The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About65W_2025-0916 Aramburu (The Brinnon Group)September 16, 2025 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort: Preliminary Plat Application File No. SUB2023-00025 Dear DCD: As the County is aware, this office has for many years represented the Brinnon Group, a non-profit community organization concerned with a proposal for a master planned resort at Black Point, known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR).1 The project proponent has continuously been the Statesman Group, a Canadian developer. The Brinnon Group has been actively involved in the PHMPR since the mid 2000s and has participated and provided comments concerning the resort master plan process, the Jefferson County ordinances on the subject and the various iterations of the proposal. In 2018, after participation in the public process, my client appealed the adoption of Jefferson County Ordinance 04-0604-18 approving the Pleasant Harbor Resort Master Plan in the Kitsap County Superior Court (Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP ). After a trial, the Court determined that certain elements of the plans were inconsistent with master plan resort elements of the Jefferson County code and state statutes. To comply with the Court’s order, the Commissioners adopted Ordinance 08- 0722-19 on July 22, 2019, approving Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement. That amendment included a revised phasing plan showing that the planned “community center” was required during Phase 1 of the resort plan. Phases of the proposal were set 1A staff report has been discovered on the county’s website, just issued on September 15, 2025. The report was not shared with the Brinnon Group or its attorney, who are parties of record. Comments in this letter were drafted prior to discovery of this new staff report. Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 2 forth in text and in Exhibit 4 to the Ordinance, a map of the phases. The entire ordinance is Appendix A to this letter. In the more than six years since the ruling of the court, there has been essentially no progress on any of the master plan resort features of the proposal. There are no plans for the golf course, the 208 unit hotel, the conference center, the community center, the swimming pools, the NHL-regulation hockey rink, sports courts, soccer pitch, water slides or other fanciful features. However, the lack of plans or locations has not deterred the applicant from advertising a long list of supposed features that will be included on its website. A screen shot of the Statesman’s current website for the Pleasant Harbor proposal (taken September 9, 2025) shows more of the fantasy, which includes “mini-Olympics for family entertainment and challenges,” “Tree- Topper Adventure with multi-ZIP-Lines,” “League Play. Junior Hockey-Soccer- Volleyball-Figure Skating,” “The Royal Flush Indoor/Outdoor Water slide,” and “Medical Assistance.” See Appendix B. As identified in prior correspondence, these non-existent features have been promoted for many years. In the six years since the court decision and Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement, the Brinnon Group has provided comment to Jefferson County at every opportunity. To avoid repetition in this letter, we attach our recent correspondence as follows. Appendix C. May 21, 2024 (Comment on Plat Application of May 1, 2024) (including Attachment C, June 10, 2022 Consumer Protection letter) Appendix D. August 22, 2024 (Comment on plat application) Appendix E. January 2, 2024 (Preliminary Plat) Appendix F. September 6, 2023 (Amendments to Development Agreement) Appendix G. August 19, 2016 (Funding Proposal from the Applicant) As described in our correspondence, there are serious questions concerning whether the court-required phasing will be followed and the ability of this applicant to complete the substantial and expensive improvements required by the Development Agreement. Both the Growth Management Act, Chap. 36.70A. RCW (“GMA”) and the Jefferson County code allow for “master planned resorts” (MPR) in rural areas. See RCW 36.70A.360(1), which defines a MPR as follows: 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. Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 3 (Emphasis supplied). The statute makes clear that a MPR is not authorization for creating residential subdivisions in rural areas in RCW 36.70A.360(3): (3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort . (Emphasis supplied). For the proposed PHMPR, Jefferson County not only has a MPR ordinance, but also a “Development Agreement” with the applicant. The Amended Development Agreement was revised to its current form only after litigation by the Brinnon Group in 2018. The Amended Development Agreement includes a phasing plan requiring contemporaneous development of resort facilities with any residential development. As noted in our prior correspondence listed above, the Brinnon Group has continuing serious concerns about the willingness and financial ability of the current applicant to complete the MPR “with primary focus of destination resort facilities.” Much of this concern relates to the history of this MPR proposal. The original MPR plan from this applicant was filed with Jefferson County on March 6, 2006. Since that time there have been a variety of studies and plans, but no actual proposal, permit application or detailed plans for construction of the “destination resort facilities.” Indeed there is not even a rough floor plan for any of these features. We believe that this applicant lacks either the financial ability or interest in building the “destination resort facilities.” As described in Attachment F, on August 19, 2016, this applicant asked both Jefferson County and the state of Washington to fund the resort facilities with some $37 million in grants and loans. At pages 17-18 of Attachment F, the PHMPR proposal included drawings prepared for the Pine Ridge Mountain Resort in Invermere, British Columbia. Indeed, when Statesman submitted an initial promotional binder (147 pages) to Jefferson County on March 1, 2006 2 (found at https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/728/PH-MPR-Background-Materials), it stated at page 3: The Statesman Group of Companies has elevated the art of Resort Developments over three decades, The Statesman Team brings a dedication that goes unmatched to create Resort Communities such as: Toscana at Desert Ridge ··· Phoenix, Arizona 2As described at page 125 of the Binder, Stateman made its initial sales presentation in Jefferson County on September 28, 2005, twenty years ago. Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 4 Pine Ridge Mountain Resort over looking Lake Windermere ··· Invermere, B.C. Canada Bella Vista of Scottsdale ··· Phoenix, Arizona And many others. (Emphasis supplied). The Pine Ridge project was touted as an example of the (“unmatched”) ability of Statesman to plan, construct, operate and manage a major destination resort. The requests to Jefferson County and the state of Washington for public funding of facilities for the PHMPR were also similar to this applicant’s tactics for the Pine Ridge development in British Columbia. As described in an article from the Columbia Valley Pioneer, August 24, 2017, Statesman sought public funding for a four story hotel with ice rinks, pools, fitness centers and daycare that would cost $40,000,000 (in 2017 dollars) to construct, a proposal remarkably similar to the PHMPR. Recent investigations have shown that not only has the “family recreational center” proposed by Statesman for the Pine Mountain project still not been constructed, there are not even permit applications for its construction. Similarly for the current proposal, Statesman as plat applicant seeks approval for a large number of small residential lots offering views south along Hood Canal. However, there are no plans or drawings for the required “destination resort facilities” which are the essential element of this MPR proposal. Despite the court’s unequivocal order in the Brinnon lawsuit, the only references to these facilities are building footprints. There are no floor plans, renderings or other documents presented or available that would allow the public to determine if the plans meet the standard of “destination resort facility.” The Revised Application Materials submitted on August 27, 2025, provide a long list of facilities that will be constructed, including the following: The project includes the construction of up to 890 residential units; up to 56,608 square feet of commercial space; a recreation/community center with indoor swimming pools, hockey rink, soccer field, go-cart track, racket sports, health spa, restaurants, and pub; a farmer’s market; a conference center; a nine-hole golf course; and other site amenities. Facilities to serve the development will be provided, including an on-site wastewater treatment system, a community water system, stormwater management, and internal roads and pedestrian pathways. However, the proposed plat drawing contains no reference to the required recreational amenities other than line drawings of possible locations for water and sewer systems. But where are the promised “soccer field” and “go-cart track”? A standard soccer pitch can be as small of 300 by 210 feet, (63,000 square feet), not counting sidelines. A go- cart track can be 15,000 square feet, not counting staging and spectator areas. Neither facility is shown on the preliminary plat. Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 5 Nor does the plat demonstrate that even the initial phasing requirements will be met. The Development Agreement, amended after Brinnon Group’s litigation, 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. 10. 1. 3 Phase 1. Phase 1a consists of site clearing, grading and construction of the golf course, road network, building footprints, and stormwater storage. Complete Highway 101 and Black Point intersection improvements. Build waste water treatment plant, commence road construction with services and begin implementation of the vegetation management plan. Create construction materials processing location. (Emphasis supplied). A diagrammatic rendition of some of these features is included in the map attached to the Development Agreement. However, the Proposed Plat currently under consideration does not show construction of those features. There is no plan for completing “Highway 101 and Black Point Road Intersection Improvements.” Our inquiries to the Washington State Department of Transportation in the past indicate there have been no plans presented for these required intersection improvements. The “Sequence of Construction” provided by the applicant on 11/17/2023 is included in the application materials, and shows this required transportation improvement as Project No. 15, well after “commence building sold Villas” at No. 11. See Appendix I. The “construction of the golf course,” a central recreation facility, is Project No. 22, scheduled well after single family housing is scheduled to be completed and occupied. The plan does not show a “building wastewater treatment plant.” While there is a potential location for the facility, there are no drawings, specifications or other information concerning this feature. The “Sequence of Construction” only shows “commence the slab for the wastewater treatment plan equipment” as No. 5, but not actual construction of the facility. Given the miles of piping required, including pump stations, this will be a multi-million dollar cost requiring detailed engineered plans. In other regards, the applicant proposes features inconsistent with “destination resort facilities.” For example, at Nos. 7 and 8 of the “Sequence of Construction,” the applicant proposes, as separate elements of construction: Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 6 7) Excavate +/- 12 feet for footings and foundation for the Recreation Community Center’s Pools and Hockey / Soccer Arena 8) Excavate for footings and foundation for the 6-story parking structure so the conference center is at the similar grade to the Recreation Center and connected by a pedestrian bridge / breezeway. (Emphasis supplied). Given the size of these facilities, these ‘excavations” will leave large areas that consist of nothing more than a hole in the ground. This will likely require the removal of six or more acres of trees, likely needing a Forest Practices Permit. The footprint for the “Parking/Convention” center appears to be about 1.4 acres and that of the Pools and Hockey facility about 5 acres. Is excavation in advance of construction a ploy for a renewed request for public funding to fill an unsightly six acre open ditch? The County should insist that the project be phased such that the “destination resort facilities” are constructed in a timely fashion as required by the Amended Development Agreement. My client has, as far back as April, 2018, addressed governmental and community impacts from failed or incomplete development proposals. David Wechner, a professional planner with years of experience in destination planning and development, provided a report regarding MPRs dated April 9, 2018. See Attachment H to this letter. He points out several examples of failed destination resort projects and their impact on local governments as well on those who unfortunately bought lots in such developments. There is concern that this applicant will attempt to advance a residential subdivision, as shown in the plat drawings, ahead of the required resort facilities. The “Sequence of Construction” shows as No. 10: 10) Commence presales for single-family lots and the Sea-View Villas with plan of subdivision. (Emphasis supplied). This shows the intent of this applicant to advance residential subdivisions and development prior to even the start of construction of the destination resort facilities. This seems to replicate the Pine Mountain situation, where lots were sold prior to the promised recreation facilities, which were never delivered. There is additional ambiguity in some features shown on the proposed plat. 1. In the northeast corner of the Proposed Plat is a “PROPOSED STORAGE/MAINTENANCE/ASSEMBLY BUILDING,” shown on Sheet 14 of the Proposed Plat (the “AGRA CENTER”) and Sheet 10 of the Civil Drawings. Apparently, this is where modular paneling will be built. There are no dimensions for the building, nor elevations, but using the scale on the drawing, the building would be approximately Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 7 375 feet long and 100 feet wide; at 37,500 square feet the building is massive. No information about traffic generated by this facility, noise created, potential air pollution or other impacts common to industrial uses is provided. Moreover, no information is provided as to its exterior treatments, materials or colors. It will be substantially visible from off-site as it is only 150 ± feet from the northwest boundary of the property. The Development Agreement does not include provisions for manufacturing uses in the PHMPR and accordingly this use is not allowed. 2. Tract X-8 is shown on Sheet 14 of the Proposed Plat and is designated “WASTE WATER TREATMENT.” The treatment plant is shown as a rectangle approximately 75 by 50 feet, with no information as to height. No information is provided as to the construction or appearance of this treatment plant nor how it will aesthetically fit into the PHMPR. The site for the Waste Water Treatment Plant differs between Sheets 1 and 6 of the Civil Plans. The Proposed Plat says that both water and sewer will be provided by “Pleasant Harbor Water and Sewer (To Be Formed).” If these critical facilities will be constructed by a public utility district “to be formed” they cannot be included in the preliminary plat. There are also no construction drawings or plans for this expensive facility, though it is shown as a required element in Phase 1a. This large facility will require multiple permits, which require detailed construction drawings and full financing and is a requirement of the first phase (No. 1a) in the Development Agreement. No “pre-sales” of lots should be permitted until these essential features have been constructed or financially guaranteed. 3. Tract X-9 (Sheet 13) shows a building footprint of 278,302 square feet for “The Inn by the Sea” with 275 units; the same feature is shown on the Civil Drawings at Sheet 10. No information is provided as to floor plans nor are there any renderings or other information as to its appearance. Prior information indicates the building will be four stories, though its actual height is not disclosed. There is no way to determine whether it will meet minimum standards for a master planned resort or will actually contain the features touted for it by the applicant. Where are the hockey rink, swimming pool(s), soccer fields and sports courts? As seen by past experience of Statesman developments, these are “Coming Attractions” that never arrive. The same is true of the Tract X-10 proposed parking and community center, though some information indicates it will be six stories. 