HomeMy WebLinkAbout11_Subdivision Application Cover Letter_2023-1120
November 20, 2023
Via Electronic File Transfer and Hand Delivery
Mr. Josh Peters
Jefferson County
Christina Haworth
SCJ Alliance
Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Application for Preliminary Plan of Long Subdivision
Dear Mr. Peters and Ms. Haworth:
Enclosed with this letter please find Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP’s
(“Pleasant Harbor”) application for a preliminary plan of long subdivision (“Preliminary Plat”) for
the development commonly referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort.
Thank you for the Technical Memo dated September 29th, 2023 from SCJ that identifies a
list of items required by the County for a complete application. To facilitate review this
Preliminary Plat application this letter provides (1) responses to the SCJ Memo; and (2) a summary
of how the Preliminary Plat meets the Jefferson County Code requirements generally applicable
to subdivisions. The terms of DA specific to this Preliminary Plat application are addressed in
the responses to the SCJ Memo.
A. Project Change to Avoid Wetland Impacts
There is one change to the project as it was reviewed by the FSEIS that we bring to your
attention. Through further design and study, the applicant has confirmed that Kettle C can provide
adequate storage for stormwater and reclaimed water. The applicant initially proposed to use
Kettle B which is the larger of the two kettle complexes for storage of stormwater and reclaimed
water. Kettle B, unlike Kettle C, had a naturally occurring wetland at its bottom. The original
proposal would have resulted in a loss of that wetland and a compensatory wetland developed in
Kettle C. By utilizing Kettle C wetland impacts associated with its proposed use of Kettle B are
avoided.
We do not believe this change creates any permitting issues. The Development Agreement
requires that the applicant preserve Kettle B or Kettle C. DA at 4. By preserving Kettle B we are
complying with the DA. Likewise the ability to use Kettle C further diminishes the impacts of the
Exhibit 11
project and does not require additional SEPA review. Additionally, the PGST preferred applicant
preserve Kettle B because of the wetland complex located at the bottom.
B. Response to List of Application Requirements in SCJ Technical Memo dated
September 29, 2023
1. Complete Application Forms
Completed application forms are provided with the hard copy submission of the application
materials. For convenience, an electronic file of the forms are also provided and can be found
under the folder title “Application Forms”.
2. SEPA Checklist or Memo Documenting Consistency with the FEIS and FSEIS.
While not legally required (as explained more fully below), a SEPA Checklist is provided.
SEPA environmental review for the project has been conducted by the County at a non-project and
project level review as follows:
• Non-Project Review
o Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and
Golf Resort (September 5, 2007) (“DFEIS”);
o Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact
Statement (November 27, 2007) (“FEIS”);
• Project Level Review
o Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor
Marina and Golf Resort November 19, 2014 (“DSEIS”);
o Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment
Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (“FSEIS”).
(collectively “Environmental Documents”). The Preliminary Plat is consistent with the proposal
reviewed by these Environmental Documents.
The Development Agreement states that the FEIS and FSEIS “constitute compliance to the
fullest extent possible under SEPA, as well as Condition 63(b) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all
subsequent approval or permits to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR consistent with this
Agreement including, but not limited to, plats . . . .”. DA at 9.2.4. Consistent with state law, the
DA limits additional environmental review to modifications that “materially exceed[] the level and
range of development reviewed in the Prior EISs.” Id.; see also WAC 197-11-600. The
Preliminary Plat is consistent with the level and range of development reviewed in the
Environmental Documents and therefore, no further environmental review is required.
SEPA requires lead agencies (like the County) to use prior environmental documents when
acting on the same proposal:
Exhibit 11
Any agency acting on the same proposal shall use an environmental
document unchanged, except in the following cases:
. . .
(b) For DNSs and EISs, preparation of a new threshold
determination or supplemental EIS is required if there are:
(i) Substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to
have significant adverse environmental impacts (or lack of
significant adverse impacts, if a DS is being withdrawn); or
(ii) New information indicating a proposal's probable significant
adverse environmental impacts. (This includes discovery of
misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure.) A new threshold
determination or SEIS is not required if probable significant adverse
environmental impacts are covered by the range of alternatives and
impacts analyzed in the existing environmental documents.
An EIS for a prior proposal may be used for a later modified proposal without satisfying the formal
adoption process requirements. SEAPAC v. Cammack II Orchards, 49 Wn. App. 609, 613 (1987).
Likewise, an action which does not have an environmental impact substantially different from an
earlier proposed action does not require either a new threshold determination or a new or
supplement draft of final environmental impact statement. Nisqaully Delta Ass’n v. DuPont, 103
Wn.2d 720, 729 (1985).
