Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75_Aramburu (The Brinnon Group) PHMPR Comment to HX 20251014October 14, 2025 Jefferson County Hearing Examiner for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, File No. SUB2023-00025 c/o Agency Contact per Notice of Hearing: GTerry@co.jefferson.wa.us This office represents the Brinnon Group, a local public interest organization that been actively involved in review and comment on the proposal for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR) development for many years. The Brinnon Group was the Plaintiff in litigation that required the applicant and Jefferson County to modify the Development Agreement for the proposal in 2018, described in various places in the record and on page 12 of the Staff Report. Since the conclusion of the litigation and required amendment of the Development Agreement in 2019, my client has continued to comment on the PHMPR and processing of the various requests for approvals by the project’s sponsor, the Statesman Group. Some of the comment letters written by the undersigned on behalf of the Brinnon Group are included in the record here: • Exhibit 65A dated 2023-0906 • Exhibit 65B dated 2024-0202 • Exhibit 65G dated 2024-0521 • Exhibit 65H dated 2024-0822 • Exhibit 65I dated 2025-0122 The Brinnon Group’s most recent comment letter, dated September 16, 2025, is not an Exhibit in the record, but is attached hereto (Attachment A). This letter was delivered based upon the comment deadline provided by the county, which was a day before the issuance of the Staff Report, and accordingly does not address its contents. All of this correspondence is incorporated by reference. As the Examiner will see, the correspondence addresses a central theme: that this Applicant does not really intend, nor have the organizational or financial capacity, to develop a major destination master planned resort at this location. Rather, the evidence indicates the Applicant seeks to build a commonplace suburban subdivision without the features required for a Washington master planned resort. As indicated in RCW 36.70A.360(1): October 14, 2025 Page 2 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. (Emphasis supplied). A master planned resort, referred to herein as “an MPR,” is a limited exception to construction of urban density developments in rural areas. The statute is very clear concerning the provision of utilities and services to an MPR: (2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, stormwater, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by the resort . A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas. Id. (Emphasis supplied). “Other residential uses” are allowed in an MPR, but subject to strict limitations: (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). As described in the Brinnon Group’s prior correspondence, over the past twenty years since this MPR was proposed, the Applicant has failed to put together a feasible plan for development of the PHMPR. Even now there are no drawings, renderings or plans for the central features of the PHMPR, including the hotel, conference center and associated recreational facilities. Rather, the Applicant has only proposed a preliminary plat that creates separate lots for each use in the development. Though the Amended Development Agreement from 2019 requires phasing of development, the Applicant now provides “a revised Project Narrative (which) removes the reference to phasing.” Exhibit 40 to the Staff Report. The new by-word is “sequencing,” described as follows: October 14, 2025 Page 3 So, from a sequencing standpoint, the applicant will begin constructing the essential infrastructure and the Section 10.2 “Preliminary Facilities” needed to service the lots and tracts first so it can secure final plat approval. This includes constructing roads and utilities like water, sewer and stormwater.1 Additionally, the applicant will begin the grading and construction work for the golf course after preliminary plat approval. Footnote 1 above discloses the intent to further bifurcate and divide the proposal by seeking partial approval of the MPR elements: 1 The applicant may opt to apply for final plat approval for a portion of the larger preliminary plan of subdivision however any partial request for final plat approval will follow the segregation of planned development in the DA to allow for appropriate sequencing of development of the MPR. It is evident that the Applicant proposes to keep compliance with MPR requirements both fluid and uncertain. Unfortunately, the Staff Report issued by the county retains the uncertainty and fails to require enforceable conditions to assure that the necessary MPR features of the proposal are developed and that the residential development contemplated really meets the required “integration and support” of the on-site recreational nature of the resort. The following sections of this letter address the multiple deficiencies in the subdivision application, including its lack of compliance with provisions of state law and Jefferson County ordinances and with local and state requirements for MPRs and, applicable to this proposal, the Amended Development Agreement from July, 2019. As described herein, the current proposal should not be granted preliminary subdivision approval, or if approval is considered, multiple conditions must be placed on the proposal to assure the subdivision is consistent with MPR statutes, Jefferson County ordinances and the Amended Development Agreement. 