4. Water tank. All Proposed Plats must show the following under JCC 18.35.300(4)(i): “(i) Proposed location and description of all individual or community wells, or water system improvements, including all proposed fire hydrants (if applicable). The Civil Drawings do not show the location of the required 200,000 gallon water storage tank necessary for domestic and fireflow requirements, except a note on Civil Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 8 Sheet 28 for “Proposed Water Reservoir and Booster Pump Station.” Once again water will apparently be provided by the “Pleasant Harbor Water and Sewer (To Be Formed).” If these critical facilities will be constructed by a public utility district “to be formed,” the plans should include when and how this district will be formed as well as how it will be financed. The Civil Plans only generally described the amount of water necessary for large hotel and conference center occupancies and fire flow requirements. Do the local fire brigades have the trained personnel and equipment to fight a fire in a four-story, 220- room hotel or a multistory community center with restaurants and meeting rooms? If not, will Statesman provide the fire trucks and ladder equipment needed? In addition, there must be adequate provisions to fight wildland fires on the site. As of this writing, there are two large uncontained fires on the east side of the Olympic Peninsula. Moreover, it does not appear that the applicant has sufficient water rights from on-site wells to meet the requirements for this large facility. There is reference to using Kettle C for reclaimed water if it is lined to prevent infiltration; thus this kettle might be used for water storage. However, there are no facilities shown for pumping water out of this facility for fire protection. The water tank’s location, size and appearance must be shown on the preliminary plat documents. In any event, using pumps for fire flow is not appropriate because of the potential for power outages; a gravity system is essential for fire flow. 5. Elder Care Facility. Sheet 25 of the Civil drawing shows an “independent living elder care facility” located in Tract X-14. There is no indication as to who would own or run this facility or whether the units are short or long term. It appears that this facility will be included within the common areas maintenance as a responsibility of the homeowner association, yet it is not described as a use in the revised notice of application. It should not be approved as a part of the plat until this information is available. This also prompts the question of whether there are sufficient medical and EMS facilities available to attend to elderly patients. The Revised Notice of Application dated August 27, 2025 (RNOA) contains several features at odds with the project plans submitted for the project. a. STORMWATER PUMP STATION. All Proposed Plats must show, under JCC 18.35.300(4)(k),“Proposed location and description of all stormwater management system improvements.” The RNOA shows on the south edge of the Proposed Plat a “PROPOSED STORM WATER Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 9 PUMP.” However, Sheet 23 of the Preliminary Plat (dated June 23, 2025) does not show any stormwater pump station. Neither the RNOA nor Sheet 23 of the Proposed Plat shows any easements to accommodate stormwater pipes from the proposed pump station. The outlet or destination for the stormwater pump lines are not shown. Pumping large quantities of stormwater is a dangerous and risky proposition as electric outages in rural areas are frequent, resulting in uncontrolled stormwater flows, in this case over steep slopes into Puget Sound. While plans show possible emergency power, there is no indication that such pumps will be able to accommodate large flows. b. CC&Rs The application requirements for Jefferson County plats require that the following be submitted with the plat application “(p) Proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) on development (if applicable).” This is a critical element because of the size and scope of proposed uses and the costs for maintaining them. For example, will the lot owners end up paying the cost of developing and maintaining the soccer fields and other facilities that are a part of the “destination resort facilities?” CCRs are required to assure that potential buyers, even for pre-sales, will be adequately protected from excessive charges, especially if the development financially fails. See Mr. Wechner’s report (Appendix H), which addresses the financial problems at the Tamarack ski/golf development near Cascade, Idaho. Will individual lot owners be expected to finance “Pleasant Harbor Water and Sewer (To Be Formed)”? How much will that cost? In summary, the proposed plat must be denied. It does not follow the court- required phasing of the Development Agreement and is inconsistent with Jefferson County platting requirements. As described herein, it is evident that this applicant lacks the technical, managerial and financial capacity to complete this large venture with its myriad fanciful features such as a hockey rink and soccer field in rural eastern Jefferson County. Further, there is no evidence that this developer has the wherewithal to manage and operate a facility of this nature and complexity. This is demonstrated by the proposals by Statesman to have public funding (about $40 million each) of both the PHMPR and the Pine Ridge developments in the recent past, both of which were summarily rejected by local government. IF approval is considered, there must be strict conditions to assure compliance with the Amended Development Agreement. Accordingly, no sales of residential lots should be permitted until the construction and operation of the “destination resort facilities” are assured. To the extent that bonding is necessary, it should include a minimum of 200% of the actual construction costs in case Statesman withdraws from the project or declares bankruptcy. Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W September 16, 2025 Page 11 List of Appendices Appendix A. Ordinance 08-0722-19 Appendix B. Statesman’s current website for the Pleasant Harbor proposal Appendix C. May 21, 2024 (Comment on Plat Application of May 1, 2024) (including Attachment C, June 10, 2022 Consumer Protection letter) Appendix D. August 22, 2024 (Comment on plat application) Appendix E. January 2, 2024 (Preliminary Plat) Appendix F. September 6, 2023 (Amendments to Development Agreement) Appendix G. August 19, 2016 (Funding Proposal from the Applicant) Appendix H. Wechner Report, April 9, 2018 Appendix I. Sequence of Construction Exhibit 65W Appendix A Appendix A Exhibit 65W STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson In the Matter of Adopting an Amended ) Development Agreement for the Pleasant ORDINANCE NO. 08-0722-19 Harbor Master Planned Resort ) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("the Board") constitutes the legislative body for Jefferson County the County"); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 36.70B.170-.210 to strengthen the land use planning process and reduce the costs of development by authorizing the County to enter into an agreement with a landowner regarding the development of its real property located within the County's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Code ("JCC") Title 18 provides guidance on the process and procedures for entering into development agreements; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2008 the Board approved and adopted a site-specific comprehensive plan amendment, Ordinance 01-0128-08 establishing a Master Planned Resort on 237.88 acres located on a portion of the Black Point Peninsula in the community of Brinnon, Jefferson County. The Board finding consistency with the comprehensive plan, the Brinnon Subarea Plan and with the GMA implementing regulations codified at Title 18 JCC, affirmed that the Master Planned Resort ("MPR") would be "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;" and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 was adopted after a programmatic environmental impact statement was issued on November 27, 2007 as Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board which determined that: "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;" and Exhibit 65W WHEREAS, an appeal of the decision of the Growth Management Hearings Board ended in 2011, after it was first affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court and, then the Court of Appeals; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 01-0128-08 included a finding that any future site planning, building and development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR will be consistent with "all GMA-derived development regulations relating to GMA critical areas and all on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts ... will be mitigated as the MPR is implemented first through a development agreement, internal zoning map and internal zoning code, then through plat and permit review and possible issuance of permits and, with all the prior items accomplished, finally with the issuance of building permits;" and WHEREAS, all of the findings, conclusions and the conditions listed in paragraph 63 of Ordinance 01-0128-08 are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, after public comment and public hearings, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 03-0604-18, the development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 was appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and was upheld on January 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, there was no appeal of the January 30, 2019 Growth Management Hearings Board decision, so it is final; and WHEREAS, the Board also adopted Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 on June 4, 2018, which approved a development agreement negotiated between the County and the developer; and WHEREAS, the development agreement approved a phasing plan for resort development as well as conditions of approval for the future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and stated that it constituted a final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020, a section in the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA); and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 was appealed under LUPA to the Kitsap County Superior Court; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the Kitsap County Superior Court reversed Ordinance No. 04- 0604-18 (March 28, 2019 LUPA Decision) for only the following reasons: 1. The phasing plan failed to provide all other conditions of the PHMPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed at the completion of Phase 1; and 2. Phase 1 did not include amenities required for the MPR including a 9 -hole golf course, a spa, sports courts, pool, and water slides, a community center, a recreations center, conference center, staff -quarters, a maintenance building and commercial space; and 2 Exhibit 65W WHEREAS, the court remanded to the Board the development agreement for further proceedings consistent with the March 28, 2019 LUPA Decision; and WHEREAS, there was no appeal of the March 28, 2019 LUPA Decision, so it is final; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019, Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, LLC ("Developer") proposed language to amend the development agreement and revised phasing map to address the issues remanded to the Board; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019, The Brinnon Group made comments to the changes proposed in the developer's June 18, 2019 email during the Board public comment period; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019, Staff briefed the Board on how to address The Brinnon Group's June 24, 2019 comments; and WHEREAS, a revised amendment to the development agreement was submitted to the Board, a clean copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 ("Amended Development Agreement"), along with a hearing notice for possible approval on July 1, 2019; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2019, the Board approved a hearing notice published on July 3 and 10, 2019, setting a public hearing on July 15, 2019 on the staff proposed amendments to the development agreement to comply with the March 28, 2019, the Kitsap County Superior Court order; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2019, following timely and effective public notice and in accordance with JCC 18.45.090, the Board held a public hearing on the Amended Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board received public testimony on July 15, 2019, and extended the hearing for accepting written testimony until July 17, 2019 and met on July 22, 2019 to deliberate on the complete hearing record, for the Amended Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the Amended Development Agreement addresses the issues in the March 28, 2019 LUPA Decision on which the court reversed Ordinance 04-0604-18 by: 1. Amending the phasing plan so that all conditions of the PHMPR are sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed at the completion of Phase 1; and 2. Amending Phase 1 to include amenities required for the MPR including a 9 -hole golf course, a spa, sports courts, pool, and water slides, a community center, a recreations center, conference center, staff -quarters, a maintenance building and commercial space; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the combination community center and recreation center proposed for Phase I satisfies the requirement of a community center, as the County has three other community centers that also are used for recreation; and Exhibit 65W WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to specifically adopt the Amended Development Agreement, in order to comply with the March 28, 2019 LUPA decision and incorporate the record supporting all other related Pleasant Harbor MPR reports, findings, conclusions, items of record, internal zoning map and mitigation measures, as analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") published on December 9, 2015, Ordinance 03-604- 18, and Ordinance 04-604-18; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety to enter into the Amended Development Agreement. NOW THEREFORE be it ordained: Section 1 - Approval of Development Agreement, As Amended. The Amended Development Agreement (Appendix A) is approved and the Board is authorized to sign the Amendment on behalf of the County. Section 2. Findings. The Board hereby adopts the above recitals (the "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of July, 2019. W'SEAL JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF AT'F Erin Lundgren J Clerk of the Board Approved as to form only: r./L4, s Philip C. Hunsucker ate Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 4 hrlr 22 'T f t? Exhibit 65W July 22, 2019 AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF MASTER PLANNED RESORT Exhibit 65W AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This AMENDMENT 2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("this Amendment") revises the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT approved by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") on June 4, 2018 ("the Development Agreement") in Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 and is entered into this Z day of, , 2019, by and between PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESO T VLP, a Washington limited liability partnership ("the Developer") and JEFFERSON COUNTY ("the County"), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170-.210. 1 RECITALS. WHEREAS, a programmatic final environmental impact statement ("the FEIS") was completed in 2007; and, WHEREAS, the FEIS preceded the January 28, 2008 zoning decision in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 that created the master planned resort ("MPR") zone on Black Point in Brinnon, Washington; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and the FEIS were upheld on appeal by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the Thurston County Superior Court, and ultimately the Washington Court of Appeals, Div. II in Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 245 P.3d 789 (2011); and, WHEREAS, a project -level supplemental final environmental impact statement that built upon the FEIS was completed in 2015 ("the FSEIS"); and, WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, after public comment and public hearings, the BoCC unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 03-0604-18, which approved development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort ("Pleasant Harbor MPR"), including allowed uses, setbacks and height limitations, among other regulations, to restrict specific development in the underlying MPR zone ("the Development Regulations"); and, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 and the FSEIS were appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and were upheld on January 20, 2019 in The Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, WWGMHB No. 18-2-0005, FDO (January 30,2019); and, WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, after public comment and public hearings, the BoCC unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 related to the Pleasant Harbor MPR, which approved a development agreement negotiated between the County and the developer; and, WHEREAS, on June 25, 2018, Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 was appealed under Chapter 36.70C RCW is the Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA") to the Kitsap County 1 Exhibit 65W Superior Court in The Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor Marina and GolfResort, LLP ("the LUPA action"); and, WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, the Kitsap Superior Court issued its decision and order in the LUPA action ("the LUPA Decision"), which was not appealed and is a final order; and, WHEREAS, the LUPA decision upheld the County's decision to approve the Development Agreement, except for the phasing plan in the development agreement and identification of a community center in the development agreement and related maps and remanded to the BoCC the development agreement for further proceedings consistent with the LUPA Decision; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019, the Developer forwarded to the County a proposed amendment to the Development Agreement and phasing map, which the County's staff determined satisfies the requirements of the LUPA Decision and is reflected in this Amendment; and, WHEREAS, this Amendment constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020; and, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and provisions set forth in the Development Agreement and this Amendment, the receipt and adequacy of which consideration is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 2 AMENDMENT OF PHASING. Section 10 of the Development Agreement is replaced with the following: 10 PHASING. 