steps, and that these requirements are adopted by the DA ensuring that these conditions will be satisfied by the final development. Further, the Respondents argue that the FSEIS does provide written descriptions of landscaping, integration into the project site, parking, and roads, and how these will be integrated into the project site to achieve superior site design and preservation of natural amenities. A review of the DA and the incorporated environmental impact statements shows that the requirements of JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), as well as 63(u) and 63(v) are met. This includes details regarding landscaping and greenbelt preservation32, development requirements such as a 200-foot buffer along Hood Canal and a vegetative buffer along Highway 101 33 , adherence to International Dark Sky Association standards34, the removal 29 63(u) states: In keeping with the 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 of the shoreline should 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." In keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs. 30 63(v) states: In keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings. 31 Petitioner's Reply argues that the provided maps are insufficient because the maps fail to show landscaping details. Nothing in JCC 18.15.126(l)(e) requires such detail on the development maps. 32 See exhibit 2015-129-00024 ("Proposed development would disturb approximately 5 5 percent of the site and existing plant communities. These areas would be cleared of vegetation and new, maintained landscaping would be provided in pervious areas .... Approximately 103 acres of existing vegetation would be retained."). 33 See exhibit 2018-121-00893 ("The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 11 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 of existing concrete and gravel roads within the buffers of two existing wetlands35 , and contains a storrnwater management plan preventing developed areas from discharging storm water into Hood Canal36 . Therefore, Petitioner fails to show that the DA and the incorporated environmental impact statements fail to address how landscaping, screening, open space, and other components are integrated into the project site as to provide for a unified development, superior site design, and protection of natural amenities, in violation JCC 18.15.126(l)(e) and conditions 63(u) and 63(v). Therefore, Petitioner fails to meet its burden under any of the six LUP A standards of review on this issue. E. Whether the DA fails to provide "development standards applicable" to the proposed development, in violation of JCC 18.15.126(2) Petitioner argues that the DA fails to identify the "development standards" of the MPR development, as required under JCC 18.15.126(2), which states: (2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements), and RCW 36.70B.l 70 through 36.70B.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.70B.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; Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers.") 34 See exhibit 2018-104-00018 ("The Developer shall use the International Dark Sky Association ('IDA') Zone E-standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for 'areas with intrinsically dark landscapes' such as national parks, areas of outstanding :i;iatural beauty, or residential area where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards is attached in Appendix S. The Developer will implement the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards."). 35 See exhibit 2015-129-00046 ("Existing concrete and gravel roads within the buffers of Wetlands C and D will be removed and the areas will be re-planted with native vegetation that is found in the project vicinity."). 36 See exhibit 2007-025-00176 ("All stormwater generated in the upland marina area shall be captured and treated to County standards before discharge to the aquifer .... All surface water on constructed surfaces in the golf course area shall be captured and treated for recycling or treated in accordance with adopted County stormwater manuals, and infiltrated on site. Zero discharge to Hood Canal from the developed golf course/resort area is required."). LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 12 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ( 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 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and (f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and RCW 36.70B.l 70(3). Petitioner argues that there are only vague references to design standards and that they are lacking mandatory language, giving developers "standardless discretion" going forward, and leaving the community uninformed as to the result of the development and its impact. However, as stated by Respondents, a review of Section 8 of the DA, titled "Development Standards," demonstrates that the DA provides the necessary applicable development standards for the MPR.37 For example, Section 8.1 of the DA addresses density, applying chapter 17.60 of the JCC, while also stating that "Development of the Property shall not exceed 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space and indoor and outdoor recreational spaces when completed at full build out."38 Section 8.2 states that the County's Comprehensive Plan "shall be the policy guidance and the foundation for all future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR."39 Section 8.3 applies JCC 18.30.070, the County's stormwater management standards, to all future development within the MPR. Section 8.4 applies Chapter 18.22 of the Jefferson County Code, concerning critical area uses and requirements. Section 8.5 concerns land division standards, requiring that platting within the MPR comply with "RCW 58.17 and the County Land Division requirements, Chapter 18.35 JCC, and within the time frames adopted by the County pursuant to the 1995 Regulatory Reform Legislation, ESHB 1724 (ch. 347, Laws of 1995), as codified in Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEP A Implementation, Chapter 18.40 JCC, and vested in accordance with RCW 36.70B.180." Section 8.6 requires all development within the MPR comply with the County's Shoreline Master Program (18.25 JCC). Further development standards include the requirement that the Developer use 37 See exhibit 2018-121-00011 through 00016. 38 See exhibit 2018-121-00011. 39 See exhibit 2018-121-00011. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 13 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 LEED Shadowing and "Green Built" green building rating system standards and use International Dark Sky Association Zone E-standards for the MPR. 40 Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show that the DA fails to "set forth the development standards applicable to the development" such as to violate JCC 18.15.126(2), and therefore this argument fails.41 F. Whether the DA fails to demonstrate that the MPR will be self-contained as required by JCC 18.15.126(5) and JCC 18.15.135(5) Brinnon argues that the development is not "self-contained" as required under JCC 18.15.126(5) and JCC 18.15.135(5) due to the absence of services necessary to meet "everyday needs" such as a gas station or grocery store. The County responds by citing to numerous areas of the DA, FSEIS, and FEIS, and generally to the analysis from the first section, without offering any analysis as to this specific issue. The Developer argues that the proposed restaurants, gift shop, and limited grocery at the marina satisfy the requirement, and that a gas station is not required under the code. JCC 18.15.126(5) states: 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 36.70A.110. [Ord. 14-18 § 4 (Exh. B); Ord. 3-18 § 3 (Art. 2); Ord. 8-06 § 1] The language of JCC 18.15.126(5) is quite broad; it is not clear what "urban-level commercial" and "other services" are "necessary" to serve this particular MPR, in this particular location. The Developer argues that the use of the word "should" means that the BOCC is given wide discretion in determining what services are necessary as it lacks any mandatory language. The Court agrees that the plain language of JCC 18.15.126(5) leaves 40 See exhibit 2018-121-00014. 41 The County also argues that this issue is outside of the realm of this Court's jurisdiction. This Court's Order entered October 10, 2018 dismissed Petitioner's claims regarding Ordinance 03-604-18, with prejudice. Brinnon argues that the issue is properly before the Court because this language is included in JCC 18.15.126(2). Because Petitioner brings this claim under JCC 18.15.126(2), the Court addresses the merits of the argument. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 14 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 wide discretion to the County as to what amenities are "necessary" for each particular MPR, given its proposed size, use, and the surrounding area. This is further supported by the language stating that "such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR." As stated by the Developer, the Marina already includes a restaurant, gift shop and limited grocery, and as previously stated by the Court, the Marina is considered part of the MPR. Further, the completed MPR will include roughly 56,000 feet of additional commercial space to house further grocery options if necessary, and nothing provided to the Court suggests that a gas station is "necessary" for this particular MPR. Therefore, Petitioner fails to meet its burden under any of the six LUP A standard of review of showing that the DA violates JCC 18.15.126(5). G. Whether the DA fails to provide a list of required amenities and conditions of public access as required by condition 63(d) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 Petitioner argues that the DA violates condition 63(d) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, which requires "a list of required amenities ... along with conditions for public access" because it describes them too broadly as simply "spa services" and "sports courts." However, Petitioner fails to offer any authority requiring any additional description or detail and the plain language of condition 63(d) requires nothing more than a "list." Further, paragraph 10.3 from the DA specifically lists five amenities that "shall, at a minimum" be included in the MPR.42 It also states that these amenities will be "made available to members of the general public for a fee to be established by the Developer."43 While Petitioner would like more specifics as to the conditions of public access, fearing that local residents could be priced out of using the amenities, no authority is offered to show that such specifics or guarantees as to the affordability or reasonableness of the access must be included. Therefore, Petitioner fails to meet its burden of showing the provided list of amenities and conditions of public access violates the requirements of condition 63(d) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. 42 See exhibit 2018-121-00021. The list includes (1) a 9-hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; (4) pool; and (5) water slides. 43 Exhibit 2018-121-00021. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 15 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 H. Whether the DA fails to provide for the construction of a "Community Center" Petitioner argues that the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance 01- 0128-0844 requires the MPR include a "community center," that the DA and its incorporated documents fails to provide any mention of a community center being built at any stage, in violation of JCC 18.15.135(2)45 . The County offers no argument against the proposition that a community center is required, nor does it argue that one is included anywhere in the plan, instead providing in its Response a string of citations absent any explanation, analysis, or specificity as to the relevant language from the cited page. One such citation appears to point the Court to Paragraph 3.2 from the DA, which states "For the purposes of this Agreement, the Master Plan for future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR consists of the development regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Final Supplemental Impact Statement, and this Agreement, inclusive of a Phasing Plan and Master Plan Map of the Property."46 While this statement adopts the requirement for a community center through the "conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08," nowhere in the DA, its exhibits, or appendices, is there any statement or showing of where a community center will be built, what size it will be, what it will consist of, or when it will be built. It appears to be entirely absent from the DA and the incorporated documents. One of the few mentions of a community center in the provided record appears in the FSEIS, where it discusses the 2007 EIS, which lists the community center as a "main 44 The relevant language states: Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units. 45 JCC 18.15.135(2) states: "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 Jefferson County." · 46 Exhibit 2018-121-00008 and 00009. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 16 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 feature" of the MPR proposal.47 Respondents give no explanation as to the community center's absence from later proposals, amenity lists, and maps, nor do they argue that a community center is not a required amenity of the competed MPR, pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Instead, the Developer argues that the Court should defer to the Board's judgment that a community center is provided for in the DA, because "the Board which imposed this condition reviewed the Development Agreement and felt that it provided for a community center."48 But there is nothing in the DA or its incorporated documents or maps indicating that the Board made any such judgment-the community center is simply absent from any mention or any depiction on a map. The Court cannot defer to an interpretation or judgment that does not exist. Respondents do not dispute that pursuant to Ordinance 01-0128-08 a community center is a required amenity of the MPR. The DA and its incorporated documents and maps do not include a community center, and when given the opportunity in briefing and during oral argument to identify a community center anywhere in the DA's proposed development Respondents failed to do so. Therefore, Petitioner has met its burden of showing that the adoption of the DA was an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise, for failing to include a community center as required by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, in violation of JCC 18.15.135(2). I. Whether the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions ofRCW 36.70A.360 Petitioner argues that the proposed master plan and ordinances violate RCW 36.70A.360 because the MPR is not a "self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development" and does not have a "primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations." Petitioner does not provide any analysis in support of this argument, and instead, essentially cites to its entire opening brief for support. As stated in section (F) of this memorandum opinion and order, Petitioner has 47 See FSEIS 2015-129-00073, stating that "[t]he main features of the MPR proposal included: Golf Course Resort Area: ... A 200 seat community center .... " The 200-seat community center further described in the 2007 EIS as "a 200-seat (10,000 square foot) community center." Exhibit 2007-025-00105. 48 Response Brief of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, at 21. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 17 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 failed to demonstrate that the MPR as provided for in the DA is not "self-contained and fully integrated." Further, the development will consist of at least 65 percent short-term residential units49 , and Petitioner offers no authority to show that this does not satisfy the requirement that the MPR have a "primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations." Therefore, this argument fails. II. Whether the Development Regulations and Vesting Provisions in the Development Agreement are Contrary to Law Petitioner argues that the DA violates multiple conditions and standards in Jefferson County Codes and the 2008 ordinance approving the comprehensive plan amendment for the MPR, in violation of RCW 36.70B.170(1).50 As stated earlier in this decision, the DA violates JCC 18.15.135(2) for failing to include a community center and the adopted phasing of the development contained within the DA violates JCC 18.15.135. Therefore, the DA fails to be "consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning" as required by RCW 36.70Bl 70(1). CONCLUSION Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds that: 1. Petitioner fails to show that the Development Agreement contains an insufficient description to comply with JCC 18.15.126(1)(b) or insufficient maps to comply with JCC 18.15.126(1)(d). 49 JCC 17.60.070 states in relevant part: "Pursuant to Ordinance 01-0128-08, the Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of up to 890 residential units; provided, however, short-term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone. Short- term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units shall be construed to mean occupancies equal to or less than 30 days." 50 RCW 36.70B.l 70(1) states: A local government may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction. A city may enter into a development agreement for real property outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement. A development agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 18 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2. Petitioner fails to show that the phasing of the project in the Development Agreement violates Condition 63(m) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. 3. Petitioner has met its burden of showing that the adoption of the Development Agreement was an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise, as the adopted phasing of the development described in section 10.1.3 through 10.1.5 violates JCC 18.15.135(3). 4. Petitioner fails to show that the Development Agreement maps are insufficient to meet the criteria of JCC 18.15.126(1)(e). 5. Petitioner fails to show that the Development Agreement contains insufficient "development standards applicable" under JCC 18.15.126(2). 6. Petitioner fails to show that the proposed development violates the requirements of JCC 18.15.126(5). 7. Petitioner fails to show that the Development Agreement lacks a list of required amenities and conditions for public access as required by condition 63( d) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. 8. Petitioner has met its burden of showing that the adoption of the Development Agreement was an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise, as the Development Agreement fails to provide a community center, as required by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. 9. Petitioner fails to show that the Development Agreement is inconsistent with provisions ofRCW 36.70A.360. 10. Petitioner has met its burden of showing that the Development Agreement contains development regulations and vesting provisions that are contrary to JCC 18.15.135(2) LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 19 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 and JCC 18.15.135 and therefore fails to be "consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning" as required by RCW 36.70B.170(1). ORDER Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED that the Brinnon Group's Petition is GRANTED, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners' adoption of Ordinance No. 04-0604-18, approving and adopting the Development Agreement is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED back to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings consistent with this decision and order. Dated: This ~ S day of March, 2019. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER 20 JUDGE SALLY F. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DECLARATION OF MAILING I, Marcus Hauer, certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am now and at all times herein mentioned, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party to or interested in the above- entitled action, and competent to be a witness herein. Today, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served in the manner noted on the following: J. Richard Aramburu Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu PLLC 720 3rd Ave Ste 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-1825 Philip C. Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368-0920 John T. Cooke Houlihan Law 100 N 35th St Seattle, WA 98103-8606 ~ Via U.S. Mail ~ Via Email: rick@aramburu- eustis.com; carol@aramburu-eustis.com Via U.S. Mail Via Email: Via Email: jt@houlihan-law.com; donya@houlihan-law.com DATED this March 28, 2019 at Port Orchard, Washington. LUP A DECISION AND ORDER cusHAUER, Staff Attorney 21 JUDGE SALLYF. OLSEN Kitsap County Superior Court 614 Division Street, MS-24 Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 337-7140 Appendix 220 June 20, 2018 Via email and Regular Mail Jeromy Sullivan, Chair Port Gamble S 'Klallam Tribe 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE Kingston, WA 98346 jeromys@pgst.nsn.us Re: April 9, 2018 Comments on the Draft Development Regulations and the Draft Development Agreement, Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, Black Point, Brinnon, WA (''the PGST comments") Dear Chair Sullivan: Thank you for your comments on the above referenced subject. We received over three hundred individual comments during the public comment period beginning February 7, 2018 and concluding April 13,2018. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's (PGST) April 9,2018 correspondence provided specific feedback and we appreciate the time and thoughtfulness of those comments. We are providing this written response in part to convey that appreciation and out of our respect for the PGST and its treaty rights under the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 993. We recognize the United States v. Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978 (Boldt II) decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington mentioned in the PGST comments, and other prior and subsequent federal decisions arising out of the United States v. Washington litigation about the Point No Point Treaty. We also agree with and appreciate the statement on the PGST comments that the PGST has provided prior comments over 17 years about the proposed master planned resort (MPR) in Brinnon, Washington, beginning with the Brinnon Subarea plan in 2001. Comment 1:1 The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 1-2: The Tribe has repeatedly commented about concerns that potentially harmful effects were not being addressed and that important resources would be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. During the course of the process, the County has consistently minimized or completely ignored the Tribe's concerns. Here again, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations 1 The numbering of comments in this letter is not meant to indicate there is a response to every comment. Rather comments were numbered to distinguish the comments and responses in this letter from one another. Phone (360) 385;9100 Fax (360) 385;9382 jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Appendix 221 give only a minimal mention of the local tribes and reflect the County's inadequate process for tribal consultation. Requests for the protection of culturally significant resources have been ignored. Requests for the development of a Stewardship Plan that ensures tribal access, in order to allow members to hunt and gather, have been ignored. The lack of any meaningful consultation in order to ensure the protection of important cultural and natural resources has resulted in an unacceptable proposal, which the Tribe must oppose. Response to Comment 1: We respectfully disagree with this comment. In particular, we respectfully disagree that the PGST's concerns have not been considered. As a result of and consistent with the PGST's comments, significant improvements were made to both the development regulations and the development agreement, as approved by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) on June 4, 2018. Numerous changes have been made to both the development regulations and the development agreement since the 2015 FSEIS was published that address tribal concerns and came from government-to-government consultations. After the PGST and the Point No Point Treaty Council's most recent comments were received, additional refinements in the development agreement were made. We also respectfully disagree with this comment that insufficient consultation with the PGST occurred. A detailed record of the consultation with the PGST is posted on the Jefferson County web site.2 A Record of Tribal Communications, consultations and correspondence as of March 19, 2018 is attached as Appendix A. While we believe the consultations between the PGST and Jefferson County were more than sufficient, we also realize that full consensus between the PGST and Jefferson County about all the issues discussed in the PGST's April 9, 2018 comments was not reached. We regret that full consensus between Jefferson County and the PGST could not be achieved, but we appreciate the changes to the MPR that were achieved in response to the PGST's input. Jefferson County must abide by state law and its prior decisions made about this development. Like all Washington counties, Jefferson County operates under specific enabling state legislation that allows Jefferson County to meet social, economic, environmental, geographic, and other challenges at the local level. Examples of state enabling legislation include the Washington State Planning Enabling Act, the Growth Management Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Detailed regulations promulgated by the Washington Department of Ecology in Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) implement SEPA. The SEPA responsibilities include acting as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, preserving important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of the national heritage, and achieving a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high standards ofliving and a wide sharing oflife's amenities. SEP A integration with agency activities must be at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning 2 See: http://test.co.jefferson. wa.us/WebLinkExtemal/Browse.aspx?dbid=O&startid= I 757833&row= I &er=!. 2 Appendix 222 and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems. Jefferson County takes very seriously the treaty rights of all tribes, as well as its responsibility to comply with State law; both substantively and procedurally, including the involvement of and extensive review opportunities given to affected tribes, other government agencies, and the public. In doing so, Jefferson County is locally responsive and locally accountable to all affected tribes and to all public and private groups and individuals, and we are committed to maintaining a high quality of life in Jefferson County. The planning, public involvement, review and commenting, legislative and legal history of the MPR is substantial. All the project history and results-to-date occurred with active review and involvement by affected tribes and the public, utilizing well-established, legally sound processes based on state and local laws, rules, and standards. In the history of Brinnon planning (starting with the planning that resulted in the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan), Jefferson County has sought the input of all affected tribes and adhered to the requirements of applicable state, federal and local laws. For the MPR, Jefferson County is the official lead agency and we have relied on the preparation of three extensive environmental impact statements (EISs) pursuant to SEPA: • First, for the Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002); • Second, for the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation of a Brinnon Master Planned Resort (2007); and, • Third, to analyze site and project-specific alternatives for developing the MPR in preparation for adopting development regulations and a development agreement (2015). The preparation of these three separate EISs utilized the rigorous, well-documented SEP A processes that included seeking and receiving feedback and involvement from affected tribes, other government agencies, and the public. The PGST always has been included as an affected tribe. Jefferson County used the tribal consultation and public's comments to establish the scope, breadth, and depth of the numerous and varied studies, assessments and technical reports that went into draft SEP A documents on the three separate EISs. Jefferson County also relied the SEPA process not only to prepare draft EIS (DEIS) documents, but to facilitate meaningful environmental review of issues raised by affected tribes, and to analyze and mitigate potential significant adverse environmental impacts from the MPR. We make special note of that feedback, involvement and written and oral comments from the PGST and from other affected tribes with usual and accustomed hunting, fishing, and gathering treaty rights in the MPR project area, which were all considered in the three sets of draft and final EISs. 3 Appendix 223 Through this SEP A process and the public hearing and comments on the proposed development regulations and development agreement, we believe all the issues outlined in the PGST's April 9, 2018 comments have been raised and assessed. Project modifications, mitigation measures, and the thirty conditions imposed by Jefferson County on the developer through Ordinance O 1-0128- 08, setting development standards for subsequent design and permitting of the MPR, were made to help address comments from affected tribes and from others. A programmatic Final EIS prepared in 2007 (2007 FEIS) was a basis for the BoCC 2008 decision, reflected in Ordinance 01-0128-08, to designate the Pleasant Harbor and south Black Point Peninsula as an MPR and to set the thirty conditions for subsequent planning and development. In carrying out the SEP A process, there was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the 2007 FEIS that ended in 2011. 3 The Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) reviewed the 2007 FSEIS in its 2008 decision approving it under SEP A. 4 [The Brinnon Group] alleges that the SEPA analysis is inadequate with respect to stormwater management to be able to determine if it might be possible to reach zero discharge from the golf course site.78 Further, they allege that the FEIS fails to analyze water quality impacts of the anticipated traffic associated with the development. 5 The GMHB decided as to the 2007 FSEIS: "The environmental impacts of this project were studied at an appropriate level of detail, with provision for further environmental review at the project level stages of development."6 This decision was affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals specifically mentioned in its decision some of the concerns listed in the PGST's August 9, 2017 letter copied into the bullets above. Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 480-2 (2011) ("Although the final EIS contemplates greater environmental impacts than Statesman's proposal in some respects-for example, increased impervious surfaces and increased development intensity west of Highway 101--our Supreme Court has approved EIS alternatives that "present greater impacts in some areas, and fewer impacts in others.") A second, supplemental, final EIS was prepared on a project basis in 2015 (2015 FSEIS). The 2015 FSEIS process also included consultation with affected tribes, including the PGST, on the EIS documents which included technical reports. 3 Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446(2011). 4 BRINNON GROUP AND BRlNNON MPR OPPOSITION, PETITIONERS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, RESPONDENT AND PLEASANT HARBOR, INTERVENOR, 2008 WL 4618460 (2008) 5 BRINNON GROUP AND BRINNON MPR OPPOSITION, PETITIONERS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, RESPONDENT AND PLEASANT HARBOR, INTERVENOR, 2008 WL 4618460, at *20 (2008) 6 BRINNON GROUP AND BRlNNON MPR OPPOS[TION, PETITIONERS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, RESPONDENT AND PLEASANT HARBOR, INTERVENOR, 2008 WL 4618460, at *26 (2008). 4 Appendix 224 In addition, and as discussed in greater detail in the responses to comments that follow, we respectfully disagree with the claim that there was a lack of meaningful discussions to ensure the protection of important cultural and natural resources. Instead, as a result of public comments, including the comments made by the PGST, significant improvements to protection of cultural and natural resources have been obtained through negotiations between Jefferson County and the developer. In short, the SEP A process and the most recent public comment process related to the proposed development regulations and development agreement resulted in mitigative measures that reduced potential impacts. Comment 2: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 2: "Need to Correct Inappropriate Development Agreement Language Concerning Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance." Response to Comment 2: We respectfully disagree with this comment. Through negotiations with the Developer, Jefferson County has obtained language in the development agreement sufficient to satisfy Condition 63 G) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, which states, "Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource." (Emphasis added.) Specifically, the approved development agreement contains a commitment to preserve either Kettle B or C by preventing the selected kettle from being used for any storm water storage, if prior to the developer applying for a grading or building permit for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the PGST applies for and receives a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C be recommended for listing in the National Registry. We are informed that the PGST applied to the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to list the property as a Traditional Cultural Place (TCP). We also understand that to date the application and review process is not complete. However, a TCP listing alone would not result in preservation of the kettles. DAHP is the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the State of Washington. 7 The role of SHPOs is to nominate significant historic buildings, sites, structures, districts, and objects to the National Register of Historic Places, as authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The SHPO notifies affected property owners and local governments and solicits public comment. 8 If the owner of a property objects, the property cannot be listed but may be forwarded to the National Park Service for a Determination of Eligibility (DOE).9 According to the DAHP web site: "Listing in the National Register does not, in itself, impose any obligation on the property owner, or restrict the owner's basic right to use and dispose of the property as he or she sees fit."10 Thus, we believe the protections in the development agreement are more than the PGST could hope to gain through 7 RCW 43.334.020. 8 https://www.nps.gov/nr/national register fundamentals.htm. 9 Ibid. 10 https:/ / dahp. wa. gov /h istoric-registers/nati onal-register-of-h istoric-p laces. 5 Appendix 225 just a TCP listing. We understand that a TCP listing could have meaning to the PGST for subsequent state or federal permits that might be needed for the project. But permit applications that might be affected by a TCP listing are not decided at this stage of the planning process. We believe it would be a violation of law for Jefferson County to put the project on hold indefinitely while PGST completes the TCP process when: (a) That might never happen; and, (b) A TCP listing could only have meaning to future state or federal permits. Comment 3: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 2: The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is a sovereign nation, meaning that it exists separate and apart from both the Federal and State government. The Tribe is an independent nation, with an independent government. Response to Comment 3: We fully agree with this comment. Comment 4: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 2: The Tribe has undertaken its own study of the project area and has determined that the kettles and wetlands in the project area contain cultural resources, in need of protection and preservation. The Tribe has made both the County and the Developer aware of this fact, on multiple occasions, and has urged the preservation of the kettles and wetlands. -and- [llhe preservation of the kettles and wetlands, that a tribal government has already determined is a cultural resource, should not depend on the validation of a state government. The importance of the site, as recognized by the Tribe, should be sufficient to warrant protection and preservation of the site by the Developer, regardless of any listing with the State. Response to Comment 4: We respectfully disagree with the rest of this comment. The PGST has never provided Jefferson County with any "study" of the kettles and wetlands in the project area with reference to cultural resources. Furthermore, statements later in the PGST' s comments are inconsistent with this claim, including the PGST's claim on page 2 of the PGST's comments that: [T]he Tribe already submitted an application with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to list the property as a Traditional Cultural Place. However, the review process is time intensive and involves the gathering of 6 Appendix 226 information that is not readily available. The review process could potentially take years. The PGST's representative, Ted Labbe, attended a SEPA meeting on January 22, 2002 on the then proposed Brinnon Subarea Plan and associated amendments to Jefferson County Unified Development Code. Al Scalf of Jefferson County asked Mr. Labbe about whether the PGST's archeological sites had been mapped.11 Mr. Labbe replied they were, but the level of mapping was not appropriate for site level review.12 Mr. Labbe said that he had learned that there were cultural sites on Black Point that had not been fully inventoried, and their precise locations were unknown at that time. Mr. Labbe pointed out this was an opportunity for cooperative work, but the PGST did not bring this up again until after the close of the comment period for the 2015 FSEIS. Only minimal information has been provided by the PGST to date, and is contained in the March 11, 2016 and the March 15, 2016 letters from the PGST. When Jefferson County asked whether there was more specific information, we were advised of the importance of secrecy of that information to the PGST. We respect the PGST's desire and need to protect sacred sites. But after many years of involvement with the project planning process, the PGST has not obtained designation of the site as a traditional cultural property (TCP). A recent letter from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) makes clear that the PGST's application is not complete. As we discuss below, Jefferson County has negotiated protection of cultural resources at the MPR that neither the PGST nor DAHP have the power to obtain. Comment 5: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 2-3: Under the proposed Development Agreement, if the Tribe does not obtain a determination on the listing of the site prior to the Developer applying for its permits (i.e., the next stage in the process after the Development Agreement and Development Regulations are finalized), then the kettles will not be preserved. This time requirement is highly inappropriate, as it subjects the preservation of important cultural resources to the administrative review process of the State. Essentially creating a race between the Tribe and the Developer, seeing which entity can have its documents processed faster. This is an unacceptable way to provide for the protection and preservation of cultural resources. Despite the title of the section, the Tribe fails to see how its provisions recognize the cultural significance of the area. The Developer Agreement should require the Developer to preserve the kettles and wetlands, without mention or reference to any State processes. Response to Comment 5: We respectfully disagree with this comment. We believe the analogy of a "race" to the finish with the developer is inapt. The MPR is not reservation land, so under federal and state law, there is a 11 2002 Meeting Minutes at, page 12. iz Id 7 Appendix 227 process for designation as a TCP that the PGST must follow that involves both the state and federal governments. Jefferson County's approval of the development moves on a separate track for land development of property in private ownership. Each process moves at its own pace. Importantly, as even the PGST admits, the impact of the PGST's efforts to have the property approved as a TCP could impact future permits. But that is for a later time. Comment 6: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 3-4: i. Need for a Reduction in Overall Density of Master Planned Resort The Draft Development Agreement, Section 8.1, proposes 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space, and indoor and outdoor recreation spaces. This will essentially create a large town on the outskirts of Brinnon, significantly changing the landscape and greatly increasing the intensity of land use in the Brinn on area. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Brinnon's total population was 797 in 2010. With the proposal for 890 residential units associated with the MPR, and assuming 2.5 persons per household, we would expect to see an additional 2,225 people residing in the area at full build out. The number would more than double the population of Brinnon and would be comparable to the population of Port Ludlow, which had a population totaling 2,603 residents in 2010. Under the current proposal, the rural character of the Brinnon area will be lost and replaced by a more urban land use. Having short-term homes for a portion of the total residential units does not necessarily limit environmental impacts and may actually increase the amount of vehicle traffic, vessel traffic and recreational shellfish harvesting. The Tribe recommends that the County re-consider the total density of the MPR in comparison with that of nearby rural towns and resorts. The County should reduce the total number of residential units, both permanent and temporary, to a more appropriate and manageable number, by at least two-thirds of what is currently proposed. Response to Comment 6: We respectfully disagree with this comment. As mentioned above, we relied on the preparation of three extensive EISs pursuant to SEPA: • First, for the Brinnon Subarea Plan (2002); • Second, for the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation of a Brinnon Master Planned Resort (2007); and, • Third, to analyze site and project-specific alternatives for developing the MPR in preparation for adopting development regulations and a development agreement (2015). 8 Appendix 228 The preparation of these three separate EISs utilized the rigorous, well-documented SEPA processes that included seeking and receiving feedback and involvement from affected tribes, other government agencies, and the public. The PGST always has been included as an affected tribe. Jefferson County used the tribal consultation and public's comments to establish the scope, breadth, and depth of the numerous and varied studies, assessments and technical reports that went into draft SEPA documents. Further additional mitigative measures were required in Ordinance 01-0128-08 and in the adopted development regulations and the adopted development agreement. The 890-unit density specifically was addressed in Ordinance 01-0128-08 in Section Two where it states in reference to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment: "The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units." Furthermore, Condition 63 (aa) of Ordinance 01- 0128-08 requires that: In fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2). The 2007 FEIS proposed permitting limitations in Section 1.3, including the 890-unit limitation. 