HomeMy WebLinkAbout65B_2024-0202 AramburuFebruary 2, 2024
Cristina Haworth, AICP
SCJ Alliance
8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200
Lacey, WA 98516
Delivered via email: cristina.haworth@scjalliance.com
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
1820 Jefferson St.
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Delivered Via Email: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Josh D. Peters, AICP
Jefferson County Community Development Director
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Delivered via Email: JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us
James Kennedy
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney
1820 Jefferson St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Delivered via Email: jkennedy@co.jefferson.wa.us
RE: Pleasant Harbor Proposed Subdivision: Case #SUB2023-00025
Dear Ms. Haworth, Commissioners, Community Development Director Peters and
Prosecuting Attorney Kennedy:
As Jefferson County employees are aware, this office has for many years represented
the Brinnon Group, a Washington non-profit corporation formed to address community
concerns regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) proposed by
the Statesman Group near Black Point in the Brinnon area.
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 2
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
My client, the Brinnon Group, was the plaintiff in litigation regarding this proposal before
the Kitsap County Superior Court, Cause Number 18-2-01758-18, The Brinnon Group
v. Jefferson County (Judge Sally Olsen), which resulted in a remand to Jefferson
County to assure the required recreational and other Master Planned Resort (MPR)
elements of the proposal were included in plans for the development. As a result of this
litigation, on July 22, 2019, an “Amended Development Agreement” (“ADA”) was
adopted, which included as Exhibit A the “Proposed Phasing of Overall Site, Pleasant
Harbor Marina & Golf Course” dated June 18, 2019 (“Phasing Plan”).
2. SUBDIVISION DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY.
Most recently, we sent a letter to the Commissioners dated September 6, 2023, a copy
of which is attached (see Attachment A). In that letter we addressed discussion
occurring at a recent Commissioners’ meeting of a possible long subdivision being
developed for the property. At page 2 of that letter, we explained that under the
decision of Judge Olsen, and in accordance with the revisions made by Jefferson
County after the remand from the judge, no residential development can proceed
without construction of the recreational facilities required by the Development
Agreement (“ADA”), which includes the golf course, the recreation center, 218 hotel
rooms, a community center, two swimming pools, a hockey rink, and restaurants, as
well as infrastructure improvements including a water system, sanitary sewer system,
and road improvements, with specific intersection improvements required at Highway
101 and Black Point Road. No response to this correspondence has been received
from the County.
Recent responses to public records requests reveal that the property owner filed a
preliminary plat application with the county on November 20, 2023, assigned Case
#SUB2023-00025. The application requests a 216-lot long-subdivision, apparently for
single-family home construction. The subdivision application includes tracts for other
development features at the site, several open space tracts, and tracts for a golf
course, a sanitary sewer system, drainage facilities and employee housing.
These plans are inconsistent with Exhibit 4 to the ADA, which shows a maximum of 90
single family lots, with at least 25 to await construction until Phase 3 of the
development. See Attachment B.
It is also inconsistent with the “Project Narrative” submitted by the applicant for the pre-
application conference that shows all single-family and townhouse construction in
"Division 2" of the development, with construction of project amenities in Division 1.
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 3
See “The Hamlet at Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community/Preliminary Plat (HGP
19-060) Project Narrative” at Attachment C.1
Moreover, the long-subdivision proposal does not include any plans, of any type,
regarding the other required elements and features of the MPR included in the ADA
and Judge Olsen’s decision. Building outlines are provided within the tracts, but there
are no renderings, conceptual plans or construction drawings for these improvements.
In particular, there are no plans for the construction of the golf course, a major feature
of the Pleasant Harbor proposal and the required recreational amenity necessary for a
master planned resort.
Similarly, the recreation/community center is not shown, other than a pad (without
dimensions) located in the north central part of the site. See Attachment B at page 3.
As noted in the ADA, this facility must include swimming pools, a hockey rink, go-carts,
a “health spa” and 218 short-term hotel rooms, all required to be constructed as part of
Phase I of the MPR.