10.1 Phasing Plan. 10.1.1 Phases Proposed. Pleasant Harbor MPR is a planned resort 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 bonded in phases or sub -phases. A phasing plan (consisting of three phases) for development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR is attached as Exhibit 4. Each phase may further be broken down into discrete sub -phases as conditions dictate, but each primary phased must be constructed in the order set forth below. 2 Exhibit 65W 10. 1.2 Requirement of Adequate Infrastructure, Open Space, Recreational Facilities, Landscaping and Other Conditions Sufficient for Each Phase to Stand Alone. 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. 10.1.3 Phase 1. Phase 1 a consists of site clearing, grading and construction of the golf course, road network, building footprints, and stormwater storage. Complete Highway 101 and Black Point intersection improvements. Build waste water treatment plant, commence road construction with services and begin implementation of the vegetation management plan. Create construction materials processing location. 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 , Golf Vistas , construction of the Golf Terrace Community/Recreation Center (See Appendix S to FSEIS) and Conference center/spa (including 208 units, spa services, pool, water slides, commercial space and sports courts), construct maintenance building and 52 units for staff quarters and formation of a water and sewer district. The Sea View Villas (up to 162 units) and Golf Vistas (up to 90 units) will be constructed during the several phases. The number of Sea View Villa and Golf Vista units constructed during a phase may vary; however, Phase 1 shall not be deemed complete until and unless all other improvements in Phase 1 are complete. 10.1.4 Phase 2. Phase 2 consists of construction of the Maritime Village building consisting of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial, construction of a Golf Terrace (172 units) half- way house (adjacent to fairway 5), develop the new, additional well, construction of the Golf Vistas and the Sea View Villas. Reconstruct Black Point Road and construct new access road to WDFW boat launch. 10.1.5 Phase 3. Phase 3 consists of construction of the remaining Golf Terrace (140 units) and the remaining Sea View Villas and Golf Vistas. Exhibit 65W 10.2 Preliminary Facilities. In addition to the facilities specifically described in Section 10.1 each Phase must design adequate preliminary facilities to service the phase. Preliminary facilities are those preliminary facilities or improvements that must be approved and installed in concert with the development of each phase. The preliminary facilities include the following: 10.2.1 Water System. A water system with sufficient water rights to serve the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.2 Wastewater Treatment System. A sewer system with sufficient capacity to accommodate the waste discharge for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.3 Road Network. A road network to accommodate the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.4 Landscaping_ Landscaping for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.5 Parking. Associated parking for the phase or sub -phase under review and approval. 10.2.6 County Approval of Preliminary Facilities Required. The County's approval of a phase or sub -phase, whether by preliminary plat or other process, shall require approval of preliminary facilities for the entire phase. The Developer may construct preliminary facilities for each lot or tract in conjunction with development of that lot or tract. A final plat for a phase may be recorded by lot or tract provided all of the preliminary facilities necessary to serve the lot or tract are complete and the specific development requirements within each lot or tract are complete. 10.3 Public Amenities and Access. Public amenities and access are those facilities and improvements that provide resort related activities and services. The Pleasant Harbor MPR, at a minimum, shall contain the following resort amenities (1) a 9 -hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; (4) pool; (5) water slides; and, (6) a Community Center/Recreation Center (See Appendix S to FSEIS). These amenities shall be completed in Phase 1 and made available to members of the general public for a fee to be established by the Developer. 4 Exhibit 65W 3 THIS AMENDMENT IS INCORPRATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NO OTHER CHANGES. This Amendment modifies the Development Agreement to be consistent with the LUPA Decision made final by a lack of appeal. No other changes are made to the Development Agreement. Except for the changes made to the Phasing Plan in the Development Agreement in this Amendment, the language of the Development Agreement controls if any conflicts between the Development Agreement and this Amendment. This Amendment shall be attached to the Development Agreement. 4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Each of the parties represents and warrants that: a) Each is fully authorized to enter into this Amendment; b) Each has taken all the necessary actions to duly approve the making and performance of this Amendment and that no further approval is necessary; c) Each has read this Amendment in its entirety and knows the contents of this Agreement; d) The terms of this Amendment are contractual and not mere recitals; and, e) Each have signed this Amendment having obtained the advice of legal counsel. SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) E Exhibit 65W JEFFERSON COUNTY WASHINGTON Board of County Commissioners MBy: C :%/ f Kate Dean, Cha' Date By: David Su Ivan, Commissioner Date By: Greg ro 1w tqn, Commissioner Date SEAL: ATTEST': Erin Lundgren Date Clerk of the Board Approved as to form only: Philip C. Hunsucker Date Chief Civil Deputy Pros cuting Attorney llzq atricia L. Charnas ate Director of Community Development M Exhibit 65W PLEASANT HARBOR MARIlA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP 0 M. Garth Mann Its: Manager Date: Acknowledgement STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF S S QA On this o day of , 2019, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State oe Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Melvin G. Mann, to me known to be the person who signed as manager of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, the Washington limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was duly elected, qualified and acting as said officer of the limited liability company and that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. Dated this `fin day of 2019. N C OL Si natur of Not al ® Z 11 G oo " BLPUPrintorstampnameofNotary) o3.1...0 NOTARY PUBLIC in a for the State W Ps'\ of Washington, residing atl. v - My Appointment Expires: 7 Exhibit 65W LENEND: PHASE -1 I / Ec ilal o.. oi rwsoivEio wnix. euixi e oeecx ecox PHASE 2 oxtraxg erne w&t ea oEacxxreoraN naRN wnrex PLEASANT HARBOR j waEow HOUSE 1 F racwe sr.aoExri occur,wr O ODIFICATION P / L O Y ROPOSEDI ] RB i EXISTING BEDS is iasD r uxrtal. s*xucnona eu o rvc or rsxnrcE BREAKFAST NO PHASE •2MODIFICATIONPROPOSED) g.g Exrwn xarw l-------------------- - E.rExxK.Pxwrw,nw,xFKE I ' h/ P. // _ ,. — — iof s tw ux rsl. 'YBrnuefwx es xEx4Mxs*ExMCE Boet LcuncN Roatl - PRITI E ILLAGE- / I'. M I M tlagan: µOpp PpNZ i I I Intersscgan Rasa - "" s f I I I I JEFERSON i— COMMUNM j TRANSIT & MASON RECREATION CENTER + PROP EO) QIMNI{iro I R - --- 2ge SURES HOTEL OVER j PROPOSED) WASTE WATER MAINTENANCEI STAFFL _ TREATMENT PLANT BUILDING: 52 housing I _ II us 101 HIGHWAY l GOLF VI4A'. 14, r 1O i I LOSS DRAIN FIELD ^. , _ -- — 1 —GOLF VISTA TERRACE.. ' / Sirgl F mry LOFTS- MURi 1] F-* FT •- b Bulking -P •• , •t` t 3rz units16 i 1 I CON1NPTTERUC-TION Q 1 TJ GOLF VISTA: O. .. SppbF1y G] d—Wells tewa 1 \• \, .. _ GOLF VISTA --- - _ - 9mgb3b. I I lob -13 bis 01 I II i O SEA VIEWIIVILLAS \\ 181 UrxN I F tg5V 2W SHORELINE _ SCALE IN FEET ENVIRONMENT& CONSERVATION =— EASEMENT Exhibit 4 PROPOSED PHASING OF OVERALL SITE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA & GOLF COURSEHOOD CANAL DATE: 18 JUNE, 2019 I Exhibit 65W Appendix B Appendix B Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Planning@co.jefferson.wa.us Cristina Haworth, AICP SCJ Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 Delivered via email: cristina.haworth@scjalliance.com RE: Pleasant Harbor Proposed Subdivision: Case #SUB2023-00025: Comments on Notice of Preliminary Plat Application dated May 1, 2024 Dear Ms. Haworth and Jefferson County Planning: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 2024, which responds to my February 7 letter to you and other Jefferson County officials submitted on behalf of my client, the Brinnon Group. As you know, the Brinnon Group has been closely following and commenting on the Pleasant Harbor Resort proposal for many years, including engaging in litigation concerning the development agreement. Your correspondence references a subdivision application submitted on November 20, 2023. On May 1, 2024, we received notice from the County that the applicant’s preliminary subdivision application was finally complete and that comments could be submitted through May 21, 2024. This letter provides comments on this preliminary subdivision application. The notice also states that the comments will be provided to the applicant, who then “has seven days from receipt of the comments to respond to them.” Please provide us with the applicant’s responses to all comments received. In your April 16, 2024 letter you respond to my client’s concerns in several places by stating: “the preliminary subdivision is a land division application that does not authorize construction.” This appears at the top of page 2; twice on page 3. To the extent this statement would allow the applicant’s avoidance of impacts and the subdivision requirements, it is an erroneous interpretation of Washington subdivision requirements, a part of Washington law since 1969 as will be discussed in detail below. LAW OFFICES OF J. RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300 Seattle, WA 981044797 Telephone 206,625,9515 Facsimile 206,682,1376 www,aramburulaw,com www,aramburu-eustis,com May 21, 2024 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Planning@co.jefferson.wa.us Cristina Haworth, AICP SCJ Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 Delivered via email: cristina.haworth@scjalliance.com RE: Pleasant Harbor Proposed Subdivision: Case #SUB2023-00025: Comments on Notice of Preliminary Plat Application dated May 1, 2024 Dear Ms. Haworth and Jefferson County Planning: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 2024, which responds to my February 7 letter to you and other Jefferson County officials submitted on behalf of my client, the Brinnon Group. As you know, the Brinnon Group has been closely following and commenting on the Pleasant Harbor Resort proposal for many years, including engaging in litigation concerning the development agreement. Your correspondence references a subdivision application submitted on November 20, 2023. On May 1, 2024, we received notice from the County that the applicant’s preliminary subdivision application was finally complete and that comments could be submitted through May 21, 2024. This letter provides comments on this preliminary subdivision application. The notice also states that the comments will be provided to the applicant, who then “has seven days from receipt of the comments to respond to them.” Please provide us with the applicant’s responses to all comments received. In your April 16, 2024 letter you respond to my client’s concerns in several places by stating: “the preliminary subdivision is a land division application that does not authorize construction.” This appears at the top of page 2; twice on page 3. To the extent this statement would allow the applicant’s avoidance of impacts and the subdivision requirements, it is an erroneous interpretation of Washington subdivision requirements, a part of Washington law since 1969 as will be discussed in detail below. Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 2 Brinnon Group also attaches, and incorporates by reference, our other comment letters on the subdivision and project including those of February 2, 2024 and September 6, 2023. A copy of a letter to the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s office, dated June 10, 2022, is also included as Attachment C, and incorporated by reference, as related to the continuing presales of residential lots and units within this subdivision. In Washington state, subdivisions must comply with the terms of chapter 58.17 RCW. Per RCW 58.17.030: “Every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.195 states: No plat or short plat may be approved unless the city, town, or county makes a formal written finding of fact that the proposed subdivision or proposed short subdivision is in conformity with any applicable zoning ordinance or other land use controls which may exist. Washington law is clear. The current subdivision application must comply with the Development Agreement for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) and with the Master Planned Zoning ordinances of Jefferson County as well as state and local subdivision laws and regulations. The factors to be considered, and conditions for approval, are found in RCW 58.17.110(2) as follows: (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. The current application is deficient because “appropriate provisions” for the features identified in the state law have not been made, and because the public use and interest will not be served by the proposed preliminary subdivision and associated features necessary for a functioning Master Planned Resort. The statute requires that “adequate provision” be made for a variety of features required for residential and commercial use, including: “open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation. ...” In turn, for the PHMPR, the adequacy of these May 21, 2024 Page 2 Brinnon Group also attaches, and incorporates by reference, our other comment letters on the subdivision and project including those of February 2, 2024 and September 6, 2023. A copy of a letter to the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s office, dated June 10, 2022, is also included as Attachment C, and incorporated by reference, as related to the continuing presales of residential lots and units within this subdivision. In Washington state, subdivisions must comply with the terms of chapter 58.17 RCW. Per RCW 58.17.030: “Every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.195 states: No plat or short plat may be approved unless the city, town, or county makes a formal written finding of fact that the proposed subdivision or proposed short subdivision is in conformity with any applicable zoning ordinance or other land use controls which may exist. Washington law is clear. The current subdivision application must comply with the Development Agreement for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) and with the Master Planned Zoning ordinances of Jefferson County as well as state and local subdivision laws and regulations. The factors to be considered, and conditions for approval, are found in RCW 58.17.110(2) as follows: (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. The current application is deficient because “appropriate provisions” for the features identified in the state law have not been made, and because the public use and interest will not be served by the proposed preliminary subdivision and associated features necessary for a functioning Master Planned Resort. The statute requires that “adequate provision” be made for a variety of features required for residential and commercial use, including: “open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation. ...” In turn, for the PHMPR, the adequacy of these Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 3 provisions is determined by the Development Agreement and associated county ordinances. Though the typical preliminary subdivision in Jefferson County is a simple layout of streets and lots, with supporting utilities, this proposed preliminary plat is large and contains a variety of commercial and residential uses, including a community center and a nine-hole golf course. “Adequate provision” for utilities, sewer systems, water supplies, streets and other supportive facilities is much more complex for the PHMPR than for a garden-variety local subdivision. Washington law makes clear the burden is on the applicant during the preliminary plat stage: The applicant must make a threshold showing that the completed development is able to comply with applicable zoning ordinances and health regulations. See id.; Topping v. Pierce County Bd. of Comm'rs, 29 Wash.App. 781, 783, 630 P.2d 1385 (1981). Knight v City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 343-44 (2011). No such showing of consistence with the Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement or the provisions of RCW 58.17.110(2) is possible under these circumstances. In addition, the applicant now proposes construction of certain modular facilities on site, which would be a manufacturing use not permitted, or even identified, in the Development Agreement. Where an infirmity appears in a plat inconsistent with underlying zoning, “it is incumbent upon the planning body to reject the plat.” Loveless v Yantis, 82 Wn 2d 754, 761 (1973). The application for the preliminary plat is also deficient in other respects, as described below. 