2007 FEIS at 1-17. Similar comments were addressed in the unsuccessful appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB): "Petitioners did in fact comment on this proposal during the review of DEIS noting that 'The project should be downsized from 890 units. "'13 With reference to the 890 unit limitation, the GMHB decision reiterated the following: "Intervenors also note that the Plan provisions on MPRs have both goals and policies to control development at LNP 24.1-24.13 which the Board of County Commissioners found were met by this proposal." 14 The GMHB upheld Ordinance 01-0128-08. To be sure, the GMHB decision also stated: Building intensities will be defined and limited in the master plan and development agreement as specified in the Jefferson County Code. These will need further review and approval. Furthermore, the densities and intensities were analyzed within the DEIS and FEIS. The MPR must develop within the scope of that environmental review. No development permits can be issued until the BOCC finds that the MPR is consistent with the Jefferson County Plan, development code, and conditions imposed by the master plan and development agreement.15 The development regulations adopted on June 4, 2018 are consistent with this requirement, as is the later-adopted development agreement. Importantly, as contemplated by the GMHB, further permitting will be required, following the BoCC's June 4, 2018 adoption 13 BRINNON GROUP AND BRINNON MPR OPPOSITION, PETITIONERS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, RESPONDENT AND PLEASANT HARBOR, INTERVENOR, 2008 WL 4618460, at •16 (2008). 14 BRINNON GROUP AND BRINNON MPR OPPOSITION, PETITIONERS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, RESPONDENT AND PLEASANT HARBOR, INTERVENOR, 2008 WL 4618460, at •5 (2008). is Ibid. 9 Appendix 229 of the development regulations and the development agreement. We believe this proposed comment already was addressed by the GMHB and the Courts. Comment 7: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 4-5: We recommend that the County consider removing the full build out of 890 units from the draft Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Instead, the Development Agreement would include only the first phase of the development on a conditional basis. Remaining phases would be approved at a future date, based on the Developer's ability to meet specific measurable performance criteria. The development under Phase 2 would not be approved unless the Developer was able to demonstrate in Phase 1 that performance standards had been met, as specified. For example, the Developer would demonstrate that no saltwater intrusion was present in groundwater wells; degradation of water quality had not occurred; all monitoring requirements had been completed; wildlife management criteria had been met; wastewater treatment facilities had been approved and constructed; downgrades or closures in nearby shellfish harvest areas had not occurred; required mitigation measures had been implemented, and so on. Response to Comment 7: We respectfully disagree with this comment. RCW 36.70A.360(1) states: "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." JCC 18.15.025 contains a similar requirement for a "fully integrated development." The RCW 36.70A.360(1) and JCC 18.15.025 requirements for a fully integrated development" would not be met by the proposed piecemeal approach in this comment. Instead, as the ordinances adopting the development regulations and the development agreement demonstrate, Jefferson County fully complied with the all the requirements in RCW 36.70A.360, the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan, the 2007 FEIS, Ordinance 01-0128-08, and the 2015 FSEIS. Comment 8: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 5: The draft Development Regulations and draft Development Agreement lack the specificity and enforceability that are necessary to ensure the protection of resources over the term of the agreement and after build out. It is not clear in the documents whether or not the County will have the appropriate measurable criteria to enforce the development standards. For example, County staff recommended revisions (Development Regulations Matrix Item #5) require that Development Regulations include the following restrictions: "Short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone." This requirement is consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08 Condition 63aa, which IO Appendix 230 calls for 65% of rental and time-share residents per JCC 18.15.123(2). However, the Development Regulations do not explain how Jefferson County will track and enforce a 65% short-term residency and for how long. Without specific enforceable measures in place, the Developer or a future owner would be able to replace short- term residents with permanent residents during and after the build out period. A transformation from short-term to permanent residents is likely to have a significant impact on the wastewater system, water supply and water quality in the area. The environmental impact assessment did not consider these effects. Response to Comment 8: We respectfully disagree with this comment. The development regulations adopted on June 4, 2018 and the later-adopted development agreement and its attached water quality monitoring plan (Section 6.2, Appendix N), water supply monitoring plan (Section 6.2, Appendix 0), wastewater treatment (Section 6.2, Appendix I), wildlife management (Section 8.8.4, Appendix P) (and others) are sufficiently specific to enforcement them. Detailed provisions for enforcement are contained in Chapter 18.50 JCC. (For example, JCC 18.50.020( 4) states: "It is a violation for any person to fail to comply with provisions of this code, to fail to comply with the terms or conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this UDC, or to fail to comply with any or all notices or orders issued pursuant to this chapter.") Repeating all the provisions of Chapter 18.50 JCC in either the development regulations or the development agreement is not necessary and would pose the risk of unnecessary and unintended conflicts that could inhibit enforcement. Further, since the development agreement is a contract, Jefferson County could enforce its provisions in an action for breach of contract. As to the specific example given, the above enforcement mechanisms are sufficient if the developer were to completely change the character of the resort, as the example in the comment suggests. Comment 9: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 6 with reference to the term and build out period of the development agreement: In essence, the language as written provides the Developer with an endless Development Agreement term and limitless time period for the MPR build out. It is not clear why the County has provided the Developer with this extraordinary build-out term. The term of the Agreement should have a firm expiration date with a specific limited period for MPR build out. We recommend a ten to fifteen-year build-out period and Development Agreement term that is from the effective date to the end of the buildout period. Response to Comment 9: There never was any intention on the part of Jefferson County or the developer to have any vested rights in the development agreement be perpetual. We have taken into consideration this and other similar comments received regarding the term and the build out period. The approved development agreement was modified accordingly. We agree with the comment and modified the 11 Appendix 231 term of the final development agreement approved on June 4, 2018 to cap the "term" of the development agreement at 45 years. The term and buildout period terms were not written to give the developer any advantage. Nor were these terms requested by the developer. Instead, Jefferson County negotiated these terms to avoid a situation where the development agreement terminated prior to full build out, thereby potentially relieving the developer of performing all the obligations of the development agreement before the MPR is fully built-out. The purpose of having the "build-out period" in the development agreement be 25 years from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases described in Section 10, whichever is later is to ensure that the entire MPR is built out as planned, consistent with the requirements in RCW 36. 70A.360(1) and JCC 18.15.025 for a fully integrated development, including compliance with all the terms of the development agreement, including all its additional mitigative measures. Comment 10: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 6-7: The County's proposed Development Regulations set forth the permitted uses, density standards and zoning development standards and cannot duplicate existing local codes for stormwater, critical areas, land division and site development. Therefore, it is understood that Development Regulations would be in place before determining whether or not the Development Agreement is consistent with them. (Emphasis in original.) Response to Comment 10: We have taken this comment and other similar comments into consideration regarding the sequence of adopting the development regulations before the development agreement. We agree that the development regulations should be adopted first. Accordingly, Jefferson County adopted the development regulations before it adopted the development agreement. The development agreement is consistent with the adopted development regulations. For instance, the Master Plan described in Section 17.60.040 of the adopted development regulations limits the development. Section 17.80.040(2) in the adopted development regulations (previously Section 17.80.060(2) in prior drafts) states: Jefferson County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent with the Master Plan. A revision to the existing Master Plan shall be submitted to Jefferson County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the Master Plans set forth in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Master Plan and development regulations. Other sections of the adopted development regulations also limit development. For example, Section 17.60.060 states: 12 Appendix 232 In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must comply with the applicable development standards and requirements of: (I) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (2) The mitigation measures required in the November 27, 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and (3) The terms and conditions of any Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the Developer. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this Article and other applicable code provisions, applicable mitigation measures, or applicable provisions of a Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer, the more restrictive shall apply. Among other requirements, existing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code will apply and requires compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act. Comment 11: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 6-7: "[I]t is clear that the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations fail to meet the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08." Response to Comment 11: We respectfully disagree with this comment. The development regulations approved on June 4, 2018, coupled with the later-approved development agreement and its 30 Attachments, satisfy all 30 conditions in Ordinance 01-0128-08. Comment 12: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 8: The Tribe has attempted, on several occasions, to meet with the County in order to participate in meaningful government-to-government consultation regarding the MPR project. The Tribe has been operating under the assumption that they were invited to meet with the County in order to provide a detailed discussion of the Tribe's concerns in regards to the MPR Project, in other words, to have their voice heard by the County and the Developer. To date, the Tribe does not feel as though its concerns have been heard or addressed. The Tribe is concerned that it was invited to participate in discussions merely to fulfill a procedural consultation requirement and that neither the County, nor the Developer, feel any need to resolve 13 Appendix 233 or address the Tribe's concerns. There have been several meetings that have brought the same issues to light, again and again, with no resolutions reflected in the proposed documents. This is not meaningful consultation. Response to Comment 12: Jefferson County regrets that the PGST does not feel as though its concerns have been heard or addressed. We believe the government-to-government consultations with the PGST produced meaningful changes to the development regulations and the development agreement adopted by the BoCC. Please be assured that all the PGST comments on the development regulations and the development agreement were carefully considered by Jefferson County. As one example, the development agreement approved on June 4, 2018 states: 4.1.2 Protection of Hunting Rights. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe ("PGST") has expressed concern that Elk hunted by the PGST in areas outside of the Property could be attracted to the Pleasant Harbor MPR once it is built out. The Developer shall implement the adaptive management measures set forth in the Wildlife Management Plan attached as Appendix P to mitigate against this concern. The Wildlife Management Plan (Appendix P to the adopted development agreement) was modified to address all the comments made by the PGST and the Point No Point Treaty Counsel of which the PGST is a member in Amendment 1, which is attached to the adopted development agreement. 16 We acknowledge that not all the PGST's comments were accepted by Jefferson County. That is due in part because Jefferson County must fully comply with federal, state, and local law which provide protections to property owners and applicants for development. The MPR was previously developed as a campground with significant infrastructure, is privately owned and is not open to the public. Further, there is a long project history-that includes decisions made several years ago-by which Jefferson County is bound. The PGST has taken the position that it opposes this project and does not want it to go forward. But Jefferson County has no legal basis halting the development. Comment 13: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 8: Recently, a neighboring Tribe has expressed views that do not align with the views of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. However, the County must remember that the tribes are sovereign nations, meaning that each tribe is separate and individually govern themselves in all aspects, including cultural heritage. No other tribal, state, or federal government has the right to dictate to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe the cultural significance of the area. As each tribe has differing historical accounts, 16 See Amendment 1 to the Wildlife Management Plan. 14 Appendix 234 each tribe may ascribe a different cultural significance to the area. The County should recognize that one tribe does not speak for all of the tribes in the area. Response to Comment 13: We agree completely with this comment. Jefferson County also understands that the tribes who are successors to the signatories to the Point No Point Treaty have overlapping treaty rights that have been the source of litigation between them in the long-running United States v. Washington case. Jefferson County insisted on the following language in the development agreement approved on June 4, 2018: 4.2 Preservation of Native American Treaty Rights. The parties respect the tribal treaty rights and have modified the project and imposed mitigation measures designed, in part, to protect and preserve those rights. Nothing in this Agreement should be viewed as an attempt to curtail or expand the rights reserved to tribes under their treaties with the United States, including but not limited to the Point No Point Treaty. The Developer will continue to cooperate with tribes to protect tribal treaty rights. Jefferson County always works hard to honor the treaty rights and culture of all affected tribes. We regret that the PGST believe that the cultural significance the PGST place on the MPR should preside, despite differences with a neighboring tribe. We agree that one tribe does not speak for all tribes in the area. That is why we chose the neutral language in Section 4.2 of the adopted development agreement quoted above. We believe this final language honors the treaty rights of all the Point No Point Treaty tribes. If we have fallen short in the any affected tribe's eyes, we regret that. Comment 14: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 8: [T]he Tribe has emphasized to the County, on multiple occasions, that the Kettle Ponds and Black Point hold cultural significance to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The Tribe has asked that the County and the Developer modify their proposed plan to destroy the integrity of the Kettles. The Development Agreement language that the County put forth to respond to the Tribe's request does not address the Tribe's concerns. Instead it evokes further frustrations and puts pressure on the Tribe to take responsibility to prove the cultural significance of the Kettles. Then, the Tribe was asked to review the proposed language and did so in a meeting with the Developer and the County. The Tribe submitted comments on the Development Agreement language. The revisions the Tribe made to the language were not taken into consideration and the suggested changes from the Tribe were not made. In essence, all of the Tribe's efforts and discussions were a waste. In addition, 15 Appendix 235 although we discussed the development of a stewardship plan that would ensure access for hunting and gathering by tribal members, such a plan was not included in the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations. Response to Comment 14: Jefferson County regrets that the PGST believe its efforts and discussions were a waste. But Jefferson County has no legal basis for requiring the developer to modify the alternative already approved in the SEP A process. The record makes clear that long ago the PGST both knew there were areas of cultural significance to it in the area, apparently has not fully investigated those issues yet, and did not weigh in on the SEP A process until EIS documents already were complete. The cultural significance of the area was evaluated in the SEPA process. Specifically, the 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort (2006 Cultural Resource Assessment) addressed cultural resources. See 2007 FSEIS, Appendix 8. The 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment states: • "The proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf resort is located within the traditional territory of the Twana people and the Skokomish Tribe (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992). Twana territory included the shores and drainages of Hood Canal, from Port Ludlow in the north to the Skokomish River in the south (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992). The Treaty of Point-No-Point in 1855 resulted in many Twana, Klallam and Chimakum people being compelled to move to the 3,840-acre Skokomish Reservation, located on the lower Skokomish River (Ruby and Brown 1992)." 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment, pg. 6 ( emphasis added). • "Nine Twana-speaking winter-village communities were documented within the Hood Canal area; two of these were located at the mouth of the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992). The ethnographic village of duxwyabu 's, or 'place of crooked-jaw salmon' is indicated at the Duckabush River, ½ mile southwest of the project area. This name refers to both the river and to the winter village located there. During the salmon season, Twana and Klallam visitors would camp nearby." Ibid. ( emphasis added). • "Culturally significant places are recorded in the project vicinity (see Appendix A; Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992:41-42). The southeast tip of Black Point is named kwaca 'p, from which Quatsap Point was derived. A small lake north of Quatsap Point, qaqaq le 'w t, was the domain of guardian spirits (swa 'das) that took the form ofreptiles." Ibid., pgs. 6- 7. • "Two ethnographic camping sites are also located within ¼ mile of the project area. Immediately north of Quatsap Point, on Old Orchard Beach, is kwakwa'cqs, or 'between two points'. This place is recorded as a seasonal camping site. At the mouth of Pleasant Harbor, on the north side, is cc 'o 'ca 't d, or 'bar across mouth of channel'." Ibid., pg. 7. • "The probability for historical cultural resources within the project area is considered to be high." Ibid., pg. 12. 16 Appendix 236 On June 23, 2006, Statesman reached out to the PGST, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the Skokomish Tribe, and the Suquamish Tribe, informing the affected tribes that an archaeological reconnaissance was being performed for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, and requesting information to support the reconnaissance.17 The PGST did not respond. The 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment was provided timely to the PGST. The 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment was part of the 2007 FSEIS and was mentioned in the 2012 Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol, Archaeological Monitoring at Pleasant Harbor Marina (2012 Proposed Plan), which was later finalized on March 27, 2012 and became part of the 2015 FSEIS (the 2012 Final Plan). Jefferson County issued the DEIS on September 5, 2007. After proper and timely notice to the affected tribes, the 2007 FSEIS was released on November 27, 2007. On December 6, 2007, after the 2007 FSEIS was already published, the PGST submitted a comment letter written by Hans Daubenberger. No mention of cultural resources was made. The Point No Point Treaty Council, by a letter from Tim Cullinan, commented on December 9, 2007. There was a discussion of elk issues, but no discussion of cultural resources. Further, after the 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment: • "Subsurface investigations focused on archaeologically sensitive landforms; that is, those environments most likely to contain naturally buried archaeology identified in collaboration with cultural resources staff of the Skokomish Tribe (e.g., kettles, vantage points, the bluff edge). High probability areas in Black Point where buried archaeological deposits might occur (i.e., kettle margins and bases) were sampled using hand-excavated shovel probes." 