A location for the required sanitary sewer facility is included in the site plan, but no
plans are submitted for that facility either. A pad for the staff housing (52 units required
by the Development Agreement) is also shown but again, there are no plans for the
structure. No plans for a water system are submitted – another necessary part of the
master planned development (and subdivision approval).
Under the ADA, Phase 1 of the development must also include construction of
transportation improvements, including the requirement to “Complete Highway 101 and
Black Point intersection improvements,” but neither the plans nor other pre-application
materials show such work. No traffic impact studies or transportation reports are
provided, nor are there any plans that show the nature of improvements to be
constructed at this intersection. No communications with or application to the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) seem to have been
submitted.
3. HISTORY OF UNFULFILLED PROMISES BY STATESMAN FOR THIS AND
OTHER PROJECTS.
Statesman has an unfortunate history of making outlandish promises for future
amenities as incentives for sale of recreational real estate, which promises are then
unfulfilled. These include several offerings in connection with the PHMPR. We are
concerned that the most recent proposal is just another example of that sales tactic. As
1The proposal for two divisions for this development in the “Project Narrative” is also contrary to
the Development Agreement, which shows three phases.
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 4
well, we are concerned that this sales tactic will have a negative impact on county
government and county taxpayers.
The following are examples of the sales and development proposals left unfulfilled.
3.1 PINE RIDGE RECREATIONAL PROPOSAL (Invermere, British
Columbia).
My client is concerned that Pleasant Harbor development is headed in the same
direction as this applicant’s Pine Ridge Development in Invermere, British Columbia.
In the late 2000s, Statesman began development of a similar resort proposal in
the resort community of Invermere, British Columbia. As discussed in the local
newspaper, the Columbia Valley Pioneer in September 2017, Statesman had sold
residential lots with a promise of “a full-blown recreation centre complete with swimming
pool, ice rink, fitness spa and four-storey hotel.” See Attachments D-1 through D-4.
But in 2017- years after those lot sales began - no recreation center had been built and
the applicant was seeking government funding for the facility. Currently, some seven
additional years later, there is still no recreation facility, much less an application for
one. See Attachment D-5.
Significantly the rendering of the Pine Ridge Recreation Center is identical to that
used in promotions for the PHMPR. See Attachment E. Statesman has not even
prepared an original rendering for its recreation center at Pleasant Harbor.
3.2 STATESMAN PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC FUNDING (2016).
In August, 2016, Statesman presented a proposal to Jefferson County and state
officials for “A Vision for Investing In the Success of Puget Sound” for the “Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Recreation Community.” (The “Vision”) See Attachment F.
Statesman’s “Vision” proposal included three swimming pools, “Convention and
& Educational Meeting areas,” a “sports center for indoor basketball, volleyball, soccer
& Lacrosse, a theater, and indoor racket courts. See page 2. Statesman’s proposal
states that:
“In order to finance this community resource, Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf
Resort LLP (PHM) will be seeking County and State of Washington support...”
See Attachment F (pages 3-4 and 11). The proposal included the sale of a thirty-acre
parcel of the development for $9,250,000 to the state of Washington, a “Recreational
Community Grant” for $2,000,000 from Jefferson County and a “Tax Exempt Municipal
Improvement Bond” for $26,500,000 as a loan to Statesman . Id. The brochure
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 5
contains various color renderings of the golf course and project features. Attachment F
at pages 4,5 and 6. The proposal promised ”recreation in terms of Sport Tourism and
Medical Health Rejuvenation which then contribute to amenity migration as well as
family vacations.” Id. at page 10. A floor plan for the recreational center was provided
at 15-16. Playground equipment proposed at pages 17-18 was taken directly from the
Pine Ridge Mountain Resort plans discussed above. Predictably, the outlandish
proposal was rejected by both the local and state governments.2
3.3 “THE SEATTLE SIGNAL” MASS MAILING OFFERING.