1. Landscape Plan and Vegetation Management Plans. The so-called landscape plan and vegetation management plans do not demonstrate adequate provisions under RCW 58.17.110(2) for open space areas. The landscaping plan only provides for existing vegetation and ground cover, with no provisions for post-construction landscaping for the proposed residential and commercial structures. And as noted below, while there is mention of “protected trees” in the CCRs, no protected trees are identified or located on the Landscape Plan. The Vegetation Management Plan provides no information regarding how vegetation will be maintained consistent with the criteria for a Master Planned Resort. Of particular concern is addressing wildland fires, which are becoming more frequent and intense in Western Washington. Indeed, concerns regarding forest fires are May 21, 2024 Page 3 provisions is determined by the Development Agreement and associated county ordinances. Though the typical preliminary subdivision in Jefferson County is a simple layout of streets and lots, with supporting utilities, this proposed preliminary plat is large and contains a variety of commercial and residential uses, including a community center and a nine-hole golf course. “Adequate provision” for utilities, sewer systems, water supplies, streets and other supportive facilities is much more complex for the PHMPR than for a garden-variety local subdivision. Washington law makes clear the burden is on the applicant during the preliminary plat stage: The applicant must make a threshold showing that the completed development is able to comply with applicable zoning ordinances and health regulations. See id.; Topping v. Pierce County Bd. ofComm'rs, 29 Wash.App. 781, 783, 630 P.2d 1385(1981). Knight v City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 343-44 (2011). No such showing of consistence with the Pleasant Harbor MPR Development Agreement or the provisions of RCW 58.17.110(2) is possible under these circumstances. In addition, the applicant now proposes construction of certain modular facilities on site, which would be a manufacturing use not permitted, or even identified, in the Development Agreement. Where an infirmity appears in a plat inconsistent with underlying zoning, “it is incumbent upon the planning body to reject the plat.” Loveless v Yantis, 82 Wn 2d 754, 761 (1973). The application for the preliminary plat is also deficient in other respects, as described below. 1. Landscape Plan and Vegetation Management Plans. The so-called landscape plan and vegetation management plans do not demonstrate adequate provisions under RCW 58.17.110(2) for open space areas. The landscaping plan only provides for existing vegetation and ground cover, with no provisions for post-construction landscaping for the proposed residential and commercial structures. And as noted below, while there is mention of “protected trees” in the CCRs, no protected trees are identified or located on the Landscape Plan. The Vegetation Management Plan provides no information regarding how vegetation will be maintained consistent with the criteria for a Master Planned Resort. Of particular concern is addressing wildland fires, which are becoming more frequent and intense in Western Washington. Indeed, concerns regarding forest fires are Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 4 mentioned in the PHMPR 2017 Vegetation Management Plan as follows: In some timbered portions of the Pleasant Harbor property “Fuel Ladder” issues exist where thick and tall understory vegetation provides a burn route that often will enable a forest fire to reach the upper canopy limbs of dominant trees. Should a forest fire occur in this situation, it is far more likely to be catastrophic in its effect on the vegetation community in which it occurs. Forested areas of the property should be inventoried for this situation and evaluated for understory preventative treatment where prudent. Despite the concerns about “catastrophic” fires, and the passage of seven years, no “inventory for this situation” has been presented. As noted below, there is no plan to manage wildland fire presented by the Applicant. 2. Compliance with Phasing Requirements. The Jefferson County subdivision ordinance has specific provisions for phased development, as follows: 18.35.330 Preliminary plat approval – Phased development. Where subdivision development is proposed in distinct phases, preliminary plat approval must be granted for the entire subdivision . The plat map must delineate the separate divisions or phases that are to be developed in increments. The preliminary approval is conditional upon completion of the proposed phases in a particular sequence and may specify a completion date for each phase. Final plat approval is granted for each separate phase of the preliminary plat. Any changes in the development after preliminary approval will require approval in accordance with JCC 18.35.320. (Emphasis supplied.) Phasing requirements for the current subdivision proposal must address the phasing required by the Development Agreement and the Decision of the Kitsap County Superior Court. Tracts for development of the golf course, multi-family residences, the conference center, and condominiums are set forth on Sheet 10 of the plat drawing. However, there are no provisions related to phasing of the project (DA page 3) and the sequence of construction within the plat (see further discussion below). As noted in our correspondence, the pending subdivision application is fully inconsistent with the phasing requirements of applicant’s Development Agreement and the ruling of the Kitsap County Superior Court on March 28, 2019. Moreover, as addressed in the February 26, 2024 letter from the Prosecuting Attorney to the applicant’s lawyer, the applicant has not complied with a number of requirements found in the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement and in the Development Agreement. Of additional concern, the applicant has now provided a “Sequence of Construction” document from John Holbert, identifying himself as “Project manager for the Hamlet at May 21, 2024 Page 4 mentioned in the PHMPR 2017 Vegetation Management Plan as follows: In some timbered portions of the Pleasant Harbor property “Fuel Ladder” issues exist where thick and tall understory vegetation provides a burn route that often will enable a forest fire to reach the upper canopy limbs of dominant trees. Should a forest fire occur in this situation, it is far more likely to be catastrophic in its effect on the vegetation community in which it occurs. Forested areas of the property should be inventoried for this situation and evaluated for understory preventative treatment where prudent. Despite the concerns about “catastrophic” fires, and the passage of seven years, no “inventory for this situation” has been presented. As noted below, there is no plan to manage wildland fire presented by the Applicant. 2. Compliance with Phasing Requirements. The Jefferson County subdivision ordinance has specific provisions for phased development, as follows: 18.35.330 Preliminary plat approval - Phased development. Where subdivision development is proposed in distinct phases, preliminary plat approval must be granted for the entire subdivision. The plat map must delineate the separate divisions or phases that are to be developed in increments. The preliminary approval is conditional upon completion of the proposed phases in a particular sequence and may specify a completion date for each phase. Final plat approval is granted for each separate phase of the preliminary plat. Any changes in the development after preliminary approval will require approval in accordance with JCC 18.35.320. (Emphasis supplied.) Phasing requirements for the current subdivision proposal must address the phasing required by the Development Agreement and the Decision of the Kitsap County Superior Court. Tracts for development of the golf course, multi-family residences, the conference center, and condominiums are set forth on Sheet 10 of the plat drawing. However, there are no provisions related to phasing of the project (DA page 3) and the sequence of construction within the plat (see further discussion below). As noted in our correspondence, the pending subdivision application is fully inconsistent with the phasing requirements of applicant’s Development Agreement and the ruling of the Kitsap County Superior Court on March 28, 2019. Moreover, as addressed in the February 26, 2024 letter from the Prosecuting Attorney to the applicant’s lawyer, the applicant has not complied with a number of requirements found in the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement and in the Development Agreement. Of additional concern, the applicant has now provided a “Sequence of Construction” document from John Holbert, identifying himself as “Project manager for the Hamlet at Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 5 Pleasant Harbor MPR,” dated November 17, 2023. This document says that: Given the pace and concurrent nature of the anticipated manufacturing on-site, it is confusing at best to view this development process as phases. The Developer is obligated to follow the court ruling, and in order to meet these requirements of Amenities to coincide with Residential Move-Ins , we are proposing to manufacture the various components in the order set down in the 2019 amendment to the Development Agreement. (Italics in Original). The more recent “2024-03-20 Phasing Response” is equally vague and incoherent: The reference to “phases” in the Project Narrative was a poor choice of words. The intent of the Project Narrative was to explain general sequencing of development. It was not intended to propose a new “phasing” plan. The attached revised Project Narrative removes the reference to phasing. To be clear, the project is not being phased in the sense that the applicant has not applied for a preliminary subdivision of a portion of the MPR and securing final plat, and developing the final platted property before subdividing other portions of the MPR. Rather, the Applicant has opted to secure preliminary subdivision approval of the entire MPR. The sequencing of development of Preliminary Facilities, Public Amenities and other resort development will, however, continue to comply with the requirements of the Development Agreement, state law, and the Jefferson County Code. As the proposed subdivision includes multiple lots, units and tracts, it is essential that a sequence of construction of these facilities be set forth to meet Master Planned Resort requirements. Since the Applicant has been, and continues to engage in “presales” of residential units, a clear understanding of what a consumer can expect is required to meet Consumer Protection rules. 3. Facilities for “Sanitary Wastes.” A preliminary plat must make adequate provision for treatment and disposal of sanitary wastes. The project includes 890 residential “units,” 216 residential “lots” and a number of restaurants, pubs and other dining facilities. The “sanitary wastes” that will require treatment are substantial and far exceed any prior development in Jefferson County. However, though a tract for a sewage treatment plant is set aside, there is no design or plan for this facility that might meet the standard of “adequate provision” to treat sanitary wastes. The preliminary plat should be denied for this reason. If the applicant were to post a security bond in the amount required to construct this facility by Jefferson County, together with all collection facilities and pump stations, that might be considered, but no such security is proposed by the applicant. May 21, 2024 Page 5 Pleasant Harbor MPR,” dated November 17, 2023. This document says that: Given the pace and concurrent nature of the anticipated manufacturing on-site, it is confusing at best to view this development process as phases. The Developer is obligated to follow the court ruling, and in order to meet these requirements of Amenities to coincide with Residential Move-Ins, we are proposing to manufacture the various components in the order set down in the 2019 amendment to the Development Agreement. (Italics in Original). The more recent “2024-03-20 Phasing Response” is equally vague and incoherent: The reference to “phases” in the Project Narrative was a poor choice of words. The intent of the Project Narrative was to explain general sequencing of development. It was not intended to propose a new “phasing” plan. The attached revised Project Narrative removes the reference to phasing. To be clear, the project is not being phased in the sense that the applicant has not applied for a preliminary subdivision of a portion of the MPR and securing final plat, and developing the final platted property before subdividing other portions of the MPR. Rather, the Applicant has opted to secure preliminary subdivision approval of the entire MPR. The sequencing of development of Preliminary Facilities, Public Amenities and other resort development will, however, continue to comply with the requirements of the Development Agreement, state law, and the Jefferson County Code. As the proposed subdivision includes multiple lots, units and tracts, it is essential that a sequence of construction of these facilities be set forth to meet Master Planned Resort requirements. Since the Applicant has been, and continues to engage in “presales” of residential units, a clear understanding of what a consumer can expect is required to meet Consumer Protection rules. 3. Facilities for “Sanitary Wastes.” A preliminary plat must make adequate provision for treatment and disposal of sanitary wastes. The project includes 890 residential “units,” 216 residential “lots” and a number of restaurants, pubs and other dining facilities. The “sanitary wastes” that will require treatment are substantial and far exceed any prior development in Jefferson County. However, though a tract for a sewage treatment plant is set aside, there is no design or plan for this facility that might meet the standard of “adequate provision” to treat sanitary wastes. The preliminary plat should be denied for this reason. If the applicant were to post a security bond in the amount required to construct this facility by Jefferson County, together with all collection facilities and pump stations, that might be considered, but no such security is proposed by the applicant. Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 6 4. Facilities for “Potable Water.” One of the plat features that requires a showing of “adequate provision” is “potable water.” As noted above, the size of this development requires substantial infrastructure to provide water to the many residential and commercial uses. Again, there is no plan that shows how water, together with distributions systems, can be provided for this massive development. As with provisions for Sanitary Wastes, no financial guarantee or security is provided to assure the County that these essential utilities will be constructed. In addition, more fully described below, the Applicant has engaged in a comprehensive program to “presell” residential lots and units and states it will continue that effort. Any purchaser under a “presell” agreement should be assured that basic utilities, such as water and sewer, will be available on closing. If these “presell” purchasers find water or sewer services are not available, it is likely they will demand the County provide such services based on subdivision approval. 5. Fire Flow . The application materials include a reference to requirements of county codes re “adequate water sources and facilities for fire protection.” The response is a single page, with an undocumented reference stating “system design criteria requires it to deliver 2000 gallons per minute.” However, there is no indication of the duration required for such minimum fire flows. The “Project Description” found in the notice for comments lists some 890 residential units and a community center, including 37 tracts for residential and commercial buildings. The fire flow requirements for buildings with high occupancy loads and sleeping units, some of which are multi-story buildings, are very substantial. The system will plainly require large water storage tanks to provide extended duration for fire flows. However, the response from the applicant is without substance: Once the preliminary plat is approved the PHMPR will produce and submit the final water system design including the fire protection system. The project team understands that the infrastructure to service a structure will need to be installed and tested including the fire system prior to obtaining development permits for buildings. Given the size and extent of this proposal, this response is woefully insufficient. It is fully inappropriate to piecemeal fire protection issues to individual buildings; fire suppression facilities must consider the entirety of the proposal. See JCC 18.35.330. This response is also deficient by not identifying the fire equipment available to fight fires in this area, which must include the six story “parkade” and the 206 room, four story hotel. Moreover, there is no plan or showing as to how wildland fires on this extensive wooded property will be suppressed and how the spread of fire to adjacent properties on Black Point will be contained. May 21, 2024 Page 6 4. Facilities for “Potable Water.” One of the plat features that requires a showing of “adequate provision” is “potable water.” As noted above, the size of this development requires substantial infrastructure to provide water to the many residential and commercial uses. Again, there is no plan that shows how water, together with distributions systems, can be provided for this massive development. As with provisions for Sanitary Wastes, no financial guarantee or security is provided to assure the County that these essential utilities will be constructed. In addition, more fully described below, the Applicant has engaged in a comprehensive program to “presell” residential lots and units and states it will continue that effort. Any purchaser under a “presell” agreement should be assured that basic utilities, such as water and sewer, will be available on closing. If these “presell” purchasers find water or sewer services are not available, it is likely they will demand the County provide such services based on subdivision approval. 