2012 Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol, Archaeological Monitoring at Pleasant Harbor Marina (2012 Proposed Plan), pg. 1 (emphasis added). • "In all, 93 shovel probes/scrapes were excavated during the 2006 field investigations with 27 probes along the southern bluff, 12 probes on high points, 22 probes in kettle basins and 32 probes along the kettle margins and rims." Ibid. (emphasis added). • "Berger (2008) conducted archaeological monitoring during geotechnical assessment. Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical explorations did not result in the identification of any evidence of archaeological sites, historic structures, or other features. Conditions and sediments observed during this episode of archaeological monitoring suggested a low probability for as-yet unidentified archaeological sites." Ibid., pg. 1-2. The BoCC deliberated and voted to approve MLA06-87 on January 28, 2008, with thirty attached conditions, in Ordinance O 1-0128-08. Relevant to the kettles, the ordinance adopted Conditions 63(h), 63(i) and 63G). Condition 63(h) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states, "The possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved." (Emphasis added.) Condition 63 G) of Ordinance 17 Letter from Camille A. Mather, Archaeologist, to Marie Herbert, dated June 23, 2006. 17 Appendix 237 01-0128-08 states, "Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource." (Emphasis added.) After Ordinance 01-0128-08 was adopted, the Point No Point Treaty Council wrote a letter to Jefferson County dated November 24, 2009, in part about compliance with the 2008 ordinance. The Point No Point Treaty Council's November 24, 2009 letter states: The 30 ordinances (sic) adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners show that various management and monitoring plans are to be developed, and scientific reports conducted as conditions for this proposed development. In some instances, the ordinances (sic) state or allude to management plans being created for cultural resources, wildlife, stormwater and mitigation. These actions are necessary and reports should be released to the affected tribes, the public and other agencies for review.18 Reports on all the issues mentioned were part of the 2015 FSEIS and were provided per the SEP A process to affected tribes, the public and other agencies for review. Other agencies commented on the 2015 FSEIS with approval. A consultation with tribes on cultural resources in compliance with Ordinance O 1-0128-08 Condition 630) resulted in the 2012 Proposed Plan" that was finalized on March 27, 2012, after it was approved by the DAHP and the Skokomish Tribe on January 14, 2012, with two other tribes concurring-and the 2012 Final Plan became part of the 2015 FSEIS. The 2012 Final Plan explicitly cited and relied upon the 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment and called for monitoring "at those locations within the project area that have previously been identified as high probability-kettles, vantage points, the bluff edge-if sediments in these landforms will be affected by ground-disturbing construction." Ibid, pg. 2 (emphasis added). The PGST expressed its view that the 2012 Final Plan was not sufficient in government-to- government consultations during 2017. While Jefferson County disagreed, 19 Jefferson County continued to facilitate communications between the developer and the PGST on the kettles and the PGST's cultural resources concern. Subsequently, the PGST applied to the DAHP to have the property listed as a TCP. As discussed above, however, the TCP process is incomplete, is dependent upon collection of information that may not be readily available, and would not result in preservation of the kettles, except as provided in the adopted development agreement. Despite the difficulties in obtaining a TCP listing for the property, Jefferson County insisted on the following language in the development agreement approved on June 4, 2018: 5 RECOGNITION OF AREAS WITH CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. The parties and the tribes discussed the importance of kettles on the Property to the PGST' s cultural history. 18 November 24, 2009 Point No Point Treaty Council Letter, pg. 2. 19 See Jefferson County's letter to the PGST dated October 4, 2017, pg. 9. 18 Appendix 238 The PGST has applied for including of any Traditional Cultural Properties on the National Register of Historic Places as of the date of this Agreement. If, prior to Developer applying for a grading or building permit for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the PGST applies for and receives a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Developer shall: (A) Preserve either Kettle B or C by preventing the selected kettle from being used for any stormwater storage; and, (B) Consult with the PGST to arrive at a kettle management plan where the PGST would enhance the selected kettle by removing invasive vegetation and planting it with native vegetation found at the time of its use by native people, and to develop and install educational signs that explain the significance of the kettles to native people. This provision does not restrict or otherwise prevent Developer from exercising its right to object to any application that kettles are culturally significant. This Section 5 of the adopted development agreement fully complies with Condition 63 G) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Furthermore, there is no legal basis for Jefferson County to impose more restrictive provisions on the developer. Even DAHP and the National Park Service do not have that power. Finally, since an objection to the listing by the owner of a property prevents listing 20 and since listing in the National Register does not, in itself, impose any obligation on the property owner, or restrict the owner's basic right to use and dispose of the property as he or she sees fit,21 we believe the protections in the development agreement are more than the PGST could hope to gain through just a TCP listing. In short, the PGST has asked for a term in the development agreement that cannot be required. Comment 15: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 9: 20 Ibid. The Development Agreement fails to provide any protection for shellfish resources adjacent to the MPR, as required. The Development Agreement does not include a description of how the MPR would minimize or eliminate any hannful effects to the shellfish beds, does not consider the potentially significant effects that 2,225 new residents would have on nearby shellfish harvest areas and does not include any action plan to address potential closures or downgrades of shellfish harvest areas. 21 https:// dahp. wa. gov /h istoric-registers/nati onal-register-o f-h istoric-p laces. 19 Appendix 239 Response to Comment 15: We respectfully disagree with this comment. Potential impacts were fully assessed in the 2007 FSEIS and the 2015 FSEIS. Additional mitigative measures have been included in Ordinance 01- 0128-08 and in the approved development regulations and development agreement (and its 30 Attachments). In response to comments, the Water Quality Monitoring Plan was upgraded, including by adding Amendment 1. Comment 16: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 10: The Tribe has proposed a mitigation plan for the shellfish impacts of the MPR (See Appendix A) to the County and the Developer; the mitigation plan included seeding beaches on the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers with clam and oyster seed. The shellfish mitigation proposal is based on only 1 % of the MPR population, while an even larger increase in recreational harvesters is likely. In addition, the mitigation proposal does not include the harvest of other shellfish species, such as crab, that are also likely to be impacted by the MPR. However, the shellfish beach mitigation, as proposed, would provide a benefit to the Tribe, and to all tribes that harvest in the area, as well as the general public. The Tribe has not received any official response from the County or the Developer regarding its shellfish mitigation proposal. The Tribe's shellfish mitigation plan was not included in the draft Development Agreement or Development Regulations. The County cannot claim it has met its requirements under Ordinance 01-0128-08(63)0) for consultation with the tribes while at the same time ignoring the Tribe's proposed mitigation for impacts to shellfish in the adjacent areas. In addition, the BOCC cannot claim it has met the requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08(60) for the protection of nearby natural resources. Response to Comment 16: A shellfish mitigation proposal was presented by the PGST to Jefferson County in the govemment- to-government meeting between the PGST and Jefferson County on October 13, 2017. Jefferson County asked the PGST for the basis of its proposal at the October 13, 2017 meeting. The PGST could not provide back up for its proposal at the October 13, 2017 meeting, but on October 25, 2017, Roma Call on behalf of the PGST, provided a basis for PGST's proposal: Update from Roma on 10/25/17 cost of seeding: 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years to be split between Duckabush and Dosewallips beaches. Estimate of cost based on current pricing: $16,880 for 400 bags, including labor cost to spread the seed. 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips beach: Estimate of cost based on current pricing: $8,500 per 1 million 4000 mm clam seed. The Tribe would be willing to cover the cost of delivering the seed and spreading it, which is not included in the cost estimate. Summary of October 13, 2017 government-to-government meeting, attached as Appendix B. 20 Appendix 240 Jefferson County discussed the PGST proposal with the developer during negotiations over possible additional modifications to the development agreement. The developer did not agree to the PGST's proposal. Jefferson County has no legal authority to require the shellfish mitigation, this being a matter of potential treaty rights for the PGST to assert. The calculations for the proposed mitigation plan for the shellfish impacts of the MPR, which are attached as Appendix A to the PGST's comments, is substantially more detailed than what the PGST provided on October 25, 2017. The updated calculations provided on April 9, 2018, while helpful to understanding the basis of the PGST's proposal, do not provide a legal basis for Jefferson County to require treaty mitigation by the developer. Jefferson County urged the developer to discuss this further with the PGST. Please accept this letter as our official response. We urge the PGST to discuss this further with the developer. Comment 17: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 11: We are very troubled by the Developer's plan to remove 20,700 sq. ft. of wetland and associated buffers in and around Wetland B of the MPR, in direct conflict with state and local regulations, and Sections 8.4 and 8.8. 7 of the Development Agreement. The MPR includes the placement of 300,000 cubic yards of fill in Wetland B for the purpose of placing a plastic liner and creating a storm water wastewater storage basin in Kettle B (see Development Agreement, Section 10.1.3 Phase 1 and FSEIS). Therefore, the proposal is in direct conflict with Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance and Condition 63(s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 for the protection of wetlands. Additionally, the proposed Development Agreement and Development Regulations lack any explanation for why the County would allow these variances to their development standards and regulations. The County fails to provide any rationale for allowing the Developer to design the entire MPR project around this exemption for the purposes of creating a catchment basin in Kettle B. Therefore, the County cannot claim that the Development Agreement and Development Regulations have met the required conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(s) and required Critical Area Ordinance (JCC Chapter 18.22) while the MPR design for Wetland B remains audaciously noncompliant. Response to Comment 17: We respectfully disagree with this comment. The 2015 FSEIS contemplated wetland impacts and addressed compensatory mitigations which subsequent permits must consider prior to issuance. In addition, the development regulations adopted on June 4, 2018 and the development agreement adopted after that, require full compliance with Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance, Chapter 18.22 JCC. 21 Appendix 241 Further, the Master Plan described in Section 17.60.040 limits the development. Section 17.80.040(2) in the adopted development regulations (previously Section 17.80.060(2) in prior drafts) states: Jefferson County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent with the Master Plan. A revision to the existing Master Plan shall be submitted to Jefferson County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the Master Plans set forth in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Master Plan and development regulations. Other sections of the adopted development regulations also limit development. For example, Section 17.60.060 states: In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must comply with the applicable development standards and requirements of: (I) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance O 1-0128-08; (2) The mitigation measures required in the November 27, 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and (3) The terms and conditions of any Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the Developer. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this Article and other applicable code provisions, applicable mitigation measures, or applicable provisions of a Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer, the more restrictive shall apply. Among other requirements, existing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code will apply and requires compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act. Finally, the impacts of using Kettle B as part of Alternative 3 brought forward by the developer were fully assessed in the 2015 FSEIS. Comment 18: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 11-12: As stated previously, the Tribe is concerned with the MPR plans to retain stormwater in Kettle B with dual functions of storm water treatment by way of retention and infiltration and water supply for fire safety and irrigation. Condition Hof Ordinance 01-0128-08 clearly states that, "the possible ecological impact of 22 Appendix 242 the development's water plan that alters kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved." To date we have seen no documentation that this condition has been achieved. We support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to conduct "a thorough independent review of the hydrologic function and relationship between surface water, groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this particular aquifer as both a sole-source ( or near sole-source) aquifer for the residents of Black Point and the significant aquifer recharge area, potential for contamination by pollutants in runoff or any other contributions to the aquifer from treated sources." We also support the Planning Commission's recommendation for "a detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff generated onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite." Additionally, it is unclear how the ecological impact of filling a wetland to construct a stormwater pond may be mitigated. The ecology of a natural wetland, especially not one that exists in the context of an extraordinary geological feature such as Kettle B, will not be replicated by typical constructed wetlands. The likelihood of success for achieving any ecological function with a constructed wetland is yet to be determined. Overall, the Tribe is highly concerned that the County has not examined the Developer's water plan in more detail and independently from the Developer before proposing to move forward with the Development Agreement. The BOCC cannot claim to be compliant with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(h) until a comprehensive ecological examination has been completed and all concerns have been addressed with regard to the Developer's water plan that alters unique geological features and wetlands. Response to Comment 18: We respectfully disagree with this comment. The impacts of using Kettle Bas part of Alternative 3 selected by the developer were fully assessed in the 2015 FSEIS. The Planning Commission overstepped its role in making such a recommendation and fails consider the requirements in Chapter 18.30.070 JCC for stormwater management that the developer must follow. For instance, JCC 18.30.070 states: All new development and redevelopment must conform to the standards and minimum requirements set by the most current version of the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMM) and obtain a stormwater management permit if required by subsection (5) of this section. Subsection (5) of JCC 18.30.070 states in relevant part: (5) Stormwater Management Permit and Plan Review. All grading of 500 cubic yards or more (not exempted under subsection (5)(b) of this section), land- disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or more, or creation of 2,000 square feet or more of impervious surface shall be subject to a stormwater management permit. 23 Appendix 243 Prior to issuance of a stormwater management permit, the applicant shall submit the required stormwater management plans to the administrator for review and approval. The administrator shall issue the stormwater management permit consistent with a Type I permit process (as specified in Chapter 18.40 JCC) only upon a finding that the proposed use or activity meets all applicable requirements of JCC 18.30.060 and this section, and any other applicable requirements of this code. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, a stormwater management plan will be required during the permitting phase which is yet to come. We also agree with comments from the developer that: During construction, PHMR must obtain a Construction Storm-Water General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued by WDOE. (FSEIS at 1-23). This NPDES Permit requires implementation of best management practices to control and treat storm-water and quarterly monitoring all of which are designed to insure the construction storm-water does not negatively impact water quality as required by federal and state law. Like the permits issued for the WWTP, failure to comply with an NPDES Permit leads to civil enforcement. Following construction, storm-water will be collected and conveyed to engineered holding ponds on site. The FSEIS concluded after careful study that this on-site treatment system will improve existing conditions: Storm-water from the proposed development area would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality prior to discharge, thereby potentially improving water quality compared to existing conditions. (FSEIS 3.2-8). April 13, 2018 comments from JT Cooke (JT Cooke Comments, Log Item #271), attached as Appendix C, pgs. 5-6. Adding requirements that already exist in state law or in the JCC to either the development regulations or the development agreement is unnecessary and potentially could cause conflict with existing code or confusion that would make enforcement more difficult. Comment 19: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at pages 12-14: The proposed water quality monitoring plan is lacking in scope and sample frequency. We previously informed the County of these concerns in a comment letter, dated May 1, 2017. However, despite our concerns, the sample locations remain as originally proposed by the Developer, the sample locations are limited to 24 Appendix 244 three sites within Pleasant Harbor, despite Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(r) requiring "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring program." The sites within Pleasant Harbor should not be considered offsite, due to their close proximity to Statesman's own marina. Monitoring within the marina area will be more likely to detect pollution from vessel activities such as illicit discharges of bilge water or sewage than from additional stormwater runoff. The language in condition R, "regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge and/or contaminant loading", offsite is intended to mean waters which may receive pollution from sources associated with the resort including stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or atmospheric deposition from vehicle emissions. We do not expect these potential effects to be limited to or concentrated in Pleasant Harbor. Additional sites must be located in marine waters downgradient from the proposed infiltration basins, due to the direct connection between the sea-level aquifer and the nearshore marine waters. We support the use of monitoring wells to detect contamination of groundwater by pollutants but given that the groundwater will ultimately discharge to marine water, it is prudent to sample marine water where groundwater receiving infiltrated stormwater would be expected to discharge. Discharge and/or contaminant loading is intended to mean that concentrations and discharge are to be measured to calculate a contaminant load. By measuring concentration and discharge at points along the assumed pathways of pollution transport, one can better understand the connection between pollution source and sink, which would be useful for understanding where pollutants are being removed and whether by degradation, attenuation and/or filtration. This language supports our request for consideration of the fate and transport of contaminants expressed in our comments dated May 1, 2017 and January 19, 2017. The parameters to be measured are limited to the basic parameters listed for general aquatic life criteria. Additional parameters are needed to ensure marine water quality is not degraded by increased concentration of metals and organic pollutants, including copper, lead, zinc, PAHs, nutrients and pesticides and herbicides. Section VII(A)(2) states "sampling is currently being done in other locations by other agencies, to avoid duplication of effort data from other agencies may be used if possible." Mussel cages were deployed this year by the Tribe, in coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, as part