In mid 2022, Statesman sent a mass mailing directed to the Seattle metropolitan
market under the title “The Seattle Signal.” See Attachment G. It advertised a variety of
activities in its promotional materials, including “indoor pools, skating and hockey rink,
indoor soccer, racquetball and numerous facilities for league sports, as well as the
Family Fun Center.” The Seattle Signal was clearly an offering of properties for sale;
under #1 on the first page, the offering states:
GOLF COURSE VISTA LOTS are fully serviced and for sale in various widths
and depths, with spectacular views.
Under #2:
SEA VIEW VILLAS are single level luxury living, with sun-filled lower level living
for guests. The villas vary in size from 1850–2350 square feet and include three
bedrooms plus a den/media room . . .
The “Seattle Signal” closes with an offer for sale in large, bold print:
“Pre-sales begin Fall 2022, contact them today for updates and be the first
in line for this community.”
The Brinnon Group does not know the exact distribution of Seattle Signal nor the
number of people that responded to the “pre-sales” invitation.
3.4. “RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER” WEBSITE.
Later in 2022, Statesman produced a website providing a further offering of real
estate with a long list of amenities, with the extended title of
2Article 8, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution prohibits any government entity of the state
from bestowing a gift or lending money, property or the entity’s credit to a private party such as
Statesman.
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 6
“The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor
Residential Community
Recreation Center
Golf Course’
Marina”
On other pages, the 2022 Website has a rendering of a “recreational community” which
has “over 400,000 square feet of amenities.” These include:
• “full-size hockey and skating rink where you just might enjoy the NHL’s
Seattle Kraken – practicing” (with photo of junior hockey players)
• “indoor Soccer/Lacrosse Field plus Volleyball . .”
• “The Royal Flush winding tube” (a water slide).”
• “The Indoor Hamlet Raceway with electric go-carts . . .”
• “The Tree-Topper & Zip Line with a Tea House built high in the trees.”
• “Medical Center and Pharmacy . .”
• “Four hundred guests can be accommodated for weddings, celebration of life,
conferences plus professional entertainment.”
There is detailed information concerning “3 unique floor plans . . . for Eagle’s
Nest Buyers,” with floor areas and details of units, down to details about bed sizes.
There is even a roster of employees, down to accountants and lawyers, including
“marketing and sales” with “Gabe” in charge.
As of the date of this material there were no permits for development of any of
these amenities.
3.5 WEBSITE POSTED IN 2023
A new Statesman website for Pleasant Harbor appeared in 2023, entitled
“Pleasant Harbor A Marina & Recreation Community” (“2023 Website”). See
https://pleasantharbormarina.com/. The website “brochure” begins with a full page of
“Amenities” advertised as “ADDING LIFE TO YEARS” (quotes in original). The
Amenities list includes such items as:
•Family Fun Center with Tree-Topper Adventure with multi-ZIP-LINES
•League Play: Junior Hockey-Soccer-Lacrosse-Volleyball-Figure Skaing
•Indoor Pools for Swim Meets and Family Entertainment”
•The Royal Flush Indoor/Outdoor Water slide”3
3 This water slide is shown on the identical Pine Ridge Mountain Resort and Pleasant Harbor
rendering of the community/recreation center. There are no permits for these facilities in either British
Columbia or Jefferson County.
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 7
•Medical Assistance
•Racket Ball Courts
•Wedding Chapel & Meal, Dancing Reception
•Daycare Center
This “Amenities” listing designed to attract buyers is beyond fanciful for a project which
was first announced more than 20 years ago. As recent aerial photographs show, no
construction has taken place over twenty years and to our knowledge there are no
permit applications for any of these so-called amenities. See Attachment H, a recent
aerial photograph of the site.