Here the proposed action is a preliminary long subdivision to divide the property in
anticipation of future development of the MPR as it was reviewed in the Environmental
Documents. The only change from the project reviewed in the Environmental Documents is that
the applicant now intends to use Kettle C instead of Kettle B for stormwater storage. This change
does not have an environmental impact that is substantially different from the impacts associated
with using Kettle B assessed in the Environmental Documents. To the contrary, the change
minimizes the environmental impacts. By utilizing Kettle C the applicant can preserve the
naturally occurring wetland located that the bottom of Kettle B and thereby further minimize the
impacts the project may have on the environment. No additional SEPA review is required.
3. Verified Statement of Ownership
The Jefferson County form “Permit Application” requires identification of the owner of
the property and is signed under penalty of perjury. We believe that is sufficient to satisfy this
request in the SCJ Memo.
4. Identification of Single Contact Person
The County may contact John Holbert, PE for all future communications regarding the
application for preliminary subdivision. His contact information is as follows:
235 Salmon Street
Brinnon, WA 98320
Exhibit 11
Phone: (541) 740-0053
Email: johnholbert@startmail.com
5. Legal Description
A legal description of the Property is included on Sheet 1 of the Preliminary Plat of the
Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor.
6. Payment of Applicable Fees
A check for the applicable fee for the subdivision application is submitted with this letter.
7. Evidence of Adequate Water Supply
We presume this request is aimed into the state law requirement that an applicant for
subdivision demonstrate that “appropriate provisions are made for . . . potable water supplies.”
RCW 58.17.110 (emphasis added); see also JCC 18.35.130 (1)(b) (containing similar
requirements). Evidence of “adequate” water is required as part of a building permit. RCW
19.27.097 (“Each applicant for a building permit of a building necessitating potable water shall
provide evidence of an adequate water supply.”)
The applicant has made “appropriate provisions” for water to service future development
of the Preliminary Plat. On or around November 23, 2022, the Washington Department of Ecology
issued Superseding Permit Nos. G2-20436 and S2-30437 authorizing the applicant to withdraw up
to 254 acre feet per year of water at a rate of 300 gallons per minute. The Superseding Permits are
included in the electronic transmission under the file folder named “Water Rights”. Additionally,
the applicant has submitted a water system plan for a new Group A water system to provide service
to the Plat to the Department of Health (“DOH”).
To be certain, water does not have to be physically available at preliminary plat. In reality,
water can never be physical available at preliminary plat because preliminary plat approval is a
prerequisite to constructing water infrastructure necessary to service the new lots. The applicant
has secured water rights and its water system plan has been submitted to DOH for approval.
“Appropriate provisions” for water have been made and the County can condition final plat
approval on DOH approval of the water system plan and installation of water infrastructure per
that plan the County CWSP. See Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325 (2011) (upholding Hearing
Examiner’s decision to condition to approval preliminary plat on a showing of adequate water at
the final plat approval stage).
8. Evidence of Adequate Sewer Availability
We also presume this request is aimed into the state law requirement that an applicant for
subdivision demonstrate that “appropriate provisions are made for . . . potable water supplies.”
RCW 58.17.110 see also JCC 18.35.130 (1)(b) (containing similar requirements). The
Washington Department of Ecology approved the Pleasant Harbor Sewer System General Sewer
Exhibit 11
Plan on October 6, 2022. A copy of the letter is included in the under the folder titled “General
Sewer Plan”
9. Site Plan Showing Proposed Lots and Points of Access
The Preliminary Plan of Subdivision depicts the proposed lots and points of access.
10. Identification of Other Permits
It is unclear why this is being asked for preliminary plat approval. We are not aware of
any code or statue that requires we identify other permit. Nevertheless, we refer you to page iv of
the FSEIS.
11. Area and Dimensions
The area and dimensions for the lots and tracts are shown in the Preliminary Plant of
Subdivision.
12. Five Paper Copies of the Preliminary Plat
Hard copies of the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision are delivered with this letter. As a
courtesy, electronic files are also available in the file transfer link under the file folder titled
“Preliminary Plan of Subdivision.”
13. Any Special Reports Required by Chapter 18.15 JCC
This request is not clear. Chapter 18.15 of the JCC is captioned “Land Use Districts” and
has a number of sub-articles that do not apply to the MPR project. The only special report we
identified in the chapter that could be remotely required for the planned subdivision is in JCC
18.15.090. The section requires an inspection by a qualified person prior to any development
activity for an area known to be archeologically significant.