of the Puget Sound Mussel Monitoring program for Stormwater Action Monitoring. Data from these mussel cages should be used, both to establish a baseline and to detect exceedances, as stated in our comments dated May 1, 201 7 and January 19, 2017. The water quality monitoring plan VI(2) states prior to the first development permit application being submitted, a report will be provided to Jefferson County 25 Appendix 245 Public Health describing the proposed best management practices for protection of water quality. We expect the BMPs proposed include stormwater pretreatment upstream of infiltration basins. Infiltration of stormwater in a kettle will not be sufficient by itself, as the capacity for removal of contaminants by soil is finite. Soil chemistry must be considered to adequately remove contaminants by soil, and condition (q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires it. Section VI(l 0) of the plan states that methodology and quality assurance guidelines shall be established and submitted to JCWQ for approval after the BMPs are approved. This provision suggests an opportunity for development of an adaptive management plan, as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08 (r). Adaptive management is intended to increase the ability to fashion timely responses in the face of new information and in a setting of varied stakeholder objectives and preferences. Section VI(S) states that "For any violation of water quality criteria, the Resort shall take immediate steps to correct the violation and shall remedy any impact to water quality caused by the Resort". It seems this would cover how to respond to a water quality exceedance, but it is unclear how adaptive management will inform the appropriate responses and how they will be agreed upon. Additional work is needed to craft an appropriate adaptive management plan. VIII(A) states sampling frequency shall be reduced to annually if there are not exceedances of applicable water quality standards for a period of five years. Sample frequency should not be reduced until the build out of the resort has been achieved. Exceedance criteria in monitoring wells must be as stringent as drinking water standards, whether or not the sentinel wells sampled are utilized for drinking water purpose. Sentinel wells are not only an early warning system but must trigger a response required under VI(5). The water quality monitoring plan must be corrected to address these issues before the County considers it complaint with the Ordinance. Response to Comment 19: We agree with comments from the developer that: Wastewater generated on-site will be addressed by construction of a treatment plant that treats water to Class A reclaimed water standards. (FSEIS at 3.16). The treatment plant must be constructed during the first development phase. (Development Agreement at Section 8.10, Exhibit 4). This means that no building may be occupied until and unless a WWTP is constructed to adequately treat waste water generated by the resort. The reclaimed water will be used for irrigation and aquifer recharge thereby reducing the use of groundwater and commensurately adding to aquifer recharge. In sum, water taken from the site stays on the site. -and- 26 Appendix 246 Wastewater treatment facilities are regulated by the Washington Department of Ecology ("WDOE"). Chapter 173-240 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) contains detailed regulatory requirements for the design, operation and maintenance ofWWTP. -and- In addition to detailed review of the engineering plan, state law also requires a construction quality assurance plan (WAC 173-240-075), an operation and maintenance manual (WAC 173-240-080) and mandates that the WWTP be run by an operator certified by the State (WAC 173-240-100). -and- The production and use of Class A reclaimed water is regulated by the Washington State Departments of Health and Ecology. Chapter 173-219 (updated in 2018) of the Washington Administrative Code addresses the production and use of reclaimed water. -and- • Permit-A Permit is required to generate and use reclaimed water (WAC 173-219-070). The permit "must identify terms and conditions determined to be necessary by the lead agency, for the protection of public health, the environment, and to implement this chapter and chapters 90.46, 90.48, 70.118, and 70.118B RCW as applicable." WAC 173-219-270. • Like the process for WWTP approval, Pleasant Harbor will have to submit an engineering plan, operation and maintenance plan and must also comply with monitoring, recording and reporting obligations. In response to Ordinance Condition 63( q) imposed by the Board, Pleasant Harbor developed a soils survey that outlined the soil conditions necessary to allow proper infiltration of storm-water and contouring to prevent off-site discharge. (FSEIS at 1-24 and 1-25). Those measures must be implemented in our stormwater engineering and are expressly included as part of our Development Agreement with the County. (Development Agreement at Section 9.2.3). JT Cooke Comments, Appendix C, pgs. 4-6. In other words, the subsequent design is supposed to result in zero discharge into Hood Canal. We also agree with comments from the developer that violating the provisions governing WWTP is subject to criminal and civil enforcement under (RCW 90.48.140) and that violations of reclaimed water requirements are the subject of civil enforcement under RCW 90.46.130. JT Cooke Comments, Appendix C, pg. 5. 27 Appendix 247 In addition to these state law protections, Jefferson County was able to negotiate additional requirements in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, including Amendment 1 that will ensure the no discharge design is effective during and after construction. In response to the public comments, including those from the PGST, the Water Quality Monitoring Plan has been substantially improved to include Amendment 1, a copy of which is attached to the adopted development agreement. We do not agree that it is reasonable to require monitoring for metals and organic pollutants, including copper, lead, zinc, or P AHs. While these types of chemicals might result from an industrial operation, they would not be expected to result from the selected alternative analyzed in the 2015 FSEIS, namely a master planned resort. Further, the current parameters to be measured in Table I are sufficient to detect nutrients and pesticides and herbicides. The comment does not accurately reflect the language of Condition 63 (r) of Ordinance 01-0128- 08, which states: A County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site- specific action, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman, that will include regular off-site sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring regime. (Emphasis added.) The current water quality monitoring plan goes well beyond measuring water quality in Pleasant Harbor-it includes sampling designed to verify no discharges to Pleasant Harbor and the Hood Canal of chemicals likely to be used in operations of the MPR. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan states at page 6: "Developer shall also conduct semi-annual sampling from MW 2, MW5, MW 7 and MW 8 depicted on Figure I of the map prepared by the Subsurface Group LLC." MW 2, MW 5, and MW 8 will measure the constituents listed in Table 1, if they move toward Hood Canal. In fact, MW 2 is adjacent to Hood Canal. Furthermore, since the PGST's April 9, 2018 letter was sent, a new Section X was added to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan as follows: X. Actions to be Taken, if Sampling Results Show Increasing Concentrations in Water Quality Parameters A. Investigation. If sampling results show three consecutive increases in concentrations of any one of the water quality parameters sampled under this Agreement the Developer shall take steps to identify the cause of the increase. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the increase in the water quality parameters, including but not limited to inspecting, sampling, or testing to determine the cause, nature and extent of the increase. JCWQ may require the Developer to provide a plan for investigation within the time determined by JCWQ as 28 Appendix 248 necessary to address the increasing concentrations in the water quality parameters. B. Remediation. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential threat to human health or the environment posed by increasing concentrations that are caused by the construction or operations of the Resort, including taking steps to eliminate, or modify the source to insure applicable groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. This new section provides a mechanism for enforcement by Jefferson County in addition to those already existing in state and federal law. The development agreement complies with and exceeds the requirements of Condition 63(q) and Condition 63(r) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Comment 20: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 14: We have yet to see any Wastewater Treatment Plan for the MPR project. Currently the Development Agreement, Appendix 1, includes a reference to pages 931 -932 of the FEIS, which includes a preamble stating the intention for the development of a Wastewater Treatment Plan, but none is provided. To date a plan has not been produced, according to email communications between PGST and Statesman via the County. Because the Developer plans to discharge treated wastewater into Kettle B for reuse in irrigation and fire suppression, it is important to ensure an adequate system of treatment. Without any plans for a system we are unable to determine whether the proposed project will be appropriate. Until a Wastewater Treatment Plan is provided, it is impossible to determine whether the proposed MPR will meet the requirements of Chapter 246-2728 WAC, Jefferson County Code 08.15.100, Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(n) and Development Agreement Section 8.10. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncom pliant. Response to Comment 20: We respectfully disagree with this comment for the same reasons as in our Response to Comment 19. Comment 21: The PGST's April 9, 2018 makes comments at pages 14-15 concerning "Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 for Addressing Impact to the Pleasant Harbor Marina." 29 Appendix 249 Response to Comment 21: This comment correctly quotes Condition 63(t) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 which is about Tunicate impacts, then distorts it beyond its intended purpose. We disagree with this comment. Appendix R to the development agreement fully addresses Condition 63(t) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Comment 22: The PGST's April 9, 2018 comments state at page 15: We are unclear how Condition P of Ordinance 01-0128-08 has been satisfied. The Ordinance requires that a Neighborhood Water Policy be established which requires Statesman to provide access to their water supply in the event that the neighbors water supply is affected by seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusions would occur in response to pumping of the aquifer and given that the neighboring wells would draw from the same aquifer, shifting production from one well to another would not improve the aquifer condition in the long term. Therefore, the Development Agreement as proposed is noncompliant with Ordinance O 1-0128-08 (63)(p). Response to Comment 22: We respectfully disagree with this comment. The 2015 FSEIS states a primary goal of the applicant is to prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. 2015 FSEIS at pgs. 2-15 and 2-16. Further, Appendix F of the 2015 FSEIS concluded that the project would increase groundwater recharge to the aquifer, compared to existing conditions. 2015 FSEIS, Table 3-2.1. The 2015 FSEIS concluded that: "As long as neighboring domestic wells are not over-pumped and properly engineered and constructed, the potential for introducing salt water intrusion is low." 2015 FSEIS at 4-5. We agree with the following comment from the Developer: PHMR's Water Right Permit (02-30436) received from the State of Washington incorporates the ''Groundwater Monitoring Plan" PHMR prepared as a condition of the permit. That plan requires the installation of water level and salinity dataloggers in eight existing and proposed wells across the site. Water levels and water quality (including chloride levels) will be monitored on a periodic basis (20 minutes to hourly) over time. These data will be used to assess the effects of pumping the water supply wells and to provide a forewarning in the unlikely event that adverse water levels or adverse water quality (including saltwater intrusion) develop. (FSIES at 4-2). Thus, if signs of salt-water intrusion do occur because of PHMR's withdrawals it will be required to adjust withdrawals accordingly. JT Cooke Comments, Appendix C, pg. 7. The approved development agreement is compliant with Condition 63(p) of Ordinance 01- 0128-08. 30 Appendix 250 Comment 23: The PGST's April 9, 2018 makes comments at pages 14-15 concerning "Need to Correct Noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 (63)(1) for the Protection of Wildlife." Response to Comment 23: We agree with these comments and the Wildlife Management Plan has been revised substantially in Amendment 1, which is attached to the adopted development agreement. Thank you again for the PGST comments. Jefferson County made numerous changes to the development regulations and development agreement in response to the valuable input of the PGST. We look forward to our continued relationship. Sincerely, JEFFU~ISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Cc: Patty Charnas, Director Jefferson County Department of Community Development 31 Appendix 251 pg. 1 Updated 3/19/18 Tribal Record of Comments/Meetings Regarding Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Project (Disclaimer –This list may not be complete) Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 1 May 14, 1997 Comment letter to John Holgate, Jefferson Co. DCD Draft EIS for Brinnon Sub- area Plan Peter Bahls, Habitat Biologist, PGST 2 Jun. 21, 2001 Email reply from Linda Tudor, Settlers Real Estate Formal request to review Brinnon Sub-area Plan for PGST Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 3 Jul. 28, 2001 Email from Mark Rose Request to review Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 4 Aug. 6, 2001 Email from Ted Labbe Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 5 Aug. 8, 2001 Comment letter from Ted Labbe Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 6 Oct. 17, 2001 Comment letter from Ted Labbe Brinnon Sub-area Plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 7 Oct. 18, 2001 Comment letter from Marty Ereth Brinnon Sub-area Plan Marty Ereth, Habitat Biologist, Skokomish 8 Dec. 21, 2001 Comment letter to Jefferson County Jefferson County’s SEPA on Brinnon Sub-area Plan Point No Point Treaty Council (PGST, JKT, Skokomish) 9 Jan. 14, 2002 Memo to BOCC from John Holgate, Jefferson Co. DCD Brinnon Sub-area planning process – public participation highlights Skokomish, PGST APPENDIX A TO RESPONSE TO PGST APRIL 9, 2018 COMMENTS Appendix 252 pg. 2 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 10 Jan. 22, 2002 Excerpt from Natural Areas Journal Elk in Olympic National Park: Will They Persist Over Time? (submitted by Ted Labbe at the Brinnon SEPA meeting) Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist PGST 11 Jan. 22, 2002 Resources Northwest, Inc. letter (dated May 11, 1993) Management recommendations for elk (submitted by Ted Labbe at the Brinnon SEPA meeting on January 22, 2002) Steve Moddemeyer, PGST 12 Jan. 22, 2002 Written Meeting Summary of Verbal Comments Jefferson County SEPA meeting on Brinnon Sub- area plan & UDC amendments Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders 13 Feb. 6, 2002 Minority Report to Jefferson Co. BOCC verbal comments Jefferson County BOCC hearing: Brinnon Sub-area plan Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders 14 Mar. 12, 2002 Written testimony of Ted Labbe to BOCC Jefferson County BOCC Hearing: Brinnon Sub- area plan Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 15 Sep. 30, 2002 Comments on 2002 Jeff. Co. Comprehensive Plan & UDC amendments Brinnon Sub-area plan Ronald G. Charles, Tribal Chair, PGST 16 Jan. 27, 2003 Letter to DCD County’s adoption of 2001 DOE Stormwater Management Manual For Western Washington Ronald G. Charles, Tribal Chair, PGST 17 Oct. 20, 2003 Meeting Summary of Verbal Comments Jefferson County informal SEIS scoping Brinnon Sub- area plan Ted Labbe, PGST and other stakeholders 18 Apr. 20, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD 2nd notice/DS, notice of public meeting and expanded scoping Skokomish, PGST, Elwha, Jamestown S’Klallam & PNPTC 19 Apr. 28, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Contacts for the Point No Point Treaty Signers N/A Appendix 253 pg. 3 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 20 May 8, 2006 Transcript of EIS Scoping Meeting Public testimony during EIS scoping meeting for Brinnon MPR Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 21 May 10, 2006 Newspaper article from the Port Townsend- Jefferson County Leader Brinnon resort plan Mike Jones, PGST 22 May 19, 2006 Comment letter to Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County 2006 comp plan amendment MLA06- 00087 Master Planned Resort Brinnon Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, PGST 23 May 26, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Proposed meeting with First Nations and archaeologist N/A 24 Jun. 23, 2006 Letter from Camille A. Mather, Archaeologist Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort Marie Hebert, PGST 25 Jun. 28, 2006 Letter to Dr. Camille Mather, Archaeologist Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort Delbert Miller, THPO Skokomish Tribe 26 Jun. 30, 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment by Western Shore Heritage Services (Technical Report #274) Cultural Resource Assessment Report sent to various tribes Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe; Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe; Skokomish Tribe; PGST; Squaxin Island Tribe; Suquamish Tribe 27 Jul. 13, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Proposed scheduling of First Nations meetings N/A 28 Aug. 8, 2006 Email requesting tribal contacts from scoping meeting Request for tribal contacts N/A 29 Aug 8, 2006 Email from James Mazak, Director of Planning, Statesman Corp. Review list of tribal contacts Elwha, Jamestown, PNPTC, PGST, Skokomish Appendix 254 pg. 4 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 30 Aug. 23, 2006 Email from Brent Butler, Jefferson Co. DCD Letter re: findings on the consultant reports and summary document for (MLA06-87) Draft EIS sections N/A 31 Aug 28, 2006 Email w/attached minutes from James Mazak, Statesman Group Minutes from Aug. 11, 2006 presentation to Skokomish Tribe Skokomish, DCD, DAHP, Western Shore Heritage Services, Wessen & Associates, GeoEngineers, Largen 32 Aug. 31, 2006 Letter from Statesman Group Transportation and cultural resources assessment sections (working w/Skokomish Tribe) N/A 33 Sep. 11, 2006 Email exchange between County, Statesman & PGST Invite to Statesman from Hans Daubenberger, PGST, to discuss proposal at Sept. 25, 2006 Meeting PGST, Jamestown & Lower Elwha Tribes 34 Sep. 27, 2006 Email between Statesman & Hans Daubenberger, PGST PGST list of natural resource concerns for Sept. 25, 2006 meeting Hans Daubenberger, Habitat Biologist, PGST 35 Sep. 27, 2006 Email between Statesman & Delbert Miller, Skokomish Meeting/site visit for Sept. 15, 2006 & meeting with Skokomish Tribe for Sept. 27, 2006 Delbert Miller, Skokomish Tribe 36 Sep. 27, 2006 Skokomish Tribal Meeting Notes Stacie Hoskins (DCD) hand written notes from meeting Skokomish Tribe 37 Oct. 24, 2006 Email invite to DNR for cultural resources site visit on Nov. 2, 2006 FPA pertaining to “Archaeological and Historic Sites and Artifacts and Traditional Religious, Ceremonial and Social Uses and Activities of Affected Indian Tribes” N/A Appendix 255 pg. 5 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 38 Dec. 18, 2006 Cultural Resource Assessment by Western Shore Heritage Services (Technical Report #288) Report is collaborative effort between Statesman, Jeff. Co., DAHP, Skokomish Tribe & Western Shore Heritage Services based on meetings of Aug. 11, Sep. 15 & 27, & Oct. 20, 2006 Skokomish 39 Mar. 14, 2007 Memo from DCD re: Tribal contacts List compiled for the 2007- Critical Area Ordinance Review – Tribal contacts document that Includes the cultural resources contacts N/A 40 Oct. 23, 2007 Comment letter to Stacie Hoskins, DCD Comments on DEIS for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Marty Ereth, Habitat Biologist, Skokomish 41 Oct. 24, 2007 Comment letter to Karen Barrows, DCD Comments on cultural resource assessment report Kris Miller, THPO,Skokomish Tribe 42 Dec. 6, 2007 Comment letter to BOCC Jefferson County Jefferson County Master Planned Resort in Brinnon (MLA06-87) comprehensive plan amendment Hans Daubenberger, Habitat Biologist, PGST 43 Dec. 9, 2007 Comment letter to BOCC Jefferson County Jefferson County Master Planned Resort in Brinnon (MLA06-87) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Coordinator, Point No Point Treaty Council 44 Sept 15, 2008 Site visit sign in sheet List of names of persons attending the site visit Skokomish Sept. 24, 2009 On-site meeting with Statesman developers (did not include DCD staff) Jefferson County Brinnon Master Planned Resort Scoping for SEIS Jessica Coyle, Tim Cullinan, Hans Daubenberger, Cynthia Rossi Appendix 256 pg. 6 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 45 Nov. 24, 2009 Comment letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Comment letter on scoping for SEIS Paul McCollum Nat. Resources Dir, PGST; Scott Chitwood, Nat. Resources Dir., Jamestown S’Klallam; Randy Harder, Executive Director, Point No Point Treaty Council 46 Mar. 16- 17, 2010 Email exchange to Garth Mann, Statesman Corp., David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County BOCC conditions for Pleasant Harbor Resort Jessica Coyle, PGST 47 May 10, 2010 Email from Vicki Morris with PBST statement of concerns attached Statement of concerns with regard to the conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 Jessica Coyle, PGST 48 Mar. 27, 2012 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. proposed