1. IMPROPER INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS : REQUEST FOR RECUSAL. As the Examiner is aware, the office of the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner was established by the Jefferson County Commissioners in Ordinance 12-19, creating Chapter 2.30 to the Jefferson County Code (JCC). Though historically decisions on preliminary subdivisions are made by the Commissioners, under RCW 36.70.970 counties are allowed to create a Hearing Examiner system and make the Examiner’s decision final, avoiding a decision from the Commissioners. October 14, 2025 Page 4 Under JCC 2.30.060, the Hearing Examiner is to have “freedom from improper influence;”explicitly under Subsection 2: (2) No county commissioner, county official, county employee, or any other person shall interfere or attempt to interfere with the examiner or deputy examiners in the performance of their designated duties. (Emphasis supplied). In the present case, the Notice of the plat hearing was prepared by from Jefferson County Staff, dated August 27, 2025, and placed on the Jefferson County website, which also has a Commissioners’ statement with the following entry: This document serves to state clearly the values of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (Board) regarding the proposed MPR. That May 27, 2025 statement presents the “Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort and Values of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.”See Attachment B. This statement of “Values” is also in the record submitted by Jefferson County Staff, located at https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/727/Pleasant-Harbor-Master-Planned-Resort directly under “Development Agreement Appendices-MOUs.” Whether the Applicant requested that the Commissioners write this statement of “Values” is not disclosed. The “Values” document includes the following statement: The Board is an unequivocal and enthusiastic supporter of this project for these reasons: (Emphasis supplied). The “reasons” for this “unequivocal support” mostly focus on unsupported and undocumented claims of economic benefit, sales tax revenue, wages for local residents, and increased assessed property values.1 The Commissioners cite no provisions of Jefferson County codes that preliminary plat decisions should be based on whether the proposal will provide economic benefits to the County. This unequivocal support is dated May 27, 2025, well before the public comment period even started, before the Staff Report was issued and before the October 15, 2025 public hearing was even scheduled. This plain and “unequivocal” statement of “Values” is intended to influence the Hearing Examiner in clear violation of JCC 2.30.060(2), which specifically prohibits the Commissioners from interfering in the performance of the Hearing Examiner’s duties. 1Though this MPR was originally proposed more than twenty years ago, none of the alleged benefits of local wages and tax revenue have materialized. October 14, 2025 Page 5 Notably, the Hearing Examiner is “selected by the board of county commissioners” and the Examiner’s term is “pursuant to a contract executed by the board of county commissioners.” JCC 2.30.050. The Commissioners’ May 27 “Values” statement, particularly made a part of the public notice for the hearing, is a clear attempt to influence the Examiner, by claiming economic loss to the County if the Examiner disapproves the proposal. JCC 2.30.060(1) specifically states that: “(1) The appearance of fairness doctrine, as set forth in Chapter 42.36 RCW, shall apply to the examiner and all deputy examiners.” The deliberate introduction of “Values” of the Jefferson County Commissioners in their May 27, 2025 statement violates the appearance of fairness doctrine and due process rights of participants in the hearing. Failure to abide by their “Values” statement, and the Commissioners’ “unequivocal and enthusiastic support of this project” could result in the termination of the Examiner’s contract if the proposed plat is denied or economically impacted by the upcoming decision. Unfortunately, the “Values” statement creates a conflict of interest and creates the appearance of unfairness in the subdivision hearing, requiring the Hearing Examiner to recuse himself from hearing this matter. 2. THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR BASIC UTILITIES. 2.1 Water and Sewer Facilities. A basic and fundamental requirement of the subdivision process is to assure there will be basic utilities available to the new lots approved in the preliminary subdivision. The purpose section of the state subdivision statute, RCW 58.17.010 provides that “the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state.” Accordingly the subdivision process must meet certain minimum requirements: The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and schoolgrounds and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress October 14, 2025 Page 6 Id. (Emphasis supplied). These requirements are mandatory for all subdivision proposals in Washington local governments: “Every subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter.” RCW 58.17.030. Local Jefferson County subdivision regulations require the following: 18.35.310 Approval criteria In addition to the review criteria provided Chapter 18.40 JCC, the following criteria are the minimum measures by which each proposed subdivision will be considered: (1) Long subdivisions shall be given preliminary approval, including preliminary approval subject to conditions, upon finding by the county that all of the following have been satisfied: . . . . (b) Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed subdivision shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage ways, roads, streets , other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sewage disposal, parks, playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school; Potable water, sewage disposal and adequate