The applicant conducted an archaeological investigation and prepared an Inadvertent
Discovery Plan. The DA requires that the applicant follow the IDP throughout construction of the
project and attaches the IDP as Appendix []. Nevertheless, the County can condition preliminary
plat approval on following the IDP.
14. Preliminary Drainage Plan
An electronic copy of the Pleasant Harbor Drainage Report dated June 20, 2023 is
included in the file folder “Preliminary Drainage Plan”.
15. Estimated Quantities of Fill
Please see Stormwater Calculation Worksheet. Approximately 900,000 cu/yds of fill is
anticipated.
16. Narrative of Compliance with the 2019 Addendum to the Development Agreement
The Preliminary Plan of Subdivision is compliant with the 2019 Addendum to the
Development Agreement. The 2019 Addendum to the Development Agreement addressed the
sequencing of development of resort structures and amenities if the resort developed in phases.
Exhibit 11
The Preliminary Plan of Subdivision proposes to subdivide the entire and is not being undertaken
in phases. Therefore, the issues addressed by the 2019 Addendum are inapplicable. Additionally,
the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision lays out the framework for lots, road and related infrastructure
to service future development. The Preliminary Plan of Subdivision does not authorize
construction of any structures. Future construction will require building permits (among other
approvals).
The 2019 Addendum to the DA addressed the decision of the Kitsap Superior Court in its
LUPA Decision and Order in case Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County et. al. The Brinnon Group
filed a Land Use Petition of the County’s decision to approve the Development Agreement. The
Brinnon Group raised about a dozen issues. The Kitsap Superior Court rejected all of them except
for one. The Brinnon Group argued that proposed phasing did not meet JCC 18.15.135 because
each phase did not include sufficient recreational facilities for a phase to stand as a resort on its
own. Specifically, the Court determined that required recreational amenities for the MPR must be
completed as part of Phase 1 so if Phases 2 and 3 were never developed Phase 1 would stand on
its own as an MPR:
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. Phase 1also fails to provide a community
center, a recreation center, a conference center, staff-quarters, a
maintenance building, or commercial space.
The Developer argues in its supplemental briefing 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.
As a result of this ruling, the applicant and County amended the DA so that if the project is phased
that the “required” recreational amenities and other elements in Phase 1.
Exhibit 11
The Preliminary Plan of Subdivision is consistent with this change and the Superior Court’s
Decision. First, as noted above, the Preliminary Plat only divides the property. It does not
authorize development. As a result, the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision will not result in
residential development lacking recreational and other amenities required for a resort. Second,
while the DA allows the project to be phased (and sets the terms for phasing) it does not require
it. The DA states:
Pleasant Harbor MPR is a planned that is capable of being
developed in independent and severable components or “phases.”
Future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and all associated
infrastructure, including roads and utilities, may be reviewed,
permitted and constructed and/or in phases or sub-phases.
(DA at 10.1.10 (emphasis added). The County retains full authority under the DA, JCC 18.15.135,
and Ordinance 01-0128-08 to prevent residential occupancies until and unless the “required”
amenities are completed or sufficiently underway.
17. Narratives of Compliance with the Appendices H, J, L, N, O, P, Q, to the Development
Agreement.
a. DA Appendix H—Coordinated Water System Plan
DA Section 8.9 requires the potable water infrastructure servicing the MPR be installed in
conformance with the Department of Health specifications and the County Coordinated Water
System Plan attached as Appendix H to the DA. As noted above, the applicant has submitted a
Water System Plan for the new Group A Water System to the Department of Health for approval.
Water system infrastructure will be constructed in accordance with specification of the Water
System Plan as approved by DOH and the Minimum Standards and Specifications in Section 4 of
the CWSP. These obligations can be imposed as a condition to preliminary plat approval.
b. DA Appendix J--MOUs
Appendix J of the DA includes the memoranda of understanding. The only agreement
memorialized in the those memoranda that is applicable to preliminary plat is the agreement with
Jefferson County Transit to provide an on-site transit stop in the location agreed to in that
memoranda. The Preliminary Plat reserves space for that stop.
c. DA Appendix L—Vegetation Management Plan
The Preliminary Plat creates protective tracks for critical areas and wetlands where the
Forrester Report found higher quality vegetation. The BP 200’ area along Hood Canal is preserved
and designated as a separate tract as required. The subdivision focuses most development in the
BP-2b and BP-3 areas. Open space tracts were focused on areas with higher quality vegetation.
d. DA Appendix N—Water Quality Monitoring
Exhibit 11
The Water Quality Monitoring Report contains the following requirements that must be
met upon application of the first development permit:
• A report of best management practices so the resort will not cause a violation of
water quality criteria;
• Surface water sampling in Pleasant Harbor for pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
temperature and bacteria; and
• Groundwater sampling for contaminants identified in Table 1 of WAC 173-200-
040.