5. Fire Flow. The application materials include a reference to requirements of county codes re “adequate water sources and facilities for fire protection.” The response is a single page, with an undocumented reference stating “system design criteria requires it to deliver 2000 gallons per minute.” However, there is no indication of the duration required for such minimum fire flows. The “Project Description” found in the notice for comments lists some 890 residential units and a community center, including 37 tracts for residential and commercial buildings. The fire flow requirements for buildings with high occupancy loads and sleeping units, some of which are multi-story buildings, are very substantial. The system will plainly require large water storage tanks to provide extended duration for fire flows. However, the response from the applicant is without substance: Once the preliminary plat is approved the PHMPR will produce and submit the final water system design including the fire protection system. The project team understands that the infrastructure to service a structure will need to be installed and tested including the fire system prior to obtaining development permits for buildings. Given the size and extent of this proposal, this response is woefully insufficient. It is fully inappropriate to piecemeal fire protection issues to individual buildings; fire suppression facilities must consider the entirety of the proposal. See JCC 18.35.330. This response is also deficient by not identifying the fire equipment available to fight fires in this area, which must include the six story “parkade” and the 206 room, four story hotel. Moreover, there is no plan or showing as to how wildland fires on this extensive wooded property will be suppressed and how the spread of fire to adjacent properties on Black Point will be contained. Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 7 6. Construction Prior to Final Plat Approval. Your April 19, 2024 letter to me, at page 2, states: “The preliminary subdivision is a land division application that does not authorize construction.” However, the Applicant has provided a lengthy “Sequence of Construction” dated November 11, 2023, which lists the work that is planned without reference to phasing or plat review. Related to utilities such as sewer and water, #5 on the list is “Commence the slab for the wastewater treatment plant equipment” but nowhere does the applicant describe the design, permitting or construction of the wastewater treatment plant itself. Such work is contrary to the commitment made by the County in the plat notice that: “No Construction is authorized as part of the preliminary plat application.” Jefferson County cannot avoid requiring complete and thorough compliance with state and local subdivision requirements by claiming the subdivision does not authorize construction of individual houses, condominiums, hotels or other developments. 7. Preservation of Protected Trees. Section 6.03 of the proposed CC&RS’s references “Preservation of Protected Trees” but there is no designation of such trees, their species or location. Such trees should be identified in the Vegetation Plan before preliminary plat approval. 8. Anticipated Lot Sales and Presales. The “Sequence of Construction” submittal, dated November 11, 2023, has a list of twenty-seven separate activities on the site. One of the activities is the following: “10) Commence presales for the single-family lots and the Sea-View Villas with plan of subdivision.” As noted in our prior correspondence, this applicant has been engaging in this illegal pre-sale activity for more than two years already. In our letter of February 2, 2024, we addressed not only the subdivision proposal, but also the litany of unfulfilled promises included in various website postings. Pages 6-7 of our letter documented offerings and sales materials advertising for sale residential real estate of various types. Based on these, we requested that the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney take steps under RCW 58.17.100 to prevent further advertisements for sale of properties within the subdivision proposal now before the County for review. In response, you state at page 4, apparently based on some unidentified conversations with the Jefferson County Prosecutor, that: We agree that the Statesman group is advertising the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Report project. But lots, tracts or parcels are not identified in the advertisements and Jefferson County is not aware of the advertisement for or pre-sale of any specific lots, tracts, or parcels in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned project. May 21, 2024 Page 7 6. Construction Prior to Final Plat Approval. Your April 19, 2024 letter to me, at page 2, states: “The preliminary subdivision is a land division application that does not authorize construction.” However, the Applicant has provided a lengthy “Sequence of Construction” dated November 11, 2023, which lists the work that is planned without reference to phasing or plat review. Related to utilities such as sewer and water, #5 on the list is “Commence the slab for the wastewater treatment plant equipment” but nowhere does the applicant describe the design, permitting or construction of the wastewater treatment plant itself. Such work is contrary to the commitment made by the County in the plat notice that: “No Construction is authorized as part of the preliminary plat application.” Jefferson County cannot avoid requiring complete and thorough compliance with state and local subdivision requirements by claiming the subdivision does not authorize construction of individual houses, condominiums, hotels or other developments. 7. Preservation of Protected Trees. Section 6.03 of the proposed CC&RS’s references “Preservation of Protected Trees” but there is no designation of such trees, their species or location. Such trees should be identified in the Vegetation Plan before preliminary plat approval. 8. Anticipated Lot Sales and Presales. The “Sequence of Construction” submittal, dated November 11, 2023, has a list of twenty-seven separate activities on the site. One of the activities is the following: “10) Commence presales for the single-family lots and the Sea-View Villas with plan of subdivision.” As noted in our prior correspondence, this applicant has been engaging in this illegal pre-sale activity for more than two years already. In our letter of February 2, 2024, we addressed not only the subdivision proposal, but also the litany of unfulfilled promises included in various website postings. Pages 6-7 of our letter documented offerings and sales materials advertising for sale residential real estate of various types. Based on these, we requested that the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney take steps under RCW 58.17.100 to prevent further advertisements for sale of properties within the subdivision proposal now before the County for review. In response, you state at page 4, apparently based on some unidentified conversations with the Jefferson County Prosecutor, that: We agree that the Statesman group is advertising the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Report project. But lots, tracts or parcels are not identified in the advertisements and Jefferson County is not aware of the advertisement for or pre-sale of any specific lots, tracts, or parcels in the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned project. Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 8 (Emphasis in original). However, a brief review of the sales materials presented by Statesman indicates that Statesman is, and has been for some time, offering for sale specific properties within the proposed subdivision. Specifically for the “Seaview Villas,” Statesman’s website contains the information found at Attachment A hereto. As seen, the offering contains facades of residences for sale and includes floor plans (two floors), unit sizes and sales prices. For the Seaview Villas, the sales material says: There are only 162 Villas from 1,850 sf. to 2,300 sf available. Select a VILLA with 2 bedrooms, and either a den or media room with parking for two cars or one car and one 26 ft boat. (Emphasis supplied.) This material was also included in Attachment I to our February 2, 2024 letter. A portion of that webpage has a “CONTACT US” box. There is no question this is an offering for sale of specific units. The mass mailer titled “The Seattle Signal” unequivocally stated: Pre-sales begin Fall 2022, contact them today for updates and to be the first in line for this community. See Attachment B. Another of the website offerings by Statesman is found in Attachment A. On the same webpage as the residential villas and lots are long lists of “Amenities” for both Indoors and Outdoors, which are at best fanciful, including: Golf Course and Pro-Shop for both 9-holes and 18-hole challenges Family Fun Center with Tree-Topper Adventure with multi-ZIP-LINES Walking-on-Water League Play: Junior Hockey-Soccer-Lacrosse-Volleyball-Figure Skating Indoor Pools for Swim Meets and Family Entertainment The Royal Flush Indoor/Outdoor Water slide Conference Center and Theater None of these facilities currently exist; indeed, there are no designs, plans or building/construction permits for any of these items. While the current subdivision proposal sets aside “Tracts” for these facilities, together with a single line drawing of a potential building perimeter, there are no applications to construct them. Indeed, as you point out, no construction is permitted by approval of the preliminary plat. However, the current promotional materials treat these as existing amenities, showing, for instance, a colorful facade of a large hotel and conference center. Indeed, Pleasant Harbor continues its advertising efforts described above and its website containing the representations remains available as of April 23, 2024 (see Attachment A) and today. See https://pleasantharbormarina.com/stay/residential. Our recent public records request for county permitting documents reveals not even a discussion of these items May 21, 2024 Page 8 (Emphasis in original). However, a brief review of the sales materials presented by Statesman indicates that Statesman is, and has been for some time, offering for sale specific properties within the proposed subdivision. Specifically for the “Seaview Villas,” Statesman’s website contains the information found at Attachment A hereto. As seen, the offering contains facades of residences for sale and includes floor plans (two floors), unit sizes and sales prices. For the Seaview Villas, the sales material says: There are only 162 Villas from 1,850 sf. to 2,300 sf available. Select a VILLA with 2 bedrooms, and either a den or media room with parking for two cars or one car and one 26 ft boat. (Emphasis supplied.) This material was also included in Attachment I to our February 2, 2024 letter. A portion of that webpage has a “CONTACT US” box. There is no question this is an offering for sale of specific units. The mass mailer titled “The Seattle Signal” unequivocally stated: Pre-sales begin Fall 2022, contact them today for updates and to be the first in line for this community. See Attachment B. Another of the website offerings by Statesman is found in Attachment A. On the same webpage as the residential villas and lots are long lists of “Amenities” for both Indoors and Outdoors, which are at best fanciful, including: • Golf Course and Pro-Shop for both 9-holes and 18-hole challenges • Family Fun Center with Tree-Topper Adventure with multi-ZIP-LINES • Walking-on-Water • League Play: Junior Hockey-Soccer-Lacrosse-Volleyball-Figure Skating • Indoor Pools for Swim Meets and Family Entertainment • The Royal Flush Indoor/Outdoor Water slide • Conference Center and Theater None of these facilities currently exist; indeed, there are no designs, plans or building/construction permits for any of these items. While the current subdivision proposal sets aside “Tracts” for these facilities, together with a single line drawing of a potential building perimeter, there are no applications to construct them. Indeed, as you point out, no construction is permitted by approval of the preliminary plat. However, the current promotional materials treat these as existing amenities, showing, for instance, a colorful facade of a large hotel and conference center. Indeed, Pleasant Harbor continues its advertising efforts described above and its website containing the representations remains available as of April 23, 2024 (see Attachment A) and today. See https://pleasantharbormarina.com/stay/residential. Our recent public records request for county permitting documents reveals not even a discussion of these items Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 9 during project review. Because of the development agreement, these are required features within the proposal. The applicant must make “a threshold showing that the completed development is able to comply with applicable zoning ordinances.” See Knight v City of Yelm, supra, 173 Wash.2d at 343-44. The failure to address these issues – and demonstrate compliance with the Development Agreement – requires rejection of this proposal. 9. Financing of Project Features. As indicated above, the applicant has indicated its intention to continue its aggressive “presale” activity, even before the preliminary plat has been reviewed. Under these circumstances Jefferson County should confirm that “no presales for the single-family lots and Sea-View Villas” are permitted until the final plat is approved and project infrastructure completed. JCC 18.35.360 requires construction of infrastructure within the plat, or a surety bond (JCC 18.35.350) in the amount of 200 percent of the cost of subdivision improvements, as a prerequisite for final plan approval. RCW 58.17.205 permits the sale of a lot “following preliminary plat approval” if it is “expressly conditioned on the recording of a final plat” and if “all payments . . . shall be deposited in an escrow or other regulated trust account and no disbursement to seller shall be permitted until a final plat is recorded.” Since these presales are currently ongoing, and the applicant says they will continue, the issue of presales must be addressed. We have particular concern regarding the financing of infrastructure for this project. The plan presented will require substantial construction and expense, given its substantial size and rural location. The plan includes a full sewage treatment plan, water lines and facilities; fire suppression facilities and equipment; installation of miles of roads, a new intersection with State Route 101, and a golf course with irrigation piping. All facilities are proposed to be privately owned and the funding of all maintenance and repair of these substantial facilities will apparently be the responsibility of a home owners association, as indicated by the draft “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor.” (the CCRs). However, the responsibility for each of the residential lots, condominium units and commercial properties is not clear. Section 2.02 references the following: Section 2.02 “Allocated Interest” shall mean the Common Expense Liability and the votes in the Association allocated to each Lot and Unit. The formula for the Allocated Interests is an equal share to each Lot and Unit for the total to equal 100.00 percent. The total number of Lots and Units on the Property shall not exceed 890 without the approval of Jefferson County. However, there is no formula for determining the responsibility of each tract or lot in the May 21, 2024 Page 9 during project review. Because of the development agreement, these are required features within the proposal. The applicant must make “a threshold showing that the completed development is able to comply with applicable zoning ordinances.” See Knight v City of Yelm, supra, 173 Wash.2d at 343-44. The failure to address these issues - and demonstrate compliance with the Development Agreement - requires rejection of this proposal. 9. Financing of Project Features. As indicated above, the applicant has indicated its intention to continue its aggressive “presale” activity, even before the preliminary plat has been reviewed. Under these circumstances Jefferson County should confirm that “no presales for the single-family lots and Sea-View Villas” are permitted until the final plat is approved and project infrastructure completed. JCC 18.35.360 requires construction of infrastructure within the plat, or a surety bond (JCC 18.35.350) in the amount of 200 percent of the cost of subdivision improvements, as a prerequisite for final plan approval. RCW 58.17.205 permits the sale of a lot “following preliminary plat approval” if it is “expressly conditioned on the recording of a final plat” and if “all payments . . . shall be deposited in an escrow or other regulated trust account and no disbursement to seller shall be permitted until a final plat is recorded.” Since these presales are currently ongoing, and the applicant says they will continue, the issue of presales must be addressed. We have particular concern regarding the financing of infrastructure for this project. The plan presented will require substantial construction and expense, given its substantial size and rural location. The plan includes a full sewage treatment plan, water lines and facilities; fire suppression facilities and equipment; installation of miles of roads, a new intersection with State Route 101, and a golf course with irrigation piping. All facilities are proposed to be privately owned and the funding of all maintenance and repair of these substantial facilities will apparently be the responsibility of a home owners association, as indicated by the draft “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor.” (the CCRs). However, the responsibility for each of the residential lots, condominium units and commercial properties is not clear. Section 2.02 references the following: Section 2.02 “Allocated Interest” shall mean the Common Expense Liability and the votes in the Association allocated to each Lot and Unit. The formula for the Allocated Interests is an equal share to each Lot and Unit for the total to equal 100.00 percent. The total number of Lots and Units on the Property shall not exceed 890 without the approval of Jefferson County. However, there is no formula for determining the responsibility of each tract or lot in the Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 10 community. For example, what percentage is allocated to an individual single family lot? What percentage is allocated to each condominium tract, and will each condominium unit have a share of maintenance responsibilities? What portion of the construction, maintenance and upkeep will each owner