streets are essential elements in any subdivision. As with any subdivision application, there must be an assessment of the “utilities and public service necessary to serve the needs of the proposed subdivision.” For garden-variety subdivisions, local government reviewers ensure they are consistent with utilities concerns, assuring connection with the local water and sewer district and sufficient access to arterial streets. However, this subdivision is far beyond the typical residential subdivision. The notice of application for this project, as of August 25, 2025, describes the subdivision being reviewed as follows: Revised Project Description: Preliminary plat application to develop the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (PHMPR). PHMPR was approved by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 on January 28, 2008, and is regulated under a Development Agreement (approved on June 4, 2018) with amendments (dated June 4, 2018 and July 22, 2019). 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. October 14, 2025 Page 7 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. The preliminary plat will create 150 residential lots for various detached and attached dwelling units for both temporary and permanent occupancy and 29 tracts for residential and commercial buildings, golf course fairways, private roads and utilities, open space, storm drainage, and park-and-ride. The preliminary plat has been modified from its initial submission to be consistent with the Phasing Plan in Section 10 of the development agreement , as amended. The notice describes additional required permits: State Permits and Approvals: Wastewater Treatment Plant approval, Water System Plan Approval, Construction Stormwater, General Permit (NPDES Permit), groundwater well permit, WSDOT permit for Highway 101 intersection improvements, modular construction permit, water recreation facility construction permit,2 Transient Accommodations License, various business licenses. As noted, the proposed subdivision must be consistent with “the Phasing Plan in Section 10 of the Development Agreement, as amended.” In Phase 1, the following elements are required: • “Construction of the golf course” • “Complete Highway 101 and Black Point Intersection improvements” • “Build wastewater treatment plant” • “Water storage tank” • “Construct sanitary sewer pump stations” • “Formation of a water and sewer district.” Subdivisions must also be processed together with other land use applications under RCW 58.17.070: Unless an applicant for preliminary plat approval requests otherwise, a preliminary plat shall be processed simultaneously with applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals, and similar quasi-judicial or administrative actions to the extent that procedural requirements applicable to these actions permit simultaneous processing. 2The “water recreation permit” may be for a water slide that has been included in some promotional materials distributed by the Applicant. October 14, 2025 Page 8 RCW 58.17.195 further requires that any plat must be consistent with local land use plans and regulations: 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. In the case of the present application, the Hearing Examiner must make a “formal written finding of fact” that the preliminary subdivision conforms to the terms of the Amended Development Agreement before this preliminary subdivision is approved. As described above, the Applicant proposes, and is required by the Amended Development Agreement to complete: “formation of a water and sewer district” which will be responsible for constructing, maintaining and operating the required sewer and water facilities.” We note that this Phase 1 requirement was included in a Phasing Map dated July 17 2017, now more than 8 years ago, and attached to the Amended Development Agreement. A water-sewer district may be “formed” by submitting a petition to the county legislative body pursuant to RCW 57.04.030(1). The petition must include financing provisions: The petition shall specify the proposed property tax levy assessment, if any, which shall not exceed one dollar and twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, for general preliminary expenses of the district. Id. An election is required if the county legislative authority approves the creation of the sewer-water district, RCW 57.04.050. The election must include a separate ballot regarding financing: A separate ballot proposition authorizing the district, if created, to impose a single-year excess levy for the preliminary expenses of the district shall be submitted to voters for their approval or rejection at the same special election, if the petition to create the district also proposed that a ballot proposition authorizing an excess levy be submitted to voters for their approval or rejection. The excess levy shall be proposed in the amount specified in the petition to create the district, not to exceed one dollar and twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, and may only be submitted to voters for their approval or rejection if the special election is held in February, March, April, or May. The proposition to be effective must be approved in the manner set forth in Article VII, section 2(a) of the state Constitution. October 14, 2025 Page 9 (Emphasis supplied). Even if there are no actual residents under RCW 57.04.140, there is an “Alternate Method” of forming a water-sewer district. An application for this “Alternate Method” of formation is submitted to the county legislative authority, in this case the Jefferson County Commissioners, on request of sixty percent of the owners. The Commissioner “shall review the proposed district according to the procedures and