During construction the applicant will have coverage under an NPDES Construction Stormwater
Permit. A construction stormwater plan with best management practices is included in the file
folder “Stormwater Plan”.
The Pleasant Harbor surface water sampling results are provided in the file labeled “Pleasant
Harbor Water Sampling”
The applicant voluntarily conducted sampling in advance of the first development permit. The
results are included in the file labeled “Pleasant Harbor Water Sampling”.
e. DA Appendix O—Neighborhood Water Supply Program
The Neighborhood Water Supply Program is also self-effectuating. It requires
groundwater monitoring at the start of construction. The applicant voluntarily started monitoring
in advance. The report and date are in the file labeled “Pleasant Harbor Water Sampling”.
f. DA Appendix P—Wildlife Management Plan
The Wildlife Management Plan does not contain any requirements that are implemented at
preliminary plat. Habitat areas like wetlands are preserved by tracts, a 200’ conservation buffer
for has been separated as a tract to preserve the shoreline area and no work is proposed in streams
or their designated buffers.
g. DA Appendix Q—Cultural Resources Management Plan
The Cultural Resources Management Plan is self-effectuating. It does not require any
specific action in the plat design. Archaeological field investigations did not identify any
prehistoric or historic archeological resources. The DA does require that either Kettle B or C be
preserved. Kettle B is preserved as a Tract in the preliminary plan of subdivision. The Inadvertent
Discovery Plan
C. County Code Requirements
a. The proposed subdivision conforms to all applicable county, state and
federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans,
including, but not limited to, the following:
Exhibit 11
(i) The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
(ii) The provisions of this code, including any incorporated standards
The JCC requires that the proposed subdivision conform to all applicable county,
state and federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans,
including, but not limited to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the JCC. The
proposed plan of subdivision satisfies these criteria. As the County is aware, the Property
is designated as a Master Planned Resort in the County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
plan of subdivision fulfills the policies and further meets the application provisions of the
JCC and Development Agreement as provided more fully above and below.
b. Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed
subdivision shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage ways, roads,
streets, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sewage disposal, parks,
playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking
conditions for students who walk to and from school
(i) Streets and Roads
The Preliminary Plat makes adequate provision for streets, roads and transit stops and
provides for the orderly and efficient circulation of traffic. Internal road networks are designed to
County standards. Internal roads will be privately maintained. The following conditions should
be imposed as part of preliminary plat approval and should be required prior to final plat:
(1) Completion of intersection improvements between US 101 and Black Point
Road
(2) Construction of on-site transit stops
(3) Covenants, conditions and restrictions will be submitted with the final plat
application and shall be recorded with the final plat. The CC&Rs shall establish
a homeowner’s association responsible for the maintenance of the internal
roads, among other things.
(ii) Parks, Recreation and Playgrounds
The project is required to develop a number of recreation amenities including, but not
limited to, a 9-hole golf course, playing fields, and pool. A public marina already exists in
proximity to the Preliminary Plat.
(iii) Schools
The applicant has an MOU with the Brinnon School District to generate funding for the
District through resort operations.
(iv) Critical Area Protection
The Preliminary Plat protects critical areas. The shoreline area and steep slopes are
protected by a 200’ conservation tract. The applicant changed its plans to avoid impacts to wetland
complex in Kettle B and all designated wetlands within the Preliminary Plat are separated as tracts.
(v) Fire and Emergency Access and Protection
The Preliminary Plat has designed and internal road network for fire and emergency access.
c. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed
subdivision, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts,
have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse
Exhibit 11
effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) implementing provisions contained within
Chapter 18.40 JCC and Chapter 43.21C RCW;
Please see the discussion in section B.2 above. The PHMPR has undergone two environmental
impacts statements that have fully assessed and mitigated the impacts associated with this
Preliminary Plat Application:
(1) Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Marina and
Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (FEIS)
(2) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Supplemental Environment Impact
Statement, December 9, 2015 (FSEIS)
d. Approving the proposed subdivision will serve the public use and interest and
adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Approving the Preliminary Plat will serve the public use and interest and adequate
provision has been made for public health, safety and general welfare. The Preliminary Plat
divides the land to allow for development of the master planned resort which the County has
already determined will serve the public use and interest by amending its Comprehensive Plan to
allow for a master planned resort and approving a Development Agreement with the applicant that
outlines the parameters of the resort development.
Thank for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
John (JT) Cooke
Cc: Client
Philip Hunsucker
Exhibit 11