be responsible for? Section 8.04 seems to say that each unit will be responsible for an equal share, however, expenses can be “specially allocated” to certain lots under Section 8.10. Will each of the 890 lots and units be responsible for common expenses? Section 2.13 seems to exclude the “tracts” on which the conference center and 206 room hotel will be located from payment of these common area expenses, however, such facilities will use the majority of the community services such as water, sewer, roads, electricity, gas, etc.. Will each lot or unit be responsible for a portion of costs for construction and maintenance of the sewer treatment plant and water system, including somehow the conference center and hotel? Since the owner has expressed its intention “to commence presales” for single family lots and “Sea-View Villas” it is essential that each prospective owner know what their responsibilities for financial contribution to the community will be. Based on the foregoing, we request that the County find that the present application does not meet minimum requirements for a subdivision under state law, Jefferson County codes and the Development Agreement for the property, and accordingly the current subdivision proposal be denied. In addition, we again request that Jefferson County follow state law and commence an action to restrain the continuing “offers or advertisements for sale or transfer” of portions of the pending subdivision until and unless a final plat is approved. JRA:cc cc: Brinnon Group; Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us; Mike Fong, Director, Washington State Department of Commerce, mike.fong@commerce.wa.gov; Josh D. Peters, AICP, Jefferson County Community Development Director, Jpeters@co Jefferson.wa.us; Pinky Feria Mingo, Jefferson County Director, Environmental Health & Water Quality, pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us; Port Townsend Leader; Peninsula Daily News; Exhibit 65W May 21, 2024 Page 11 Port Townsend Free Press; Jefferson County Daily News; Olympic Peninsula Environmental News; Hood Canal Environmental Council (Phil Best). May 21, 2024 Page 11 Port Townsend Free Press; Jefferson County Daily News; Olympic Peninsula Environmental News; Hood Canal Environmental Council (Phil Best). Exhibit 65W Attachment A Attachment A Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Attachment B Attachment B Exhibit 65W The Seattle Signal 308913 US Highway 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 PR SRT STD US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT N0 1541 OKLA CITY, OK 731 HOW DO WE WANT TO LIVE? COMING SOON THE HAMLET OF PLEASANT HARBOR. THIS IS THE FUTURE HOW AMERICANS WANT TO LIVE! GOLF COURSE VISTA LOTS are fully serviced and for sale in various .1.. widths and depths, with spectacular views. These lots are available to those who want to build a dream home perfect for their lifestyle. While some are golfing or enjoying REJUV-Health, others benefit from the Recreation Centers indoor pools, skating and hockey rink, indoor soccer, racquetball and numerous training facilities for league sports, as well as the Family Fun Center. filled lowerJ SEA VIEW VILLAS are sinLlevel living for guests. The villas vary in size from 1850-2350 square feet and include three bedrooms plus a den/media room (with 5G connection) as well as a two-car attached garage that can accommodate a 28-foot boat. Talk about retiring the right way! -Z TERRACED LOFTS are single level suites of various sizes with extraordinary ™ window walls to enjoy the views of the sea and the gracious mountain peaks. These are mainly adult living homes where people focus on living and retaining their Wellness. REJUV- Health exercise therapists work with residents emphasizing that to be healthy and to extend longevity, you must understand what your body is saying to you when you read your Lab Results & Vitals. /I THE INN BY THE SEA has two-bedroom for lease suites. Guests can stay * for a weekend sporting event or a month for the ultimate vacation. Where on earth can you experience activities, such as learning to sail, enjoying a conference, or an entertainment evening, or engaging in various league sporting challenges such as competitive swimming, hockey or soccer matches—while building a lifetime of fond memories for you and those you love. THE MARITIME VILLAGE for-lease and shorter stay suites are located ’ above the Farmers Marketplace where Pleasant Harbor guests and residents shop for fresh fruit, herbs and leafy greens and vegetables grown hydroponically right at the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor. "The recent pandemic has been a catalyst for change in the United States of America and abroad. Values, manifesting in the character of the people is more evident now than ever before. This identifiable change appears to be ' based on a desire to focus on what’s most important. Be it health, security, fitness, friendships and or social interaction; folks are asking themselves: HOW DO WE WANT TO LIVE?" Dr. M. Garth Mann, Director THEHAMjiT OF i RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER GOLF RESORT MARINA A NEW CONCEPT-DESIGN FOR SECURE, HEALTHY LIVING OFF HIGHWAY 101 Just a 2-hour scenic drive around or ferry ride across Puget Sound This brand-new HAMLET has been designed with security, recreation, entertainment, activities and improved wellness through medical & kinesiology at its core. Added to these concepts is a focus on socialization and the ideal sporting life with like-minded friends. The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor is adjacent to Puget Sound’s Hood Canal. The well-protected deep water marina houses 300 vessels and is framed by the natural beauty of the Olympic Mountains, Olympic National Park, and Forest. A truly idyllic destination, where nature predominates this all-weather community with both indoor and outdoor facilities to satisfy the year-round interests of residents and guests. The Seattle Signal 308913 US Highway 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 PRSRTSTD US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT N0 1541 OKLA CITY, OK 731 HOW DO WE WANT TO LIVE? li COMING SOON.. THE HAMLET OF PLEASANT HARBOR. THIS IS THE FUTURE- HOW AMERICANS WANT TO LIVE! GOLF COURSE VISTA LOTS are fully serviced and for sale in various A widths and depths, with spectacular views. These lots are available to those who want to build a dream home perfect for their lifestyle. While some are golfing or enjoying REJUV-Health, others benefit from the Recreation Center’s indoor pools, skating and hockey rink, indoor soccer, racquetball and numerous training facilities for league sports, as well as the Family Fun Center. y SEA VIEW VILLAS are single level luxury living, with sun-filled lower sbd level living for guests. The villas vary in size from 1850-2350 square feet and include three bedrooms plus a den/media room (with 5G connection) as well as a two-car attached garage that can accommodate a 28-foot boat. Talk about retiring the right way! CZ TERRACED LOFTS are single level suites of various sizes with extraordinary <«, ™ window walls to enjoy the views of the sea and the gracious mountain peaks. These are mainly adult living homes where people focus on living and retaining their Wellness. REJUV-Health exercise therapists work with residents emphasizing that to be healthy and to extend longevity, you must understand what your body is saying to you when you read your Lab Results & Vitals. /i THE INN BY THE SEA has two-bedroom for lease suites. Guests can stay 1 for a weekend sporting event or a month for die ultimate vacation. Where on earth can you experience activities, such as learning to sail, enjoying a conference, or an entertainment evening, or engaging in various league sporting challenges such as competitive swimming, hockey or soccer matches—while building a lifetime of fond memories for you and those you love. CZ THE MARITIME VILLAGE for-lease and shorter stay suites are located ’ above the Farmers Marketplace where Pleasant Harbor guests and residents shop for fresh fruit, herbs and leafy greens and vegetables grown hydroponically right at the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor. "The recent pandemic has been a catalyst for change in the United States of America and abroad. Values, manifesting in the character of the people is more evident now than ever before. This identifiable change appears io be ' based on a desire to focus on what’s most important. Be it health, security, fitness, friendships and or social interaction; folks are asking themselves: HOW DO WE WANT TO LIVE?" Dr. M. Garth Mann, Director THE HAMLET OF I RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER GOLF RESORT MARINA A NEW CONCEPT-DESIGN FOR SECURE, HEALTHY LIVING OFF HIGHWAY 101 Just a 2-hour scenic drive around or ferry ride across Puget Sound This brand-new HAMLET has been designed with security, recreation, entertainment, activities and improved wellness through medical & kinesiology at its core. Added to these concepts is a focus on socialization and the ideal sporting life with like-minded friends. The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor is adjacent to Puget Sound’s Hood Canal. The well-protected deep water marina houses 300 vessels and is framed by the natural beauty of the Olympic Mountains, Olympic National Park, and Forest. A truly idyllic destination, where nature predominates this all-weather community with both indoor and outdoor facilities to satisfy the year-round interests of residents and guests. Exhibit 65W K & >5 - 4 ’#• T a r F 4 A Secure, Self-Contained and Sustainable, Gated Community The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor offers more than anywhere else in the Pacific Northwest. Whether it’s exploring nature, playing golf or living aboard on the still waters of the Marina, people discover how simple it is to fulfill their desire for a quality, peaceful lifestyle in this sanctuary. The grandchildren will want to visit every weekend to race the indoor electric Hamlet Karts with Grandpa. • The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor Utility District will provide exceptional drinking water, and a wastewater treatment plant, plus geothermal healthy heating and cooling system, with solar panels for off-setting electrical energy costs. • Lake Pleasant is a large reservoir for irrigation and fire prevention. Residents will enjoy the waltzing waters in the evening as the calm music de-stresses your lifestyle. • Pleasant Harbor Farms will grow its own leafy-greens and vegetables plus fruits and herbs that are served by the chefs at our marketplace food court. • Pleasant Harbor Security has an internal network of technology and skilled staff protecting residents and guests within this gated community. On site wellness professionals safeguard residents with recommended procedures to mitigate pandemics and other health concerns. • Pleasant Harbor Forest will provide multiple pathways for hiking and biking adventures, bordering views of the golf course. • Pleasant Harbor Marina will be world class 'with a full-service fuel dock and pump-outs for vessel lengths from 25 to 70 feet. Pleasant Harbor Recreation and Convention Center will offer a variety of activities and entertainment for all ages where like-minded neighbors and friends enjoy indoor and outdoor events. Pleasant Harbor Management will provide residents and guests with the best services; because it is our home too— and we CARE. Advanced Medical Group (AMG) will include medical and wellness facilities. The REJUV-Health Center is recognized for utilizing the Four Pillars to preserve wellness. People will visit from around the globe; being coached through learning how to read your biometric/vitals for improved wellness and longevity. AMG is a healthy atmosphere for wellness recovery Pleasant Harbor Wines plus Crafts/ Drafts will become a respected label for quality house-wines and crafts/ drafts served throughout the various Food Courts. Pleasant Harbor Ecology practices environmental techniques for preserving the water environment through natural fertilizers, sanitation and insecticides. Pleasant Harbor General Contractors is a Statesman GC, in Washington state, nearing half a century of state- of-the-art construction techniques for modular and panelized quality. Our motto, “What a Beautiful Way to Live,” steadfastly remains our vision statement even after thousands of residential properties. Work from Home is becoming very common today. The Hamlet is planning 5G reception with exceptional WIFI. The HAMLET of PLEASANT HARBOR: A MARINA & RECREATION COMMUNITY can never be duplicated. This one-of-a-kind location is off Coast Highway 101, where residents expect to enjoy their life within this self-contained and sustainable community that has been designed to protect A Beautiful Way to Live! Pre-sales begin Fall 2022, contact them today for updates and to be the first in line for this community Vancouver [stand Clallam Bay Sekiu (5g) Sequkn Forks Olympic National Park Quilcene ® Brinnon Seattle eatac Airport Hoquiam Olympia Victoria Town- end GETTING THERE >Only a 2-hour drive from Sea-Tac Airport 308913 US HWY 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 (206) 747-5522 ■ info@hamletofpleasantharbor.com Hamletofpleasantharbor.com /ARBOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER GOLF RESORT MARINA A Secure, Self-Contained and Sustainable, Gated Community The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor offers more than anywhere else in the Pacific Northwest. Whether it’s exploring nature, playing golf or living aboard on the still waters of the Marina, people discover how simple it is to fulfill their desire for a quality, peaceful lifestyle in this sanctuary. The grandchildren will want to visit every weekend to race the indoor electric Hamlet Karts with Grandpa. • The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor Utility District will provide exceptional drinking water, and a wastewater treatment plant, plus geothermal healthy heating and cooling system, with solar panels for off-setting electrical energy costs. • Lake Pleasant is a large reservoir for irrigation and fire prevention. Residents will enjoy the waltzing waters in the evening as the calm music de-stresses your lifestyle. • Pleasant Harbor Farms will grow its own leafy-greens and vegetables plus fruits and herbs that are served by the chefs at our marketplace food court. • Pleasant Harbor Security has an internal network of technology and skilled staff protecting residents and guests within this gated community. On site wellness professionals safeguard residents with recommended procedures to mitigate pandemics and other health concerns. • Pleasant Harbor Forest will provide multiple pathways for hiking and biking adventures, bordering views of the golf course. • Pleasant Harbor Marina will be world class with a full-service fuel dock and pump-outs for vessel lengths from 25 to 70 feet. Pleasant Harbor Recreation and Convention Center will offer a variety of activities and entertainment for all ages where like-minded neighbors and friends enjoy indoor and outdoor events. Pleasant Harbor Management will provide residents and guests with the best services; because it is our home too— and we CARE. Advanced Medical Group (AMG) will include medical and wellness facilities. The REJUV-Health Center is recognized for utilizing the Four Pillars to preserve wellness. People will visit from around the globe; being coached through learning how to read your biometric/vitals for improved wellness and longevity. AMG is a healthy atmosphere for wellness recovery. Pleasant Harbor Wines plus Crafts/ Drafts will become a respected label for quality house-wines and crafts/ drafts served throughout the various Food Courts. Pleasant Harbor Ecology practices environmental techniques for preserving the water environment through natural fertilizers, sanitation and insecticides. Pleasant Harbor General Contractors is a Statesman GC, in Washington state, nearing half a century of state- of-the-art construction techniques for modular and panelized quality. Our motto, “What a Beautiful Way to Live,” steadfastly remains our vision statement even after thousands of residential properties. Work from Home is becoming very common today. The Hamlet is planning 5G reception with exceptional WIFI. The HAMLET of PLEASANT HARBOR: A MARINA & RECREATION COMMUNITY can never be duplicated. This one-of-a-kind location is off Coast Highway 101, where residents expect to enjoy their life within this self-contained and sustainable community that has been designed to protect A Beautiful Way to Live! Vancouver Island Victoria Town end Sequkn —< Forks Olympic National Park Qullcen* ® Brinnon Seattle eatac Airport Hoquiam Olympia Pre-sales begin Fall 2022, contact them today for updates and to be the first in line for this community GETTING THERE >Only a 2-hour drive from Sea-Tac Airport 308913 US HWY 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 (206) 747-5522 ■ info@hamletofpleasantharbor.com Hamletofpleasantharbor.com /ARBOR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER GOLF RESORT MARINA Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W LAW OFFICES OF J. RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300 www.aramburulaw.com Seattle, WA 98104-1797 www.aramburu-eustis.com Telephone 206.625.9515 Facsimile 206.682.1376 June 10, 2022 Consumer Protection Division Washington State Attorney General’s Office Consumer Resource Center 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau PO Box 27170 Washington, DC 20038 Re: Offering Materials for the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor, Jefferson County, Washington State Dear CPD and CFPB: This office represents the Brinnon Group, a Washington non-profit corporation organized in 2008 to protect the residential, environmental and community values of the greater Brinnon Community. For the past fifteen years, the Brinnon Group has been involved with the possible development of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) on a 230 acre portion of the larger Black Point area on the western side of Hood Canal (approximately 15 miles