As a part of its new website, Statesman offers “Contemporary & Maintenance-
Free Living” on its “stay/residential page.” This part of the website includes offerings of
“Seaview Villas” priced from $799,900 to $1,200,000” with “only 162 Villas from 1850 sf.
to 2,300 sf available.” Floor plans for the “Seaview Villas” are displayed which include
“Main Floor: 1,735 Sq.ft. Lower Level: 1.296 Sq.ft, Total Area 3,031 Sq.ft.” These floor
plans and pages from the offering are included as Attachment I hereto. Exhibit 4 to the
Development Agreement (Exh. B hereto) shows the “Seaview Villas 162 Units” in the
same location as southerly single-family lots in the preliminary plat newly proposed.
On the same page of its website, Statesman advertises “Golf Course Vista Lots”
with the following statement:
Lots of varying sizes with VISTA VIEWS of the golf course, sea, and Olympic or
Cascade Mountains. Home size varies with size of the lot and owner’s design,
with lot-prices from $259,900.
Included is a rendering of a home that would be built and a view of a golf course hole.
See Attachment I at page 3. “Golf Vista Single Family” lots are also shown on the
Proposed Phasing Map, Exhibit 4 to the Development agreements; the list of
“Amenities” is also included, with the same representations listed above. These
proposals include a box that can be clicked on which says “CONTACT US.”
We are unaware what responses have been received to this offering and
whether any contracts for sale have been signed.
4. LEGALITY OF PRE-SALE OFFERS AND TRANSFERS.
As described in Section 3 of this letter, Statesman has continuously, and on
multiple occasions, issued offers for sale or transfer of residential properties, all based
on fanciful claims of expensive amenities, none of which exist or are even the subject of
building permit applications. These offers for sale and “pre-sales” are strictly prohibited
by RCW 58.17.200:
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 8
RCW 58.17.200 Injunctive action to restrain subdivision, sale, transfer of
land where final plat not filed.
Whenever any parcel of land is divided into five or more lots, tracts, or parcels of
land and any person, firm or corporation or any agent of any of them sells or
transfers, or offers or advertises for sale or transfer, any such lot, tract, or parcel
without having a final plat of such subdivision filed for record , the prosecuting
attorney shall commence an action to restrain and enjoin further subdivisions or
sales, or transfers, or offers of sale or transfer and compel compliance with all
provisions of this chapter. The costs of such action shall be taxed against the
person, firm, corporation or agent selling or transferring the property.
(Emphasis supplied). The statute places a clear directive to the county Prosecuting
Attorney to act (“shall commence an action”). Consistent with the state law, the
Jefferson County Code (JCC) similarly provides:
18.35.430 Transfer of ownership following final long plat approval.
Whenever any parcel of land lying within the county is divided under the
provisions of this article relating to long subdivisions, no person, firm, or
corporation shall sell or transfer or advertise for sale or transfer any such lot,
tract or parcel without having first received final approval of the long plat and
having recorded the final long plat with the Jefferson County auditor. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a final long plat is fully certified and
filed for record with the Jefferson County auditor prior to transferring ownership
of any land. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
(Emphasis supplied). Both the state statute and Jefferson County ordinances strictly
prohibit the transfer, or even “advertisement for sale or transfer” of any lot in a proposed
long subdivision until a final plat is recorded. Here there is not even approval of a
preliminary subdivision, much less a complete application for one. 4
In fact, the plan set does not even show the minimum requirement for a
preliminary plat under Jefferson County Code. JCC 18.35.300 requires:
4Further, as set forth in JCC 18.35.310(1)(b), no long plat may be approved until utilities and other
features are constructed and in place:
(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;
Of course, none of the required elements of a preliminary plat have been submitted and no final
subdivision has been approved.
Exhibit 65B
February 2, 2024
Page 9
(e) Identification of all land intended to be cleared, and the location of the
proposed access to the site for clearing and grading during site development and
construction; and
In addition, JCC 18.35.300(4)(g) requires: “(g) The building envelopes, as
defined in JCC 18.10.020, shall be indicated for each lot[.]” This feature is not shown.
JCC 18.35.290(4). See identical requirements in JCC 18.35.280(3). No “(p) Proposed
covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) on development” are provided as
required by JCC 18.35.300(4)(c).