criteria in RCW 57.02.040.” The financing of any new sewer and water district is governed by RCW 57.04.050 as described above. The applicant has had more than eight years to request the formation of a Pleasant Harbor MPR water-sewer District, but no application to the Commissioner has been made nor has a financing plan been disclosed. Water-sewer districts must also adopt a “general comprehensive plan for the type or types of facilities the district proposes to provide” under RCW 57.16.010. For comprehensive plans, both the sewer and water systems must “provide for the acquisition or construction and installation of laterals, trunk sewers, intercepting sewers, syphons, pumping stations or other sewage collection facilities, septic tanks, septic tank systems or drainfields, and systems for the transmission and treatment of wastewater.” RCW 57.16.010(2). For both water and sewer plans there must be: a long-term plan for financing the planned projects and the method of distributing the cost and expense thereof, including the creation of local improvement districts or utility local improvement districts, and shall determine whether the whole or part of the cost and expenses shall be paid from revenue or general obligation bonds. Id. The water-sewer comprehensive plan: “shall be approved, conditionally approved, or rejected by the director of health and by the designated engineer within sixty days of their respective receipt of the plan.” RCW 57.16.010(7). Of particular concern here is that if a water-sewer district is formed, but becomes “inactive” or other fails, financially or otherwise, the Jefferson County must take over responsibility for it. A district becomes “inactive”under the following criteria: (3) "Inactive" means that a special purpose district is characterized by any of the following criteria: (a) Has not carried out any of the special purposes or functions for which it was formed within the preceding consecutive five-year period; (b) No election has been held for the purpose of electing a member of the governing body within the preceding consecutive seven-year period or, in those instances where members of the governing body are appointed and October 14, 2025 Page 10 not elected, where no member of the governing body has been appointed within the preceding seven-year period; or (c) The special purpose district has been determined to be unauditable by the state auditor; (4) "Unauditable" means a special purpose district that the state auditor has determined to be incapable of being audited because the special purpose district has improperly maintained, failed to maintain, or failed to submit adequate accounts, records, files, or reports for an audit to be completed. RCW 36.96.010. Each year, the county auditor: “shall search available records and notify the county legislative authority if any special purpose districts located wholly or partially within the county appear to be inactive. RCW 36.96.020. If the county commissioners determine a special purpose district meets the criteria of being “inactive,” it must be dissolved by the county commissioners and cease to exist. RCW 36.96.040. The responsibility for “winding up the affairs of a dissolved special purpose district” like the proposed Pleasant Harbor Water and Sewer district will fall on the county legislative authority (the Jefferson County Commissioners) and include the following actions: (1) To exchange, sell, or otherwise dispose of all property, real and personal, of the dissolved special purpose district; and (2) To settle all obligations of such special purpose district. Such powers and duties shall commence upon the effective date of dissolution and shall continue thereafter until such time as the affairs of the dissolved special purpose district have been completely wound up. RCW 36.96.060 (emphasis supplied). These issues are important because if the proposed water-sewer district for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is undercapitalized or otherwise fails, the responsibility for resolving the problems fall to the Jefferson County Commissioners and ultimately to the Jefferson County taxpayers. The Applicant has had more than eight years to form the “water and sewer district required by the Amended Development Agreement. However, no action has been taken to either form the District or to identify the “long term plan for financing the planned projects.” As such, the Applicant has not established that the necessary provisions for water and sewer facilities are, or will be available for the subdivision. The proposed subdivision must be denied because of the failure to make October 14, 2025 Page 11 adequate provision for water and sewer facilities under the subdivision statutes and rules and under the requirements of the Amended Development Agreement. 2.2 Electric Power. Another basic utility is electrical power, without which none the proposed 890 residential units could be occupied. Electrical power will be needed to freeze the ice for a hockey rink, operate the elevators in the hotel and prepare food in the kitchens. Ordinance 01-0128-08 establishing the Pleasant Harbor MPR was adopted on January 28, 2008 and included multiple conditions and requirements, including the following: 63(bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District. See Exhibit 2, page 27, the County’s “SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE STATUS FOR PRIOR CONDITIONS (FEIS, FSEIS, Ord. No. 01-0128-08) Jefferson County Preliminary Plat Application, Case No. SUB2023-00025, Issue Date: September 15, 2025 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort” (“Compliance Status”). Under “Completion Status”, the County confirms that the condition is “Not Complete” with the following