plan for archaeological monitoring and inadvertent discovery protocol Plan for Periodic Archaeological Monitoring of Construction Excavations for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jamestown S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, PGST, Skokomish, Squaxin, & Suquamish Tribes 49 May 11, 2012 Letter from Don Coleman, Pleasant Harbor Marina Submittal of Cultural Resources Management Plan to PGST for review Josh Wisniewski, PGST 50 Jan. 14, 2013 Letter to David Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Concurrence with proposed Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Plan for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Kris Miller, THPO, Skokomish Tribe Appendix 257 pg. 7 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 51 Jan. 14, 2013 Letter to David Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Concurrence with proposed Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Pan for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Gretchen Kaehler, Assistant State Archaeologist, DAHP 52 Jan. 5, 2015 Comment letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County Draft SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Feb. 18, 2015 On-site meeting with Craig Peck, Project Mgr. and David W Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Jefferson County Draft SEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, Hans Daubenberger, Dave Fuller, Hydrogeologist, Tim Cullinan, Cynthia Rossi 53 Feb. 19, 2015 Email from David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD to Donna Simmons, HCEC On-site meeting with project engineer and PGST – Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort PGST 54 Dec. 16, 2015 Comment letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission Jefferson Co. FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort MLA08- 00188, ZON 08-00056 Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 55 Jan. 6, 2016 Public testimony to Jefferson County Planning Commission Planning Commission meeting minutes that includes testimony Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 56 Jan. 22, 2016 Email from Roma Call, PGST Planning Commission and DCD staff granted 60-day extension for Tribal Consultation process Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 57 Feb. 22, 2016 Email from Roma Call, PGST PGST to provide FSEIS response to Planning Commission at the March 16, 2016 meeting Roma Call, PGST 58 Feb. 29, 2016 Email from Roma Call, PGST PGST’s draft response Letter on FSEIS to Planning Commission Roma Call, PGST Appendix 258 pg. 8 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 59 Mar. 11, 2016 Comment letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission Kettles B & C; Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Laura Price, PGST Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 60 Mar. 15, 2016 Comment letter to David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD and Planning Commission Comments on FSEIS & Intent to amend the UDC Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 61 Mar. 23, 2016 Invitation to BOCC to a government-to- government meeting Government-to- government meeting to discuss Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 62 Mar. 29, 2016 Note to file: Comment letter from David W. Johnson, DCD Staff response to PGST letter dated March 15, 2016 N/A 63 Apr. 6, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes Presentation to Planning Commission by PGST Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Laura Price, PGST THPO 64 Apr. 18, 2016 Agenda request with BOCC for government- to-government consultation meeting with PGST Statement of issue and analysis regarding tribes concerns about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. Recommendation to conduct a government- to-government meeting Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair; Laura Price, PGST Tribal Historic Preservation Officer; Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 65 Apr. 18, 2016 Discussion of proposed government-to- government meeting and Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort with BOCC and PGST during regular meeting Presentation by PGST on potential impacts of Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort on the Tribe’s cultural resources and treaty rights Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair; Laura Price, PGST THPO; Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Appendix 259 pg. 9 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 66 May 3, 2016 Letter from BOCC to Planning Commission Request for Planning Commission’s recommendation on Development Regulations; County continues consultation with Tribe N/A 67 May 9, 2016 Letter from PGST to Board of County Commissioners Proposed government- to-government consultation plan Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 68 May 13, 2016 Email from Don Coleman, Statesman Representative Written summary of site visit on May 11, 2016 Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Laura Price, PGST THPO 69 Jun. 9, 2016 Letter from BOCC to Cynthia Koan & Planning Commissioners Revised deadline for Planning Commission recommendations on draft Development Regulations; County continues consultation with PGST N/A 70 Jun 23, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator to Statesman Web link provided to Statesman regarding the Point No Point Treaty adopted in 1855 N/A 71 Jun 23, 2016 Email from Statesman to Philip Morley, County Administrator Comments on the Treaty, kettles, hunting and fishing rights. Statesman’s minutes of June 21, 2016 meeting with Philip Morley N/A 72 Jun 24, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator to Statesman Philips hand written edits to Statesman’s minutes of June 21, 2016 N/A 73 Jul. 8, 2016 Email w/attached letter to BOCC Planning Commission letter to accompany their recommendations PGST Appendix 260 pg. 10 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 74 Jul. 18, 2016 Email to BOCC and David W. Johnson, Jefferson Co. DCD Follow-up to consultation process Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 75 Aug. 5, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator DCD staff to proceed with meetings with PGST N/A 76 Aug. 24, 2016 Email from Philip Morley, County Administrator Continued consultation process with PGST N/A 77 Sep. 7, 2016 Email from David Sullivan, County Commissioner to Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, PGST County, PGST, applicant proposed consultation process Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 78 Oct. 3, 2016 Letter to Jeromy Sullivan from Garth Mann, Statesman Statesman’s informal proposed changes dated August 19, 2016 to golf course, grading, stormwater, etc. Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 79 Oct. 4, 2016 Letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, PGST to Garth Mann, Statesman Path forward regarding proposed informal changes as identified in document dated August 19, 2016 by Statesman Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 80 Dec. 14, 2016 Meeting notes and agenda Final meeting notes summary from December 14, 2016 Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 81 Dec. 15, 2016 Email between Patty Charnas, DCD & Roma Call Follow-up from December 14, 2016 meeting Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 82 Jan. 19, 2017 Email from Roma Call Draft Agenda for January 15, 2017 web meeting and summary of some major concerns of PGST Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. Appendix 261 pg. 11 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 83 Jan. 26, 2017 Technical workgroup regarding Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Meeting reviewed in more detail the questions and concerns of the proposed development relative to PGST tribal treaty rights and resource issues specific to shellfish, water quality, stormwater and wildlife. Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Laura price, THPO; Tamara Gage, Shellfish Program Manager; Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist 84 Mar. 15, 2017 Email exchange from Michelle Farfan to PGST, Don Coleman, Garth Mann, Stuart Whitford Draft Water Quality MOU from 2011 regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr. 85 May 1, 2017 Comment letter to Michelle Farfan, Jefferson Co. DCD Statesman Group’s proposed W ater Quality Monitoring Plan Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist, PGST 86 May 17, 2017 Thank you letter to Sam Phillips, PGST Thank you for comment letter dated May 1, 2017 Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist, PGST 87 Aug. 9, 2017 Comment letter to BOCC Request the BOCC arrange a consultation with the tribe regarding concerns about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Jeromy Sullivan, PGST Chair 88 Aug. 10, 2017 Letter from Kathleen Kler, Chair, BOCC Continued government- to government consultation Jeromy Sullivan, Chair, PGST 89 Aug. 31, 2017 Response to request for comments Wildlife Management Plan for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Timothy Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager 90 Sep. 7, 2017 Email from Sam Phillips, PGST Submitted questions for September 8, 2017 discussion Sam Phillips, Environmental Scientist, PGST Appendix 262 pg. 12 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 91 Sep. 8, 2017 Final Meeting Notes Summary Final meeting notes from web meeting that includes Joe Callaghan, wildlife biologist & Jennifer Dadisman, wildlife biologist, both from GeoEngineers Roma Call, PGST Environmental Program Mgr.; Sam Phillips, PGST Environmental Scientist; Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Mgr, Point No Point Treaty Council 92 Sep. 15, 2017 Email exchange between Michelle Farfan, DCD & Roma Call, PGST Draft excerpt from Draft Development Agreement regarding “Recognition of Areas with Cultural Significance” Roma Call, Environmental Program Mgr., PGST 93 Sep. 29, 2017 Letter to Dr. Allyson Brooks, DAHP Reevaluation of traditional cultural property (TCP) Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Stormy Purser, THPO, PGST 94 Oct. 2, 2017 Letter from Gretchen Kaehler, DAHP Request to submit documentation related to traditional cultural property (TCP) Stormy Purser, THPO, PGST 95 Oct. 4, 2017 Letter to Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST from Kathleen Kler, Chair BOCC Response to August 9, 2017 letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST 96 Oct. 13, 2017 Final meeting notes summary Summary notes of government-to- government meeting with PGST Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST; Amber Penn- Roco, Attorney PGST; Roma Call, Env. Program Mgr., PGST; Stormy Purser, THPO, PGST; Laura Price, Director of Cultural Arts and History, PGST Appendix 263 pg. 13 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 97 Oct. 19, 2017 DCD final meeting notes summary Summary of site visit conducted on October 19, 2017 (including DFW) regarding Elk/Wildlife) Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Mgr., Point No Point Treaty Council; Charin Godbolt, Wildlife Biologist, PGST 98 Oct. 26, 2017 Letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman PGST to BOCC Response to BOCC letter dated October 4, 2017 Jeromy Sullivan, Chairman, PGST 99 Nov. 3, 2017 DCD final meeting notes summary Government- to- government meeting with the Skokomish Tribe Skokomish members present: Guy Miller, Chairman; Joseph Pavel, Dir. of Natural Resources; Alex Gouley, Habitat Manager/Tribal Council; Kris Miller, Cultural Resources Specialist; Dave Herrera, Fish and Wildlife Policy Adviser 100 Dec. 8, 2017 Letter to Michelle Farfan, DCD from Tim Cullinan Comments pertaining to the revised Wildlife Management Plan Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager, Point No Point Treaty Council 101 Jan. 11, 2018 DCD Final Draft Meeting Summary Roll-out of Development Agreement and Development Regulations PGST 102 Jan. 12, 2018 DCD Final Meeting Summary Notes Roll-out of Development Agreement and Development Regulations Skokomish Appendix 264 pg. 14 Log Item # Date Record Issue/Purpose Tribal Representatives 103 Feb. 12, 2018 Email exchange between Patty Charnas, DCD & Roma Call Where to find Information on county web page on Draft Development Regulations, Draft Development Agreement and BOCC public hearing Roma Call, Environmental Program Mgr., PGST Appendix 265 APPENDIX B TO RESPONSE TO PGST APRIL 9, 2018 COMMENTS ATTENDEES: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 I email: dcd@co.jefferson .wa .us www.co .jefferson .wa .us/commdevelopment FINAL Meeting Notes Summary Government to Government Meeting with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort October 13, 2017 10am -Noon Public Works Conference Room, Port Townsend Jeromy Sullivan, Tribal Chairman, PGST Amber Penn-Roco, Attorney PGST Roma Call, Environmental Program Manager, PGST Stormy Purser, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST (via speaker phone) Laura Price, Director of Cultural Arts and History, PGST David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administrator Patty Charnas, Director, Jefferson County DCD Michelle Farfan, Project Planner, Jefferson County DCD Meeting Summary: Updates: • PGST Tribal Council supported PGST staff recommendation to pursue designation of further study or inclusion of the kettles as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). • PGST expects a response very soon. Appendix 266 Water quality/shellfish: • PGST repeated their concern of size and scope of the project including stormwater runoff into Hood Canal. Water quality is of great concern since 75% of tribal shellfish come from the Dosewallips and Duckabush. • Han Daubenberger is working with DFW with mussel cages in Duckabush to monitor water quality . • PGST understands developer is proposing to use natural materials and proposing zero runoff discharge for the resort, but we need to have appropriate monitoring and response plans in place. • PGST asks about status of water quality monitoring plan . • PGST concerned that there will be increase with pedestrian traffic on beaches and more intense recreational shellfish harvest. • PGST concerned with not just amount of shellfish harvest by pedestrians increasing , but also the way the shellfish harvest is performed; need to ensure shellfish harvest is done in a way that ensures future harvests • Jeromy: total perceived occupancy over time/successors. • DFW has oversite for shellfish harvest on public beaches and seeding of shellfish beds. • Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) has this on their radar. Not as hot as salmon but this is a major concern that the requirements of DFW are not being met. • PGST believes there is neglect on shellfish harvest management, but would rather not have to sue the state on protection of shellfish. • The increase in 890 residents at Pleasant Harbor MPR will add to the cumulative impacts on shellfish beds in the area. • PGST shellfish staff have come up with a proposal for mitigation of the Pleasant Harbor MPR impacts on shellfish beds in adjacent areas: seeding oysters on Dosewallips and Duckabush every 4 years and seeding clams every 3 years . Update from Roma on 10/25/17 cost of seeding: 400 bags of seeded oyster cultch every 4 years to be split between Duckabush and Dosewallips beaches. Estimate of cost based on current pricing: $16,880 for 400 bags, including labor cost to spread the seed . 1 million clam seed every 3 years for Dosewallips beach: Estimate of cost based on current pricing: $8,500 per 1 million 4000 mm clam seed . The Tribe would be willing to cover the cost of delivering the seed and spreading it, which is not included in the cost estimate. 2 Appendix 267 Wetlands: • Corp of Engineers jurisdictional determination (JD) has expired . PGST has heard that now DOE issues a permit if Corp does not have responsibility. • Clarification after the 10/13/17 Meeting: DOE has wetland permit requirements on all projects that will impact wetlands whether or not the Corps has jurisdiction • Philip: Roma to share email to Corp about if wetland is not under federal regulations then under state. What is trigger to submit new JD? • Patty: New JD done at permit application level. • Roma: Corp and DOE under the impression that applicant was staying out of wetlands - avoiding permitting by developer by stating staying out of wetlands. • PGST stated there was confusion regarding which proposal was moving forward. Developer provided PGST, and informed agencies, that it was proceeding with a proposal that would not impact wetlands or kettles. (PGST was provided a copy of a document dated August 2016 by the developer (in 2016) of a different proposal than the preferred alternative 3 in the FSEIS). Both DOE and Army Corps were informed that the proposal would not impact wetlands; Developer has not updated agencies that that proposal would not be moving forward. Wildlife management: • David : We thought about getting things done earlier than at permit level by imposing the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. • Wildlife management site visit is scheduled for 10/19 that includes DFW wildlife biologists to look at possible fencing options and to look at developer owned triangular parcel on west side of Hwy 101 and habitat. • Discussion on Tim Cullinan's (Point No Point Treaty Council) update on elk management and fencing configurations. • Jeromy : Listen to state WDFW on suggestions for elk management. • Roma: Fence and new habitat for elk would probably resolve the elk issue. • Statesman understands that a fence is probably necessary but site visit will help. Cultural resources: 3 Appendix 268 • Stormy : TCP assessment done and submitted to DAHP. Working on process for eligibility. Dr. Brooks, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) spoke with PGST on applying for eligibility nomination. • Amber: Documents uploaded to DAHP wizard -preliminary decision on TCP expected soon. DAHP will write a letter to county on eligibility. • Roma: SHPO will decide relatively soon. How will county respond to DAHP decision on TCP? • Laura: We are trying to get you this information as soon as possible. • Amber: County letter sent to PGST regarding kettles makes it sound like its goals regarding preservation of kettles are "more aspirational." • Philip: legal framework for the county and developer is Ordinance 01-0128-08, SEPA and critical area ordinance. At some point county will decide issues are either resolved or "agree to disagree" and issue a public review draft. A 2 month public review is expected. Roll out proposed Dev. Agreement and proposed Development will present to PGST and other tribes. Prior to roll-out, county to continue with technical meetings. • Amber: PGST will respond to county letter. • Jeromy: What does TCP eligibility mean? What does that preclude under the law? What are the general legal effects? • Laura: Probably comes into play when Corp becomes involved (review). • Roma: That's why we want a JD now because it may trigger a Section 106 process and we would like to know that sooner rather than later. Advise developer that you're getting down the road and the Section 106 process kicks in and may cause the project to substantially become delayed. • Amber: issues better addressed now than later on TCP. • Philip: Can't make applicant contact Corp for JD. Can't prevent applicant from making bad decisions . • Jeromy: Applicant doesn't want Tribe to be negative down the road to cause potential issues . Corp permit responsibility to protect tribal treaty rights. • Roma: Looking at other kettles and wetlands as cultural resources. • Amber: PGST desires MOU; MOU to include tribe, developer and county: o Tribe issues, o Stewardship plan, o Water quality plan, 4 Appendix 269 o Wildlife management plan, and o Shellfish maintenance/protection. • Philip: The Skokomish agreed to the Cultural Resources report . • Amber: 1) Condition K requires agreement with local tribes and 2) inadvertent discovery plan for archaeology is different than cultural resources plan . • Philip : Why MOU? • PGST: 1) A way to work out treaty rights and 2) if property is sold , good to have these agreements ahead of time. • Roma : stewardship plan around the kettles and wetlands. • Philip : County will review the idea of MOU and would review a draft MOU from PGST. Next steps: County: • Wildlife management site visit and plan • Water quality plan • Draft meeting notes PGST: • Edits to Development Agreement section on treaty rights and cultural resources • Provide comment on county letter • Draft MOU between Developer and PGST • Complete registration on TCP 5 Appendix 270 AGENDA Government to Government Meeting Jefferson County & Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Meeting Date : October 13, 2017 Time: 10 a.m. to Noon Place : PWD conference room, PT INVITEES: Jeremy Sullivan, Tribal Chairman PGST Amber Penn-Roco, Attorney PGST Roma Call, Environmental Program Manager, PGST Stormy Purser, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST Tim Cullinan, Wildlife Program Manager, Point No Point Treaty Council Laura Price , former Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, PGST David Sullivan, County Commissioner Philip Morley, County Administrator Patty Charnas , Director Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner 1. Welcomes and updates 2. Review the three major issues : a. Water quality/shellfish b. Wildlife management c . Cultural Resources 3. Next steps 6 Appendix 271 APPENDIX C TO RESPONSE TO PGST APRIL 9, 2018 COMMENTS ·effbocc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Commissioners: JT Cooke <JT@houlihan-law.com> Friday, April 13, 2018 11:31 AM jeffbocc Patty Charnas; Philip Hunsucker; Garth Mann; Don Coleman Brinnon MPR 2018.4.13 PHMR Letter to County.pdf Please see the attached comment letter. Thanks, JT HOULIHAN LAW JOHN T. U.TJ COOKE AlTORNFY ;05.54 71075 l'i!Rt (; I 706 5471958 "t.X )$3 722.826'/ MO?cl t NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 1 Appendix 272 HOULIHAN LAW, P.C. April 13, 2018 VIA EMAIL (jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us.) Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort JOHN T. U.T.) COOKE Proposed Amendments to Titles 17 & 18 of the Jefferson County Code & Development Agreement Dear Honorable Commissioners: We at Pleasant Harbor Marina and Resort LLP ("PHMR") are looking forward in 2018 to continue our partnership with Jefferson County ("County") and the local community by fulfilling the vision for a master planned resort at Black Point. We are encouraged by the amount of support at the public hearing on April 9t\ but are also concerned that there are still misconceptions about the project, our plans, and commitment to the Brinnon community and environment. Through this letter we respond to some of the common misconceptions raised about the project. Before addressing those comments, it is important for the Board to consider the context of the decision before it. The decision before the Board is two-fold: (1) whether the development regulations are consistent with and implement the County Comprehensive Plan; and (2) whether the Development Agreement complies with the Board's conditions, the County Code and state law. These decisions do not "approve" construction of the project. PHMR still must secure permits from the County, and state and federal agencies before it can begin construction. The development regulations merely provide a building and development envelope. The Development Agreement insures that work performed is consistent with the mitigation measures imposed by the FEIS, FSEIS and Board, the County Code and further insures that adequate infrastructure will be in place allowing construction of units I resort amenities. Many of the comments received do not address these questions. Rather, they address issues that have already been resolved through prior decisions (i.e. the propriety of the MPR) or comment on the adequacy of the environmental documents and mitigation. Those issues are not consequential before the Board. As relayed by Philip Morley, the Board has already designated Black Point as an MPR and the comment period for the environmental review closed almost two years ago. Nevertheless, we feel we must respond to many of those comments here. Appendix 273 Page 2 A. The MPR Site is not Pristine Forest Land; It is an Abandoned Campground that Supported 500 RV Trailers and Connections on Septic Some commenters expressed the view that Black Point is untouched, virgin land and should not be disturbed because doing so will destroy the uniqueness of the area. As expalined during the County Staff presentation, the area covered by the MPR was heavily used in the past as an RV campground for some 500 trailer connections all on septic. Indeed, it was this high intensity former use that formed part of the basis for designating the area as a possible site for an MPR in the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan. B. The Proposed Density is Below Urban Levels and is Necessary to Support Infrastructure that Protects the Environment Like a WWTP A common theme expressed in opposition is that 890 units is too large. The County Comprehensive Plan designates Black Point as a Muster Planned Resort and states that density is not to exceed 890 units. A master planned resort, by definition, may allow urban levels of density. RCW 36.70A.360. While there is no bright line rule for urban density, as a "rule of thumb" urban levels of density are four units/acre or greater. The proposed density of 890 units (including the affordable housing that the Board required we provide) equates to approximately 3.3 units per acre-well below the threshold of urban level density. The proposed density has benefits beyond economic activity. The density supports the mitigation measures voluntarily proposed by PHMR, imposed by the Board through Ordinance 01-0128-08 and the EISs. The proposed density creates the revenue the funds the proposed wastewater treatment plant, the various monitoring plans, the street improvements, the MOU commitments, the preservation of over 100 acres at the site and the other various components that PHMR has agreed to implement through the Development Agreement. Indeed, all of the mitigation measures imposed by the EISs and incorporated into the Development Agreement are premised on a project that consists of 890 units. Decreasing the density makes it impractical to invest in those measures designed to minimize project impacts. For instance, it is expected to cost around $15,000,000.00 just to design and construct the Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP") that will treat water to Class A standards. PHMR can make that investment because the proposed density provides the revenue to cover the cost to construct and operate the WWTP. If density is reduced the ability to make that investment is compromised and the result is a development that is less protective to water quality. The proposed density of 890 units already reflects a reduction from approximately 1,100 units. Reducing the density further is inconsistent with the concept of the MPR and will undermine PHMR's ability to invest in the infrastructure and monitoring plans it has agreed to implement as part of the project. Appendix 274 Page 3 C. The Development Agreement Includes Adequate Protection to Protection Water Quality and Shellfish Many commentators stated that the MPR will damage water quality and commensurately shellfish resources that rely on clean water. They cited stormwater runoff and sewage as the primary contributors. Those comments do not reflect an understanding of the proposed project, the background studies addressing this issue, or the conditions that PHMR has agreed to abide by. 1. Wastewater Treatment Wastewater generated on-site will be addressed by construction of a treatment plant that treats water to Class A reclaimed water standards.1 (FSEIS at 3 .16). The treatment plant must be constructed during the first development phase. (Development Agreement at Section 8.10, Exhibit 4). This means that no building may be occupied until and unless a WWTP is constructed to adequately treat waste water generated by the resort. The reclaimed water will be used for inigation and aquifer recharge thereby reducing the use of groundwater and commensurately adding to aquifer recharge. In sum, water taken from the site stays on the site. Wastewater generated by the resort will have less of an impact on water quality than surrounding developments which rely on septic systems to treat wastewater. Similarly, the proposed resort would have less of an impact than if the property were developed v.ith 30, single family residences with septic fields as is permitted under the existing residential zoning. (FSEIS at 3.16.-7). Fears that wastewater will damage the water quality in Hood Canal are overblown and fail to account for the fact that normal rural development has the potential to be far more detrimental to water quality in Hood Canal. Comments that even Class A reclaimed water will damage the environment are baseless and do not reflect an understanding of Class A reclaimed water standards and the strict regulatory regime governing WWTP design, construction and operation. Wastewater treatment facilities are regulated by the Washington Department of Ecology ("WDOE"). Chapter 173-240 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) contains detailed regulatory requirements for the design, operation and maintenance of WWTP. Prior to constructing a WWTP Pleasant Harbor must secure permit which involves the following: • Submit engineering plans, designs and specifications to WDOE for its approval (WACT 173-240-030(1)); o WDOE reviews the plans to ensure that the WTTP is properly designed so effluent does not pollute waters of the state and are consistent with good engineering practices (WAC 173-240-040) o State law imposes a detailed set of requirements for an engineering plan (WAC 1 73-240-060). The engineering plan is premised around how much 1 To the extent you have questions about Class A reclaimed water and its uses I encourage you to visit the Washington State Department of Ecology's Website on the topic: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water- Shorelines/Water-guality/Reclaimed-water. www hou U han-l11w.ccm Appendix 275 Page4 wastewater the WWTP will treat which is why we are unable to prepare the plan. The calculation for the amount of wastewater generated by the resort is dependent the density allowed in the development regulations. • Construction, operation and maintenance-In addition to detailed review of the engineering plan, state law also requires a construction quality assurance plan (WAC 173-240-075), an operation and maintenance manual (WAC 173-240-080) and mandates that the WWTP be run by an operator certified by the State (WAC 173-240-100). • Violating the provisions governing WWTP is subject to criminal and civil enforcement. (RCW 90.48.140). The production and use of Class A reclaimed water is regulated by the Washington State Departments of Health and Ecology. Chapter 173-219 (updated in 2018) of the Washington Administrative Code addresses the production and use of reclaimed water. • Permit-A Permit is required to generate and use reclaimed water (WAC 173-219- 070). The pennit "must identify terms and conditions determined to be necessary by the lead agency, for the protection of public health, the environment, and to implement this chapter and chapters 90.46, 90.48, 70.118, and 70. l l 8B RCW as applicable.'' WAC 173-219-270. • Like the process for WWTP approval, Pleasant Harbor will have to submit an engineering plan, operation and maintenance plan and must also comply with monitoring, recording and rep01ting obligations. • Violations are also subject to civil enforcement. RCW 90.46. 130. In sum, PHMR must meet stringent design and operational requirements that ensure that the use of Class A reclaimed water protects public, health and the environment. 2. Storm-Water Treatment Potential storm-water impacts have been addressed both during construction and following construction. During construction, PHMR must obtain a Construction Storm- Water General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued by WDOE. (FSEIS at 1-23). This NPDES Permit requires implementation of best management practices to control and treat storm-water and quarterly monitoring all of which are designed to insure the constructionstorm-water does not negatively impact water quality as required by federal and state law. Like the permits issued for the WWTP, failure to comply with an NPDES Permit leads to civil enforcement. Following construction, storm-water will be collected and conveyed to engineered holding ponds on site. The FSEIS concluded after careful study that this on-site treatment system will improve existing conditions: Stonn-water from the proposed development area would be captured and treated for both solids (turbidity) and water quality ·-,1ww.houlihar,-iaw.com Appendix 276 Page 5 prior to discharge, thereby potentially improving water quality compared to existing conditions. (FSEIS 3.2-8). In response to Ordinance Condition 63(q) imposed by the Board, Pleasant Harbor developed a soils survey that outlined the soil conditions necessary to allow proper infiltration of storm-water and contouring to prevent off-site discharge. (FSEIS at 1-24 and 1-25). Those measures must be implemented in our stormwater engineering and are expressly included as part of our Development Agreement with the County. (Development Agreement at Section 9.2.3). 3. Habitat Buffer To fm1her protect water quality from shoreline development, a 200-foot, vegetated buffer along the undeveloped portion of the MPR boundary and Hood Canal will be maintained in perpetuity. (Development Agreement at Section 8.8.7 Appendix M.) Buffers are a recognized way to protect water quality (and habitat) from adjacent shoreline development. One commentator noted that the buffer did not coincide with the steep slope along Hood Canal or the County regulations regarding steep slopes. PHMR must comply with all existing critical area regulations in addition to the buffer. Our Development Agreement with the County does not exempt us from those regulations. Rather it includes and attaches those regulations as appendices. 4. Monitoring Even though the weight of study and analysis concludes that the resort, as proposed, is not likely to impact water quality, PHMR agreed to monitor water quality to further guarantee that water quality will not be impacted by the resort. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix N to the Development Agreement) requires monthly testing and analysis has been prepared to ensure that resort operations do not have a negative impact on water quality. Taken together, these measures present an unparalleled program to protect water quality resources and, commensurately, surrounding shellfish beds from the proposed development. D. Salt-Water Intrusion in the Aquifer Members of the public also commented that that groundwater withdrawals to service the resort will cause salt water intrusion to the aquifer. First, it should be noted that the resort also relies on the aquifer for potable water and thus, PHMR bas the same interest (if not a greater interest) in protecting the water quality of the aquifer as our neighbors. The SEIS paid particular attention to the issue of salt-water intrusion: For purposes ofSEPA (WAC 197-11A40) the following are the applicant's primary objectives for the proposal: www,houlihari·law,com -Appendix 277 Page 6 .... * Prevent salt water intrusion risks to potable water wells. (FSEIS at 2-15 and 2-16). The groundwater impact addendum (Appendix F of the FESIS) concluded that the proposed project would increase groundwater recharge to the aquifer as compared to existing conditions. (FSEIS, Table 3-2.1 ). Thus, after careful study by qualified professionals retained by the County, the FSEIS concluded that: "As long as neighboring domestic wells are not over-pumped and properly engineered and constructed, the potential for introducing salt water intrusion is low." (FSEIS at 4-5). Additionally, PHMR's Water Right Permit (02-30436) received from the State of Washington incorporates the "Groundwater Monitoring Plan'' PHMR prepared as a condition of the permit. That plan requires the installation of water level and salinity dataloggers in eight existing and proposed wells across the site. Water levels and water quality (including chloride levels) will be monitored on a periodic basis (20 minutes to hourly) over time. These data will be used to assess the effects of pumping the water supply wells and to provide a forewarning in the unlike I y event that adverse water levels or adverse water quality (including saltwater intrusion) develop. (FSIES at 4-2). Thus, if signs of salt- water intrusion do occur because of PHMR's withdrawals it will be required to adjust withdrawals accordingly. E. Traffic Generated by the Project Will Not Reduce Levels of Senrice Below Applicable Thresholds and PHMR is Spending Considerable Funds to Improve Road Infrastructure Traffic studies prepared during the FSEIS concluded, "peak hour traffic impacts remained within approvable LOS limits at study intersections in 2017 without the project and under all development alternatives." (FSEIS at 3.9-3 and 3.9-4). Nevertheless, the traffic study did note potential safety impacts as vehicles exit and enter the resort. To address those issues, PHMR agreed to make improvement to US 101. These improvements include a south-bound left-tum lane into Black Point and a right-hand lane taper lane to allow vehicles to tum onto north bound US 101. (FSEIS at 3.9-12). Those mitigation measures, like the others, are included in our Development Agreement with the County and must be part of the first phase of development. This insures that the infrastructure improvements needed to support the units are in place before the units are constructed. F. It is Premature to Prepare Detailed Design Plans One central complaint is that there are not sufficient design plans to assess the project. Commentators (including the members of the Planning Commission) noted the absence of a comprehensive storm-water management plan or design plans for the wastewater treatment plant among other plans. It is premature to prepare these plans because the Appendix 278 Page 7 County has still not approved a development agreement or development regulations for the project. The design plans will depend upon the content of the development regulations and development agreement. The engineering process for a wastewater treatment is plant is expensive and dependent upon the size of the development. PHMR cannot prepare those plans until it can state with certainty the design criteria. Similarly, site-specific development plans like a wastewater treatment plan and storm-water plans will be prepared and later reviewed and approved by appropriate regulatory agencies when PHMR begins the application process. For purposes of the Board's decision, however, the key points are that the Development Agreement requires that (1) a WWTP capable of treating effluent to Class A standards will be constructed during the first phase of development; and (2) storm-water management must be designed to retain and treat storm-water on site. Thus, any future site-specific design plans must be meet these criteria. If these conditions are not met, occupancy of units may not proceed. G. Tribal Consultation The local tribes, including the POST, have been consulted since 1997 about an MPR at Black Point.2 During the past ten-years, PHMR has made a concerted effort to consult with the local tribes, including the POST. A summary of those attempted consultation efforts follows: • June 2006-PHMR sent a letter directly to the local tribes, including the POST, asking for its assistance in identifying any cultural resources in the area. The Skokomish Tribe was the only tribe to respond. • May 2012-PHMR again sent a letter to the POST seeking comment on its Cultural Resources Management Plan. The POST did not respond or comment on the plan. • Late 2012--Concemed with the lack of input, County staff elicited the assistance of DAHP to engage the local tribes. DAHP stated in a letter dated January 14, 2013 that three tribes concuITed with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and the other three tribes did not comment. It's not clear whether the PGST concurred or did not comment. • November 19, 2014---County staff sent the PGST notice of availability of the DSEIS. The POST responded asking for an opportunity to consult with the applicant and the County. • February 2015-The County and PHMR representatives met with the POST. The POST expressed concern over water quality, shellfish and elk, but did not raise any 2 A list of communications with local tribes including the PGST dating back to 1997 can be found at the County's online file for the Brin non MPR under "Tribal Consultation". Appendix 279 Page 8 issue with the kettles. PGST representative asked if they could submit comments for additional water quality monitoring and the County said they could. • December 9, 2015-Ten months after meeting with the PGST the County issued the FSEIS. The PGST submitted no comments during the ten-month period between the February meeting and the issuance of the FSEIS. • December 16, 2015-The PGST submits a letter to the County requesting a 60- day extension to "complete the Tribe's consultation". That letter also did not raise issue with the kettles. The County agreed to allow a 60-day extension. • March 15, 2016-The PGST for the first time since PHMR applied to designate Black Point as an MPR raises cultural significance of the kettles. Despite the PGST"s lack of meaningful involvement during both EIS processes (when PHMR was attempting to address potential issues in design) it still agreed to discuss ways to modify the project to address the PGST concerns and has been engaged in that process for the last two years. We provide a summary of the concerns raised by the POST and our effort to address them: • Shellfish-We believe the commitment to treat sewage with a WWTP to Class A standards and our commitment to retain and treat all stormwater on site, coupled with preservation of 100 acres, a 200-foot shoreline butler and monitoring plan adequately protects water quality more so than any other project in Jefferson County and adequately protects water quality for shellfish. We have also asked POST and others fronting on the Duckabush to form a committee to study the real issues causing pollution in the area, but those proposals have not been well received. • Elk-PHMR met with POST on a number of occasions and on site to address elk. Even though the wildlife studies to date state that the elk will not cross US 10 l, PHMR has agreed to construct a fence on the west side of US 101 if elk do cross US 101 and cannot be deterred by other means. The Development Agreement plainly states that the PHMR "shall implement" the Wildlifo Management Plan that is appended to the Agreement (Appendix P). The POST contends that it cannot assess whether a fence is suitable because we have not designed or described it. The intent, however, is clear. With respect to elk the Wildlife Management Plan has three phases: (1) investigate whether there are types of grasses plants that can be used which are not attractive for elk grazing, and, ifthere are, use them so as not to entice elk to the resort; (2) if elk do come to the resort disperse them using scare tactics, odors etc; and (3) if elk continue to cross US l O 1 to the resort, construct a west facing fence in consultation with WSDOT and WDFW to deter elk from crossing. • Cultural Resources-As noted above, PHMR made a concerted effort to obtain tribal input on its plan from the outset. It only received meaningful comment from the Skokomish Tribe which agreed that inundating the kettles was the best way to preserve their cultural concerns with the kettles. Moreover, using the kettles for www.houUiHrn•law.com Appendix 280 Page 9 stormwater storage helps protect water quality by providing a means to keep stonnwater on site and to prevent it from entering Hood Canal. Based on that input, PHMR has spent millions of dollars on studies that are premised on using the kettles for treated stormwater storage. Nevertheless, PHMR still made a good-faith effort to address the PGST's last minute concerns and tried to negotiate a reasonable middle ground between positions taken by the POST and Skokomish. PHMR invited the POST to the kettles on three occasions. The POST only accepted one offer and did not bring its cultural or biological experts to see the kettles because they were unavailable. (See attached emails). Still, PHMR amended its Development Agreement to preserve a kettle ( consistent with Ordinance No. 0l-0128-08) if the PGST list the kettles on the historic registry and agrees to assume maintenance responsibility for the kettle. This is not unreasonable middle ground given the PGST's