south of the Hood Canal Bridge) on Highway 101. The PHMPR proposal is located in Jefferson County. As will be described herein, the Brinnon Group is concerned that the project proponent is improperly soliciting sales of interests in the PHMPR through mail offerings and internet solicitations. Because there are no applications, approvals or permits for substantially all references to infrastructure and improvements in the Pleasant Harbor solicitation materials, the offering materials are inaccurate and actions should be taken to require these solicitations to cease until definitive plans for the PHMPR have been completed. Exhibit 65W June 10, 2022 Page 2 BACKGROUND: MASTER PLANNED RESORTS Under the Washington State Growth Management Act (the GMA), “Master Planned Resorts” are permitted under limited circumstances as described in RCW 36.70A.360. MPRs “may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section.” RCW 36.70A.360(1). The statute defines an MPR as follows: 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. The Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington has produced guidance for development of MPRs in a document entitled “Master Planned Resorts ‘Washington Style’” which at page 17 provides further guidance: The requirement that MPRs be self-contained means that visitors and residents should be able to meet most of their daily needs on site, without having to leave the site. Because visitors come to these destination resorts for extended rather than just overnight stays, MPRs must serve as a “home away from home” as well as to provide a variety of special recreational opportunities for its guests. If needs are met on-site, traffic and other demands on neighboring community facilities will likely be reduced. As noted, MPRs cannot be just another residential development, but must meet particular requirements to be allowed in rural areas. HISTORY OF PHMPR Prior to 2006, the Statesman Group of Companies, a real estate developer, acquired a 256 acre property in the Black Point area which was a former trailer campground previously owned and operated by the Thousand Trails Company. In 2006, Statesman requested that Jefferson County designate its property on Black Point as a Master Planned Resort. In January 2008, the County gave the proposed PHMPR an underlying land use designation of Master Planned Resort. In 2018, Jefferson County approved Ordinance 03-0604-18 adopted new zoning and on Exhibit 65W Appendix D Appendix D Exhibit 65W August 22, 2024 Cristina Haworth, AICP SCJ Alliance Senior Project Manager 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 Delivered to Email: cristina.haworth@scjalliance.com Re: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort: Preliminary Plat Application Cristina: As you are aware, my client The Brinnon Group has been following and commenting on the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (“PHMPR”) for many years. Indeed, my client filed litigation in 2017 challenging the Development Agreement. On March 28, 2019, the Court held the Development Agreement was contrary to law by “failing to include a community center” as required by county ordinances and because Phase I of the project failed to include necessary required resort amenities. The Court decision required changes in the Development Agreement that were later adopted by the Commissioners. The PHMPR is a large, complex development that is subject to mandatory features required by the GMA for master planned development, as included in the 2019 Amended Development Agreement. Recently, the developer has filed an application for a preliminary plat for the proposal. Even before a comment period was noticed for this application, The Brinnon Group filed comments on the plat proposal on February 2, 2024. You responded to our letter on April 16, 2024. A Notice of the application announcing a comment period was filed on May 1, 2024. The Brinnon Group filed detailed comments on May 21, 2024, addressing a number of code requirements and concerns regarding this project. We were pleased that the County, through you, sent separate technical and civil review comments to the applicant, both dated July 3, 2024. These comments were detailed and dealt with a variety of important subjects. For example: Exhibit 65W August 22, 2024 Page 2 • The technical review comments required the Applicant to submit plans for intersection improvements at Black Point Road and Highway 101 (Paragraph 44, Civil Review Comments), noting this improvement was a condition of the Development Agreement between the County and the Developer. • Paragraph 32 of the technical review comments required the applicant to submit “an updated transportation impact analysis.” • A more basic request for information included plans for wells and the project’s water distribution systems (Paragraph 56, Civil Review Comments). • Similarly, your Civil Technical comments show that proposed road widths are only 10 feet, when fire protection standards require 12 feet plus shoulders (Civil Review Comments, p. 6, Paragraph 38). • As to residential use requirements under the Jefferson County Code, Paragraph 5 of the Technical Review comments addresses the requirement to have 65% of units be short-term rentals. Many of the topics in your review letters were addressed by the Brinnon Group in its several comment letters. We appreciate that you have included those important requirements in your response to the applicant’s latest proposal. The Jefferson County Code at 18.40.110, entitled “Determination of complete application – Additional information and project revision,” identifies clear procedures for replies to County requests for additional information such as those found in the July 3, 2024 civil and technical review comments. The applicant “shall have 90 calendar days to respond to a determination that . . . additional information is required” or to request additional time. As you are aware from your extensive experience, the issuance of review letters by local government, and review of the responses, is the foundation of orderly review of local land use permit applications such as preliminary plats, providing documentation of issues and their potential resolution. Given this background, we were surprised to learn that the applicant requested reconsideration of the two technical review letters in their entirety without providing any responses to the sixteen pages of comment and their 86 separate paragraphs. Now we learn that the reconsideration request was not in writing, but was made verbally, apparently at a private meeting with the applicant, thus both the meeting and the applicant’s review request were undocumented and not noticed to the public. Apparently, the applicant’s verbal request for reconsideration has been granted by you and applies to all issues raised in the review correspondence. This process is completely at odds with orderly review processes and also with the specific terms of the Jefferson County Code. The undocumented request and grant of reconsideration of important project requirements raises questions of special treatment to this applicant. Our courts have held that: Exhibit 65W August 22, 2024 Page 3 The acts of administering a zoning ordinance do not go back to the questions of policy and discretion which were settled at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Administrative authorities are properly concerned with questions of compliance with the ordinance, not with its wisdom. State ex rel. Ogden v. Bellevue, 45 Wn.2d 492, 495, 275 P.2d 899 (1954). Ogden was cited in Eastlake Com. Coun. v Roanoke Assoc, 82 Wn 2d 475, 482 (1973) for the following rule: This rule is of equal force in the administration of a building code. To permit another course of administrative behavior, thereby inviting discretion, may well result in violations of the equal protection of the laws. The code is positive in its requirements and contains no exceptional procedures like those employed here; hence, no city officer was authorized to permit its violation. The duty of those empowered to enforce the codes and ordinances of the city is to insure compliance therewith and not to devise anonymous procedures available to the citizenry in an arbitrary and uncertain fashion. The undocumented and unsupported request for reconsideration of the carefully prepared civil and technical review comments, and your grant of that request, is contrary to the plain Jefferson County Code requirements. Devising “anonymous procedures” to avoid code requirements for a major development project is not permissible, especially for a project of this magnitude. Based on the foregoing, we urge you to rescind the grant of any verbal or other request for reconsideration of your review comments, to insist on clear answers to the content of the review letters and to promptly make such information available to the public. Thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions, please let me know. J. Richard Aramburu JRA:cc cc: The Brinnon Group Exhibit 65W Appendix E Appendix E Exhibit 65W LAW OFFICES OF J.RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300 www.aramburulaw.com Seattle, WA 98104-1797 www.aramburu-eustis.com Telephone 206.625.9515 Facsimile 206.682.1376 September 6, 2023 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Delivered Via Email: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us RE: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Dear Commissioners: This office has, for many years, represented the Brinnon Group, a Washington non- profit corporation formed due to concerns with a resort development proposed by the Statesman Group near Black Point in the Brinnon area. This proposal, the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) includes recreational amenities, including a 205 room hotel, a golf course, a community center, water slide, tennis courts, a hockey rink, basketball court and swimming pool. These features will require a full sewer system and water supply facilities. In addition, Statesman has proposed substantial residential development including residential subdivisions and condominiums. As the Commissioners are aware, this proposal has lacked continuously adequate funding; a far back as 2016, the developer presented proposals to Jefferson County for substantial public funding for this facility totally more than $37M. Master Planned Resorts (MPR), such as the PHMPR, are permitted as a special exception to the limitation of urban style development in the rural area under RCW 35.70A.360, “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.” In short, MPRs do not simply authorize another housing development, but require the creation of recreational facilities combined with short-term visitor accommodations. MPRs are now allowed as just another residential development. Against this background, in June, 2018, the Commissioner adopted new zoning for the PHMPR and, at the same time, approved a Development Agreement (DA) for the Exhibit 65W September 6, 2023 Page 2 PHMPR in Ordinances No.03-0604-18 and 04-0604-18 respectively. My client believed that this zoning and DA was inconsistent with both the underlying zoning for the property and the mandatory features of an MPR set forth in RCW 36.70A.360. Accordingly the Brinnon Group filed suit in Kitsap County Superior Court challenging these ordinances. Following briefing and argument to the Court, on March 28, 2019, Judge Sally Olsen entered an order reversing the ordinance approving the Development Agreement and remanded it back to the Jefferson County Commissioner. Judge Olsen specifically found that Phase 1 of the development did not contain provisions to assure the required recreational elements of the proposal necessary to make it a “Master Planned Resort” would stand alone if no further phases were completed. She noted that Phase 1 as proposed failed to include a golf course, a spa, sports court, pool, water slides, a recreation center, a conference center, staff quarters or community space. She specifically found that a community center as required by the underlying was not included in the development. Neither the developer Statesman nor Jefferson County appealed Judge Olsen’s ruling, but instead amended the Development Agreement consistent with her March 28, 2019 order. Amended Phase 1 includes golf course construction, road construction, Highway 101/Black Point Road intersection improvements and the wastewater treatment plant. Phase 1 also now includes the community/recreational center with 208 hotel units, pool, water slides, commercial space, sport courts, a maintenance building, and a section with 52 units for staff quarters. The MPR features must be completed before residential development is permitted. My client has reviewed the June 5, 2023 Commissioners meeting at which the PHMPR was discussed and an agreement between the developer and Jefferson County was approved concerning the payment of County expenses in processing the PHMPR permits. At the meeting, there was discussion of the intention of the developer Statesman to pursue a “subdivision” proposal in 2024. The nature of this proposal was not disclosed. However, no residential development in this MPR can proceed without construction of the recreational facilities described above, in particular the construction of the golf course, recreational center with hotel rooms, community center, a pool, water slides and other such facilities. It is notable that in the 4 ½ years since the Superior Court’s decision, there has been little or no progress on the required recreational features of the Master Planned Resort. As far as we known, no permit applications have been submitted for the golf course, recreation center, hotel, or any of the other required recreational elements. These features must be built out prior to the construction and sale of residential lots, finished homes or condominium units. Exhibit 65W September 6, 2023 Page 3 Though we expect that Jefferson County will follow its codes developed after the ruling of Judge Olsen, the Brinnon Group continues to follow the review and permitting of any development to assure the prior rulings, codes and requirements are fully followed. Thank you for this opportunity to address this important subject. Sincerely, /s/ Jra Richard Aramburu J. Richard Aramburu JRA:cc cc:Brinnon Group Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, phunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us Josh D. Peters, AICP, Community Development Director, JPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us Roma Call, Director, Natural Resources Dept., Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, romac@pgst.nsn.us Peninsula Daily News, news@peninsuladailynews.com The Leader, news@ptleader.com Jefferson County Health Department, info@jeffersoncountypublichealth.org Kevin LoPiccolo, Director, Clallum County Health Department, P.O. Box 1612, Forks WA 98331 State of Washington Department of Health, wadepthealth@doh.wa.gov, Office of the Secretary of Health Umair A. Shah; Drinking Water ODW.Mail@doh.wa.gov, Healthy Communities marylyn.dold@doh.wa.gov, Prevention and Community Health Janna.Bardi@doh.wa.gov, Wastewater WasteWaterMgmt@doh.wa.gov, Board of Health wsboh@sboh.wa.gov State of Washington Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Manager Joenne McGerr, joenne.mcgerr@ecy.wa.gov Exhibit 65W Appendix F Appendix F Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Appendix G Appendix G Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Exhibit 65W Appendix H Appendix H Exhibit 65W 1 April 9, 2018 Wechner Consulting 502 NE 6th St. Coupeville WA 98239 (360) 682-2573 J. Richard Aramburu ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue Pacific Building Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-1860 Mr. Aramburu: This letter is written in response to your request to review the master plan and proposed final development agreement for the development commonly known as Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon, in Jefferson County. I am a professional land use planner with more than 25 years of experience in the fields of environmental and land use planning. A statement of my qualifications is attached to this letter. As Planning Director of Josephine County, Oregon from March 2011 through June 2013, I dealt with a proposed destination resort known as Paradise Ranch, to be located on Monument Drive north of the unincorporated community of Merlin. The Pleasant Harbor proposal is substantially similar to the Paradise Ranch proposal, and raises similar issues I encountered in regards to that project. Provisions of Josephine County’s ordinance (Article 96, Josephine County Rural Development Code) are taken directly from State of Oregon statute (ORS 197.435-467) detailing thresholds of phasing and financial commitment and other standards to define destination resorts, which the County incorporated into their decision. There are other provisions scattered throughout the Oregon Administrative Rules regarding establishment of enterprise zones, distinguishing taxing districts for destination resorts, and other regulations regarding sewer and water provisions for this type of development. If a development agreement contains these elements, at least on paper it can work, but the structure of the agreement doesn't assure its success. Despite the County’s ordinance provisions, conditions of plat and site plan approvals, and a phasing plan designed to guide resort development in the timing of public infrastructure and on-site amenities to make the project a success, Paradise Ranch remains a failed effort with no foreseeable date of completion. Notable in the publication titled Master Planned Resorts, “Washington Style” by the Municipal Research Service Center is the following statement: “Master planned resorts are typically large undertakings that will take years (and sometimes decades) to complete all phases. To be successful, resort developers must make a substantial investment in recreational facilities and other amenities. Much of this investment must occur before substantial revenues come in. Like the agriculture business, resort businesses that Exhibit 65W 2 provide outdoor recreation facilities, such as golf or ski