The “Seattle Signal,” the 2022 and 2023 website offerings, paired with the recent
216-lot subdivision plan, are all just another means for Statesman to improperly fund its
projects with other people’s money. Such action violate not only the Amended
Development Agreement, but also statutory restrictions on offers of sale before land
use approvals.
5. IMPACT ON JEFFERSON COUNTY.
The continuing advertisements for sale, promising a long list of “amenities,”
create the impression to potential purchasers that Jefferson County has approved
Statesman’s plans. In turn, these offerings place Jefferson County in the position of
becoming accountable to disappointed prospective buyers when these amenities are
not forthcoming, especially to those who may have made deposits on purchases of
units or lots in the Pleasant Harbor development.
6. SUMMARY.
In sum, Jefferson County should take the following actions.
6.1. It should decline to review the current subdivision proposal submitted by
Statesman for Pleasant Harbor development. The plan for 216 single-family residential
lots, without the required MPR project features, is inconsistent with the 2019
Development Agreement amendments because it approves residential development
without any permits, plans or showing of financial ability to fund or deliver the fanciful
amenities, such as a “tea house in the trees” and a full size NHL hockey rink.
6.2. Jefferson County should return any proposed subdivision plans, including
the proposal discussed herein, to the applicant and decline further review until the
submittal of plans is consistent with the Amended Development Agreement and
Jefferson County codes.
6.3. The County should determine the subdivision application is not complete as
it does not contain all required features and documentation.
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Attachment A
Attachment A
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Attachment C
Attachment C
Exhibit 65B
The Hamlet at Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Community/Preliminary Plat (HGP 19-060)
Project Narrative
The Hamlet at Pleasant Harbor represents an 890-unit Master Planned Community (MPC)on
220.44 acres located in Brinnon-Jefferson County, WA. The property is zoned Master Planned
Resort (MPR). The 890-units associated with the MPC includes 68 motel units within a portion
of the MPC referred to as the Maritime Village that is outside the preliminary plat boundary at the
northwest intersection of US Highway 101 and Black Point Road.
The site address is site is 308913 US-101, Brinnon, WA 98320 and is within portions of the
southwest and northwest ¼ of the southeast ¼, southwest ¼ of the northwest ¼ and the
northeast, southeast and northwest ¼ of the southwest ¼ Section 15 and a portion of the
northwest ¼ of the northeast ¼ and the northeast ¼ of the northwest ¼ of Section 22 all in
Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M. The Jefferson County tax parcel nos. are 502153020,
502153021, 502153022, 502153023, 502154002, 502153002, 502152005,and 502153003.
The development will include the following uses:
A.The Inn by the Sea: 220 two-bedroom guest suites three stories above the
recreation center.
B.Eagle’s Nest: 82 condominium units.
C.Olympia House: 126 short-term suites.
D.Cascadia House: 126 short-term suites.
E.Pleasant Harbor and Harbor View Houses: 2 existing homes to be used for Bed &
Breakfast.
F.Recreation Community Center: 2 pools, hockey rink, soccer field, go-carts, racket sports,
health spa and restaurants and a pub.
G.Farmer’s Market.
H.Conference Center.
I.Staff Housing: 52-unit dual suites to accommodate 104 staff members.
J.A 9-hole golf course.
K.Wastewater Treatment Plant.
L.Public Water System.
M.The Seaview Villas: 163 townhome attached units on individual lots.
N.Vista-View Lots: 53 single-family detached lots ranging in size from .25 to .5 acres.
The project is proposed to include two divisions (phases). Division One will include the items
listed in A-L above. Division Two will include items M and N above.
The internal street system will be private and will connect to US-101 at the northwest corner of the
project site.
The project is proposed to be served by a new wastewater treatment plant and Group A public
water system. Treated wastewater is proposed to irrigate the golf course and developed open
space areas.
Exhibit 65B
A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the project.
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B
Exhibit 65B