silence on the issue. The POST has flat-out rejected this compromise because we do not preserve both kettles and because it did not want to participate in the management of the kettle. H. The Board Should Approve the Development Regulations Proposed by County Staff and the Development Agreement a. The Development Regulations Proposed by County Staff are Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance No. 08-0128-08, and Should be Approved The County' Comprehensive Plan designates Black Point for a master planned resort, but its development regulations do not authorize resort development. The proposed development regulations before the Board cure that inconsistency. The development regulations establish permissible uses, density and zones as contemplated by the County Comprehensive Plan. Approving these development regulations does not approve actual development. PHMR, like any other land owner, will still have to apply for all applicable permits and approvals prior to development including, but not limited to, grading pennits, land division approvals and building permits. These applications will be reviewed for consistency with the proposed development regulations for the MPR as well as all other applicable components of the County Code. PHMR respectfully request that the Board vote to adopt the proposed development regulations. www. hot1Uha11 • law .com Appendix 281 Page 10 b. The Development Agreement Insures that Build-Out of the MPR wiJJ Proceed in an Orderly Manner and That Mitigation Measures Identified in the EISs will be Implemented and Can be Enforced by the County The Development Agreement outlines how the resort will be developed. lt is an agreement between PHMR and the County. Among other things, the Development Agreement: • Incorporates the required mitigation measures in the EISs; • Incorporates the Memorandums of Understanding; • Includes the monitoring and maintenance plans; and • Outlines the process that shall be followed if there are changes to the resort plan. In short, the Development Agreement provides a tool for the County to enforce the mitigation measures, MOUs, and plans we have agreed to abide by during and follo\\-ing resort development. Moreover, because it will be recorded and specifically applies to successors and assigns, it will apply to any future owners or developers. For PHMR, the Development Agreement provides certainty that if PHMR fulfills its end of the bargain and installs expensive infrastructure up~front that the County will not arbitrarily change zoning codes to prohibit future development on this site. Many of the infrastructure improvements we have agreed to make to service the resort will be made during the first phase of the project. For examples. the WWTP, US 101 road improvements, improvement to Black Point Road and development of public recreation amenities are all made as part of the first phase of development. These improvements are not economical unless we can rely on the development envelope presently authorized. The Development Agreement provides the needed assurances to PHMR and its lenders that we will be permitted to build out the resort if we make these infrastructure investments. We are aware of comments that suggest a 25-year period on the Development Agreement is too long. As we have stated in the past, our goal is to achieve full-build well before expiration of the Development Agreement. Experience has taught us, however, that despite our best intentions, the development process takes longer than what we would otherwise prefer. It has taken over ten years just to get to this point. A 25-year period is reasonable given the size of the project and the time it has taken thus far to secure development regulations and a development agreement. PHMR respectfully requests that the Board authorize the County to enter into the Development Agreement. I. Conclusion In summary, PHMR was attracted to the Black Point/Brinnon area for a resort development because of its natural beauty. PHMR appreciates that the success of the resort is dependent upon preserving the natural qualities that make the Black Point area a place people want to visit and on being a good member of the larger community. We believe we ww,tl.houlihan-law.corn Appendix 282 Page 11 have designed a project that goes above and beyond to create balance between needed economic activity. protection of the environment and maintenance of the rural character. We look forward to developing a successful addition to the local community. Cc : Client (via email) Patty Charnas (via email) Phil Hunsucker (via email) w ·nw .1"lou {l h a 11 -la w.c o m Appendix 283 JT Cooke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Jeromy, Don Coleman <don@pleasantharbormarina.com> Friday, April 22, 2016 7:55 AM Jeromy Sullivan Ueromys@pgst.nsn.us) Garth Mann (Garth.Mann@statesmangroup.com); peckassoc@comcast.net; JT Cooke; Diane Coleman; David W. Johnson (djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us) RE: Thursday site visit? I'm sorry you or your representatives could not attend the site visit with the planning commissioners yesterday. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to schedule a visit. Best Regards don Don Coleman marina phone 360-796-4611 cell: 206-714-1482 don@pleasantharbormarina.com From: Don Coleman Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 6:46 PM To: 'Jeromy Sullivan (jeromys@pgst.nsn.us)' Cc: Garth Mann (Garth.Mann@statesmangroup.com) ; 'peckassoc@comcast.net'; JT Cooke; Diane Coleman; David W. Johnson (djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us) Subject: Thursday site visit? Hello Jeromy, Very nice to meet you at today's meeting. The planning commission is scheduled for a site visit at Pleasant Harbor this coming Thursday 4/21, meet at 1000. If you or any of your representatives are able to attend you would be welcome. Please let me know so I know what to expect. We should meet at the marina, do a quick tour of the marina property improvements, then head up to the resort site to inspect the kettles and whatever else you or the planning commission wants to see. Hiking boots are suggested. Thanks! don Don Coleman marina phone 360-796-4611 cell: 206-714-1482 don@pleasantharbormarina.com 1 Appendix 284 JT Cooke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello All, Don Coleman < don@pleasantharbormarina.com > Friday, May 13, 2016 7:43 AM 'DGoldsmith@co.jefferson.wa.us'; Jeromy Sullivan Ueromys@pgst.nsn.us); David W. Johnson (djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us); Philip Morley (pmorley@cojefferson.wa.us); KKler@co.jefferson.wa.us; '.jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us'; 'Gary Felder'; 'Kevin Coker'; 'Lorna Smith'; 'Mark Jochems'; 'Matt Sircely'; 'Richard Hull'; 'Tom Giske'; 'Cynthia Kaan'; 'romac@pgstnsn.us'; 'lives@pgst.nsn.us' Garth Mann (Garth.Mann@statesmangroup.com); JT Cooke; 'peckassoc@comcast.net' Pleasant Harbor Resort site visit In order to keep everyone informed, Garth Mann has asked me to summarize the site visit Wednesday 5/11 with members of the Pt Gamble S1 Klallam tribe. David Wayne Johnson, Roma Call, Laura Price, Steven Moe, Kelly Sullivan. Renee Veregge, Charin Godbolt, Ahmis Loving and Francine Swift attended. We met at Pleasant Harbor Marina and briefly reviewed some of the improvements at the marina, explained that the marina property is still within the MPR boundary but development and improvements were completed in accordance with the BSP for the marina property. We drove to the Black Point property, briefly looked at high area on the north side of Kettle B then parked near the old playground area and began a walking tour of the property. We explored the bottom of Kettle B, walked the perimeter of Kettle C, walked the perimeter of wetland C, walked down to the sand/gravel deposits near the NE corner, hiked back to the road down the east property line to the old campsites overlooking Hood Canal to the south, back to the old playground area where we had parked. I was curious whey the kettles are referred to as "kettle ponds" since they don't hold water, no one knew where that label came from. Hiking down to the bottom of Kettle B, and throughout the tour, we talked about how nothing on the property is pristine undisturbed property. We referred frequently to the GeoEngineers 2012 figure 2-6 photo of the wetlands, and to page 8 figure 1 of the cultural archaeological monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan submitted to the tribes in 2012. These pages identify the kettles and wetlands and were useful to keep them oriented as to where we were on the property. Photos were taken to pass on to the tribal person that is the most experienced in identifying plants with cultural significance. That person was not able to attend, I told them I could lead another tour for her if needed. We met at about 10:30, we finished about 2:00. Best Regards don Don Coleman marina phone 360-796-4611 cell: 206-714-1482 don@pleasantharbormarina.com Appendix 285 2 Appendix 286 JT Cooke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks for the follow-up David, Don Coleman <don@pleasantharbormarina.com> Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:46 AM 'David W. Johnson'; 'Roma Call' JT Cooke; 'David Goldsmith'; 'peckassoc@comcast.net' RE: Pleasant Harbor No one has contacted me to schedule another site visit. don Don Coleman marina phone 360-796-4611 cell: 206-714-1482 don@pleasantharbormarina.com From: David W. Johnson [mailto:djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us) Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 11:07 AM To: Roma Call Cc: David W. Johnson; Don Coleman; JT Cooke; David Goldsmith; peckassoc@comcast.net Subject: Pleasant Harbor Roma, Just following up on the Tribe's site visit and additional technical team visits. When can we schedule the next site visit? Or are you coordinating with Statesman (Don and Craig)? Thanks! David Wayne Johnson -LEED AP -Neighborhood Development Associate Planner• Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 A-fission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. Ji, SAVE PAPER -Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary All e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor. 1 Appendix 287 Jetfe~ Covnty ~partment of C.Ommurnty Oewlopm~1 r ■-··1 SIJUARE ■·N E ~~:7 Better 8u1ld1ng St.irts Here. ~-p· ll ilif~l1Hfijlf.ffl i J JH~QCJl.~~- l,U,,,__,,,., ___ WIIRNj ,ltOOUIMl I do~ ... -....... 2 Appendix 288 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 297-3422 Fax (360) 297-3413 August 15, 2024 Commissioners Kate Dean, Heidi Eisenhour, and Greg Brotherton Jefferson County Commission 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor MPR - Preliminary Plat Application, Case No. SUB2023-00025 Dear Commissioners, Our Tribes, the Jamestown S’Klallam (JST) and Port Gamble S’Klallam (PGST) Tribes, and our consortium, the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) want to express our many concerns regarding the Application for the Pleasant Harbor Plat, Case No. SUB2023-00025. Beginning in 1997, the PNPTC and our Tribes have provided comments to Jefferson County and participated in discussions and hearings to review this project. Yet, for over 20 years now, our comments have not been addressed, especially now in the current project proposal, plat application, and associated documents. Our Tribes have commented on the proposed MPR at each step in the review process. We have repeatedly commented on the potentially harmful effects and the impacts to important Treaty reserved resources that could be lost if the project were to move forward as proposed. Again, to date, we feel that these concerns have not been adequately addressed. Over the years we have provided comments from our organization and our Tribes (2001, 2006, 2007, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2024) regarding this project, and we are deeply concerned about the potential adverse effects on our cultural resources and Treaty Rights. These concerns stem from the loss of wetlands and rare kettle ponds, increased traffic affecting fisheries access, intensity of land use for commercial and residential development, significant alteration of hydrology, clearing and grading, increased impermeable surface, wildlife impacts, use of persistent pollutants, impacts to shellfish, storm water impacts, wastewater issues, and other project effects. A summary of some of the major concerns and deficiencies in the current application follows, which still contains many issues we have commented on over the years: Shellfish Resources Protection and Management The Pleasant Harbor MPR (PH MPR) will be located between two public beaches on the Duckabush and Dosewallips, which provide both significant commercial and ceremonial/ subsistence harvest opportunities to Tribes with Usual and Accustomed fishing rights in the area. The two delta flats are among the most important intertidal areas to the tribal harvesters based on acreage available, healthy habitats available, and existing natural manila clam and pacific oyster production. Appendix 289 PNPTC Letter to Jefferson County re Pleasant Harbor MPR, Case SUB2023-00025 Page 2 of 5 8/14/2024 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 297-3422 Fax (360) 297-3413 Any increase in visitors and recreational use is expected to increase the harvest pressure on the Duckabush and Dosewallips tidelands. Additionally, any system overflows into the Duckabush or contaminated storm water runoff from the increase in impervious areas could result in poor water quality in the rivers leading to problems with shellfish on the tidelands. Obviously, a closure of these tidelands by DOH due to water quality issues would have severe cultural and economic impact on the S’Klallam Tribes. Water Quality Protection and Management Our Tribes would like Jefferson County to require a water quality and shellfish protection plan with adaptive management measures so that we are reassured the treaty resource is retained over time. We would expect and be pleased to review the required plans and suggest that they incorporate, at a minimum, the following: Water quality monitoring in waters connected to tribal fisheries and shellfish harvesting areas, including monitoring for pollutants, An evaluation of alternatives for constructing additional swales and contours near roadways to redirect storm water runoff away from Hood Canal, particularly in the areas of Phase 1 construction. Revisions to the project management plan are also needed to eliminate the use of persistent pollutants and replace them with substances allowed for use under the agricultural national organic program. We request that the draft revised management plan be provided to tribal natural resources staff for review and comment. The urbanization of the area by the development of the proposed PH MPR will increase the prevalence of toxic heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and other contaminants of emerging concern in this rural area. The increase in the prevalence of these pollutants will likely have a negative effect on fish and shellfish resources inhabiting PH MPR and the surrounding areas, including the Dosewallips and Duckabush River Estuaries. Wildlife Protection and Habitat Management Plan While the recent Wildlife Management Plan’s (published 3/12/2024) goals describe an attempt to address some of the Tribes’ most significant wildlife-related concerns, the methods proposed to reduce harm to elk herds are flawed and will not accomplish the Plan’s goals. This plan only identifies one west-oriented fence, and that it is not enough to exclude elk from the premises. Elk should be completely excluded from the PH MPR via fencing all around the project area because elk are highly mobile. By excluding elk entirely, it could remove other issues that are not currently addressed in the Wildlife Management Plan. Some of those issues are: vehicle-wildlife collisions. damage to ornamental plantings and landscaping. changes in habitat use by the elk herd, as a response to newly created food sources. Appendix 290 PNPTC Letter to Jefferson County re Pleasant Harbor MPR, Case SUB2023-00025 Page 3 of 5 8/14/2024 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 297-3422 Fax (360) 297-3413 the presence of divots and elk feces on the golf course. potentially dangerous interactions between elk and visitors, residences, and their pets. The Wildlife Management Plan greatly underestimates how significant elk use (and damage) could be to the PH MPR site. Through the tribally led elk monitoring program, our biologists know that the Duckabush elk herd consists of up to 40 adult elk (which eat roughly the same amount of browse as 25 full grown bovine cows). The Duckabush herd crosses to the east side of Highway 101 (immediately south of the PH MPR) on a limited basis only, likely because there are few novel resources and few high value feeding areas. However, elk use will change after habitat conditions are significantly altered and novel food sources (e.g. fertilized and watered fields) are installed. The Dosewallips elk herd (which lives roughly 5 miles north of the project) regularly crosses to the east side of Highway 101 to graze on the fields maintained by Dosewallips State Park. The elk are there for hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours each year, despite the presence of dozens to hundreds of campers/visitors and all the noise and disturbance associated with people. Once elk are accustomed to a new and high-value food source, deterring future use will be incredibly challenging. The Wildlife Management Plan proposes temporary deterrence techniques to be implemented if elk begin to use PH MPR site. However, the proposed flashing lights and loud noises are unlikely to deter elk use but may disturb residents and visitors. Cultural Resources Protection and Stewardship Tribes continue to request that Kettle Ponds B and C and adjacent wetlands be preserved for traditional property evaluation and protection of cultural resources. Storm water and wastewater management plans should avoid the destruction of wetlands and use of these Kettles for storm water and treated wastewater storage. Contact should be made with the PGST and JST Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) (and other regional tribes) directly regarding these matters. The Kettle ponds are sacred, cultural relics, and are rare biological features and should be preserved. Development Agreement does not Incorporate Tribal Comments/Revisions In the letter from the Port Gamble S’Klallam tribe (dated April 9, 2018), there was a 19-page detailed list of concerns and issues that have not been remedied in the current Development Plan and its Amendments. Below are some concerns related to (but not limited to) the following areas: Concerns related to the density, intensity of use, unlimited terms/build-out period, lack of enforceability and specificity, sequencing issue with the Development regulations, and failure to meet required provisions and conditions of the Ordinance 01-0128-08. Need for reduction in overall density of the PH MPR Need for conditional approval structure for the PH MPR Appendix 291 PNPTC Letter to Jefferson County re Pleasant Harbor MPR, Case SUB2023-00025 Page 4 of 5 8/14/2024 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 297-3422 Fax (360) 297-3413 Need for enforceability and specificity in the Development Agreement (and associated appendices) and development regulations Need for meaningful consultation between Jefferson County and the area Tribes. Need to correct for noncompliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08 of nearby natural resources including the protection of shellfish harvesting areas Need for compliance with protection of critical areas with current standards that should include standards related to 6PPD, water quality, climate change impacts, etc. Need for a closer examination of the PH MPR’s water plan and impacts to the kettle ponds for use as water storage, etc. There needs to be a thorough independent study of hydrologic function and relationship between groundwater, surface water, and runoff, aquifer recharge, contamination by pollutants related to pesticides and golf course management, or other treated surfaces. Need for a better water quality monitoring plan. The proposed plan lacks scope and sample frequency. Need for wastewater treatment plan. According to the “Fully Executed Development Agreement with appendices” this is still pending. Need for the implementation of the revisions and actions proposed by the late PGST Tribal Chair Jeromy Sullivan (from letter dated April 9, 2018) for the development agreement and amendments. We appreciate the County’s willingness to regularly meet with Tribal staff regarding this project. However, our concerns have not yet been adequately addressed in these meetings. The meetings themselves have been too short in duration and seem to only cover updates as to what the County’s staff and consultant have been working on, leaving little time to discuss next steps and responses to our comments and suggestions. Our tribes are deeply concerned about these issues and look forward to addressing them together before the application and project moves forward. We are encouraged by the County’s offer to schedule recurring, quarterly meetings with our Tribes to discuss future projects as they arise. It is our hope that developing a consistent, collaborative line of communication will enable us to work effectively to address Tribal concerns related not only to the Pleasant Harbor project, but future development proposals as well. Sincerely, Chris Tom, Vice Chairman W. Ron Allen, Chairman Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Appendix 292 PNPTC Letter to Jefferson County re Pleasant Harbor MPR, Case SUB2023-00025 Page 5 of 5 8/14/2024 19472 Powder Hill Place NE, Suite 210 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Phone (360) 297-3422 Fax (360) 297-3413 Cc: Amber Caldera, Chairwoman, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Guy Miller, Chairman, Skokomish Tribe Joseph Pavel, NR Director, Skokomish Tribe Frances Charles, Chairwoman, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Russ Hepfer, Vice Chair, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Hansi Hals, NR Director, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Roma Call, NR Director Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Randy Harder, PNPTC Director Cristina Haworth, SJC Alliance George Terry, Jefferson County Josh Peters, Jefferson County Appendix 293