areas, may suffer from the whims of the weather. After reviewing North American resort and recreational projects over a 30-year span, some resort industry leaders estimated that as few as 10 percent were profitable for the original developer (Middleton, 1994)” (1) The failure of Paradise Ranch in Josephine County created foreclosures on individual lots, several lawsuits among vested interests, and pressure on the County to provide ‘fixes’ for the parties holding property. The developer agreed to a phasing plan to get the approval, then wanted to change the timing and requirements of several components, as the golf course wasn't finished, and they didn't have funding to build the hotel and other amenities. Basically, it was destined to become just another golf- course subdivision (in a rural area), not what the Oregon Legislature had in mind, nor Josephine County. Despite approval of the final plat in 2008, the Paradise Ranch project is still in limbo, due in part to its fractured ownership and lack of financial foresight and management. Part of the golf course was constructed, but only three (3) holes of the projected champion course-length eighteen (18) holes have ever been played. After infrastructure for public water was extended and streets roughed-in, individual lots were sold but could not be built. The sewer system needed to meet Department of Environmental Quality standards, and required the participation of parties other than the developers; it has never been constructed, though on-site piping was installed for some of the lots. The overnight lodging required as part of conditions of approval could not be financed, due to poor projections of actual usage, the large capital outlay required for construction and infrastructure (e.g. parking, sewer system). Despite all the developer’s assurances and conditions designed to create the resort, and improvements in the local economy since its initial approval in 2007, the developer filed for bankruptcy and the project is now essentially dead. Unfortunately, an unfinished project is often worse than no project at all. The farm and forest lands have been altered to create a golf course, but the result is a “course” that cannot be played, and the ground must extensively re-worked to do anything else (e.g. rough grading to re-create farm fields, removing sand bunkers and greens, course irrigation and sewer pipes). There have been alternative proposals for the project, such as an outdoor marijuana grow, 10-acre subdivision lots (for the portion of land originally zoned for that density), and a wildlife park. The years of investment made in the property is essentially lost, and future plans will be hampered by the cost of undoing what incomplete work has been done. Josephine County now deals with three new owners with vested interests. Washington Federal Bank owns the lots with existing structures (including the “clubhouse” and existing residence that preceded the development proposal). Paradise Ranch Land Development, LLC owns most of the vacant residential lots, which cannot be built as the roads, water and sewer systems have yet to be approved, financed, or fully built. Pebble Beach, LLC owns the large golf course lot. Portions of the Paradise Ranch project are being advertised for sale in the local real estate market, but with caveats designed to forewarn potential buyers of development restraints. (2) The County takes the position they have a valid permit that treats all the parcels as one development site, and until rescinded by Paradise Ranch (et al.), they cannot allow parts to be developed in contrast to that approved development plan/permit. The complexity of the master planned resort development scheme, the financial complexity of such a proposal, and ownership interests of multiple parties create an atmosphere of instability that does not bode well for a successful project going forward. Any Exhibit 65W 3 municipal government should avoid granting final plat as Josephine County did in this case, as the granting of land division and/or site plan approval should be a final step before ownerships are divided, not a financing tool designed to save a project begun without adequate funding and management commitment in place. A minimum investment criterion is established for destination resorts, based on Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. At least $7 million is required for on-site developed recreation facilities and visitor-oriented accommodations for “large destination resorts” (similar in concept to Washington’s Master Planned Resort on a site of 160 acres or more). At least one-third of this amount must be spent on recreational facilities. This amount does not include expenditures for sewer, water and road improvements. The same Oregon Goal calls for a $2 million investment (one-third of it for recreation facilities) for “small destination resorts”. (3) The fatal flaw in the County’s action, was its response to the developer’s request to move to final plat despite infrastructure not yet constructed, nor actual financial security in hand for the improvements. The financial ‘assurances’ Commissioners relied upon to approve the plat were not substantiated; the developer apparently hoped to sell enough lots to obtain the financing needed to construct the subdivision, and use the ownership of individuals as leverage to convince the County to underwrite the sewer system that had yet to be financially supported. Douglas County, Oregon includes in their regulation: “Recreational facilities and other day facilities intended to serve a particular phase shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through performance bonding mechanisms.” (emphasis added). (4) While Josephine County saw more detail in the specific methods to provide services, arrange lots and design of buildings than the Pleasant Harbor plan, they saw little more than a ‘letter of commitment’ from a lender to the developer, rather than a performance bond. The developer and County moved forward with development approvals, including final plat, which allowed the developer to pull individual investors into the project, one lot at a time. These people lost significant value on their land investment, either lost in foreclosure, or as owners simply walked away because their dream homes could not be built. Likewise, Jefferson County commissioners should not proceed with a development agreement without demonstration in the form of finances in hand, and demonstrated experience of the developer’s capabilities as manager to complete the project, and run it after construction. Lessons can be learned from projects such as Paradise Ranch; the Tamarack Ski Resort in Idaho; Creekside Golf Club in Salem, Oregon; and, the recent demise of several destination resorts in the Poconos of Pennsylvania. (5) When these projects fail, they burden local government with back taxes due, foreclosures, the attractive nuisance of abandoned properties, and, lost opportunity for other (less ambitious) projects on the same ground. A recurring theme of these failed ‘big dream’ projects: they almost always end up asking locals and/or local government to partner with them (and their struggles), or bail them out entirely. Paradise Ranch developer urged the County to underwrite and force the development of a sewer system that would serve his project, sought (and gained) final plat approval to sell lots without infrastructure to provide them much-needed cash. He also requested amendments to conditions of approval to allow development to take place out-of-sequence. The homeowners association of Tamarack Ski Resort now Exhibit 65W 4 own the place, a partially-built ski area and half-constructed buildings that make up much of the resort. (6) The Creekside Golf Club asked the City of Salem to drop its water rates, members of the homeowner’s association to pay triple their current fees, instigated a one-time fee and raised membership rates for golf club members – all to stay in business. The course is still open, but homeowners of the associated subdivision recently learned (after keeping the development afloat for years), the owner may close the course and develop homesites on the 18 holes. (7) A similar experience occurred on the Battle Creek golf course in Salem, it closed in 2007 and became a subdivision. Examples abound of projects that could not be sustained; the end result typically a legal and financial quagmire that impacts investors, builders, local jurisdictions, community citizens and the land itself. In summary, if Jefferson County officials have not adopted specific investment targets, identified in the developer agreement, they should at least have convincing assurance that the project is economically viable before committing to County approval. The developer should produce market plans and analysis that demonstrate that a proposed resort can succeed and benefits to the community will materialize. Current and projected market analysis is needed to demonstrate the economic viability of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, specific to this location. Comparison studies are helpful, but each location has a unique set of circumstances which compel both pros and cons of a subject site, and ultimately, the success or failure of a destination resort. In addition, a developer should provide evidence of sufficient company experience and financial backing to manage a large-scale, long-term venture. A pro forma financial statement is typically drafted by developers to obtain financing or demonstrate their financial backing, by detailing projected revenues, costs, timeline for recovery of investment and monies set aside for contingencies. The Vision document filed by the developer, dated Aug. 19, 2016 anticipates a large portion of the development to be funded with public money, and ownership transfers to either state or local government. Even the local tribes would be “encouraged” to invest in the project (the Indigenous Interpretive Center). While taxpayers do own County buildings and land, making them landowners within the grounds of a privately-run resort may result in an obligation of responsibility without control of a public asset. There is relatively high risk inherent in a complex project such as a destination resort, requiring a large initial capital outlay and patience for a long-term return on investment. The County code contains a provision regarding Major Revisions to the Port Ludlow MPR, repeated in proposed Section 17.08.080(1)(i): A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not limited to transportation, water, sewer and stormwater facilities; and a demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for. This is an excellent provision of code, requiring foresight to scope the project before revisions to the master plan; and, directing the developer to demonstrate infrastructure is in place, or will be provided by the developer. Ironically, this level of detail is not evident in the initial plans for the Pleasant Harbor development, and it should be before the County commits to approval of the development agreement. The development agreement and master plan presented by the Pleasant Harbor proposal does not address several important issues: discrepancies between the FEIS site plan and phasing plan; market feasibility for a destination resort at this site; architectural standards for the development; substantiated capabilities of the developer to construct infrastructure and recreation amenities before lots are sold; management experience of developer or assigned operations manager; preliminary cost estimates for infrastructure; water rights for groundwater withdrawal; demonstrated feasibility of the site for a Exhibit 65W 5 wastewater treatment facility and on-site discharge outside of critical aquifer recharge areas. Requiring the developer simply comply with state standards is not adequate assurance the project is feasible. These issues should be resolved before the County can approve this development with confidence. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. David L. Wechner, M.S. AICP Attachment References 1. Middleton, Scott Where is Resort Development Heading? Urban Land, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, Aug. 1994 (cited in) Master Planned Resorts, “Washington Style” 2003 Municipal Research Service Center, Seattle, WA 2. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-015-0000(8) 3. Lands of America real estate listing: https://www.landsofamerica.com/property/7000-Monument- Drive-Grants-Pass-Oregon-97526/5241749 4. Douglas County Oregon Land Use and Development Ordinance, Article 50, Sec. 3.50.050(6) Minimum Investment 5. Lawles, Seph (Feb. 2017) The Honeymoon Capital of the World Is Now Beautifully Abandoned Retrieved from: Huffington Post https://www.huffingtonpost.com 6. Dougherty, Conor (Feb. 2017) They Came to Ski Idaho Slopes. Now They’re Saving the Ski Resort Retrieved from: New York Times https://www.nytimes.com 7. Loew, Tracy (April 2016) Still struggling, Creekside Golf Club seeks City's help Retrieved from: The Statesman Journal https://www.statesmanjournal.com Exhibit 65W Appendix I Appendix I Exhibit 65W Development & Manufacturing of the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor Sequence of construc�on 11/17/2023 To; DCD Peters and Cris�na Haworth SCJ Alliance From; John Holbert Project manager for The Hamlet at Pleasant Harbor MPR There has been a lot of discussion surrounding the phasing or manufacturing of the residen�al – commercial -- recrea�onal components for the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor as allowed for in the 2018 development agreement and the 2019 amendment, which brings the development agreement into compliance with the March 28, 2019, Kitsap Superior court decision (the LUPA Decision). Given the pace and concurrent nature of the an�cipated manufacturing on-site, it is confusing at best to view this development process as phases. The Developer is obligated to follow the court ruling, and in order to meet these requirements of Amenities to coincide with Residential Move-Ins, we are proposing to manufacture the various components in the order set down in the 2019 amendment to the Development Agreement. Upon receipt of the appropriate building permits, developer will use temporary construc�on site power to build the Agra-Center which is required for manufacturing the various modules and panels indoors, to be temporarily stored at the material processing area adjacent to the Agra-Center. 1) Survey & site clearing & grading for future impervious building sites and installa�on of the site u�lity services including the rough grading and gravelling of the road network. 2) Site contouring for retaining surface water on-site and determining the geotechnical requirements for the below grade parking iden�fying the survey for building footprints. 3) Commence the foo�ngs and founda�on for the Staff Housing, enabling atrac�on of skilled labor, to begin the fabrica�on for the 52 residen�al dual suites for staff accommoda�on. 4) Layout the golf course fairways & greens as a recipient for excess materials during excava�ons. 5) Commence the slab for the wastewater treatment plant equipment – tanks –connec�ons, as well as excava�on for the Reservoir (Lake Pleasant) including a Pit Liner for reten�on of +/- 50MM gallons of reclaimed water and storm water reten�on. (precludes the need for LOSS) 6) Complete the potable water wells. 7) Excavate +/- 12 feet for foo�ngs and founda�on for the Recrea�on Community Center’s Pools and Hockey / Soccer Arena 8) Excavate for foo�ngs and founda�on for the 6-story parking structure so the conference center is at the similar grade to the Recrea�on Center and connected by a pedestrian bridge / breezeway. 9) Manufacture concrete panels for the structural integrity of the Recrea�on & Conference Center. 10) Commence presales for the single-family lots and the Sea-View Villas with plan of subdivision. Exhibit 65W 11) During the construc�on of the Recrea�on & Conference Centers, we commence building sold Villas so their occupancy date coincides with the comple�on of the main ameni�es. 12) Excavate the parkades for Olympia House & Cascadia House and pour foo�ngs and founda�ons for residents future parking. 13) Commence construc�on of the modular suites for the 220 suite Inn by the Sea, that is manufactured to fit on the base level of the mezzanine and marketplace for the Recrea�on Community Center. 14) Commence the manufacturing of modules for the 2-bedroom suites for Olympia and Cascadia House. 15) Provide the final internal road grading and asphalt for the primary coat along with the rebuilding of the Black Point Road connec�on to Highway 101. 16) Start the implementa�on of the vegeta�on management plan. 17) Complete on the exis�ng site the water storage tank at the highest point on the property along with li�-pump sta�ons to move sewage up-grade. 18) Build a steel 10-foot fence around the property with main entrance gates for security and two auxiliary property owner gates. 19) Grand Opening for the main ameni�es for the Recrea�on Community Center and the Conference Center along with various sold and occupied Villas and Single-Family Homes. 20) Con�nue the manufacturing of modular walls and panels for Sea View Villas 21) Once the excava�ons have been completed, including Eagle’s Nest and Mari�me Village. 22) The excess material on the fairways will be contoured to produce a championship golf course. 23) Commence construc�on of the Mari�me Village, with Farmer’s Marketplace and Shoo�ng Gallery plus the 66 suite Motel Lodge. 24) Commence construc�on of the Eagles’ Nest 25) Single Family Homes are custom built by third party builders and must be occupied within 3 years of purchase of the estate lots. 26) Complete the second coat of asphalt now that large vehicles have exited. 27) Forma�on of Pleasant Harbor U�lity District and Homeowners Associa�on. It should be understood that the underground services and roads will not be completed for the en�re project, before other construc�on begins. The roads and services will be incomplete during construc�on but compete at occupancy. up to each facility prior to developer seeking occupancy. John Holbert PE Exhibit 65W