staff analysis: Mason County PUD No. 1 has indicated the property can be served with two megawatts (2.0 MW) of power. The project needs an estimated 3 MW of power. Mason County PUD No. 1 has indicated any power supply greater than 0.5 MW requires a Large Load Agreement to determine the necessary system improvements with associated costs and timeline . PHMPR has initiated this process with Mason County PUD No. 1. That a process has been “initiated” does not demonstrate that adequate provision has been made for this necessary utility under the subdivision statute. A “large load agreement” will require the Applicant to fund electric system improvements. The failure to have firm arrangements for electrical power is all the more inexcusable since Applicant has had 17 years (January 28, 2008 to September 15, 2025) to verify the availability of electric power. The lack of a contract for electrical power required both by the underlying ordinance and the Amended Development Agreement shows the applicant has not made adequate provision for this essential utility and is not ready to proceed with development. The proposed plat should be denied. October 14, 2025 Page 12 2.3 Intersection Improvements at US Highway 101 and Black Point Road. The Amended Development Agreement requires the following in Phase 1a: “Complete Highway 101 and Black Point intersection improvements.” Note the condition is not to “plan” or “submit applications” for this intersection improvement, but to “complete” the improvement. This intersection is the sole access to the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR. Exhibit 2, the Staff’s “Completion Status” reporting, says at page 28: The Resort portion of the project proposes the required right turn pocket. Improvements in the US Highway 101 right-of-way are subject to WSDOT design standards and permit requirements. Per Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement, construction is required in Phase 1 of development. Verification of construction will be required to build subsequent phases. The “Intersection Improvements Phase 1" are shown on Exhibit 4 to the Amended Development Agreement a map of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Has the applicant submitted plans to WSDOT for the required, Phase 1a work? Have they been approved by WSDOT? Exhibit 67E is an email exchange between Cristina Haworth, Jefferson County Staff and the Development Services Engineer for WSDOT, Andrew Larson, dated January 10, 2025, in which Mr. Larson states (at page 1): WSDOT’s interest will primarily be the improvements required at US 101/ Black Point Road. From the notes I have from my predecessor, the development is supposed to add a SB Left Turn Lane on US 101at the location and widen Black Point Road. We haven’t received anything from the developer yet for that work, but we will need to get the materials I listed below for review and approval after which we will be able to put together an agreement to allow the work in WSDOT R/W. As seen, there is no progress on this essential element of the Amended Development Agreement. As such there is also no “adequate provision” for roads and streets that must be “available” under the Jefferson County Code for preliminary approval of a subdivision. Again, there is no excuse for this delay. Exhibit 4 to the Amended Development Agreement called out the required intersection improvements as approved by the Jefferson County Commissioners on July 22, 2019, more than six years ago, plenty of time to prepare the necessary drawings. October 14, 2025 Page 13 3. MANUFACTURING FACILITY: CODE AND MPR COMPLIANCE . Sheet 14 of the Proposed Preliminary Plat show Tract X-7 of the proposal. It includes two buildings: “STAFF HOUSING (52 UNITS”) AND “AGRA CENTER”. Neither building is dimensioned on the drawings. Using the available scale, the “Staff Housing” is approximately 45 x 360 feet or about 16,200 square feet and the “AGRA” building is approximately 100 x 370 feet or about 37,000 square feet. No heights of these buildings are disclosed, nor are parking areas. The Staff Report at page 30 says: A housing-related MOU is adopted in Appendix J to the Development Agreement that further specifies the staff housing “will be available at the Resort to accommodate a workforce from 104 to 208 employees (52 Double Occupancy per Bedroom suites),” and that “[t]his affordable staff housing will be located above the Agra-Center/Staff Quarters, a multi-use structure in the golf course/resort area.” 3 In the Amended Development Agreement a “Maintenance/Staff Building (52 Units)” is shown in this area. This building is shown as a Phase 1 requirement in the Amended Development Agreement . At page 39, the Staff Report says: The maintenance facility for the golf course is the proposed AgraCenter building. The AgraCenter is located away from critical areas and buffers and is substantially screened by topography and existing, mature vegetation . The AgraCenter and any outdoor maintenance and operations yard will be required to conform to OSHA and DOE standards for the storage and use of hazardous materials. [CONDITION 12] (Emphasis supplied). No vegetation plan is shown as to how this building, on the edge of the MPR, will be “substantially screened.” Moreover the location and size of the “outdoor maintenance and operations yard” is not shown on any drawings. In the “Values” letter from the Commissioners dated May 27, 2025 included in the notice for the subdivision hearing, the following was disclosed: 3The need for and use of the Staff Housing is contracted by the 2024 SEPA Checklist (Exhibit 12A, page 11, which says: i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 40 permanent employees and 50 seasonal employees. October 14, 2025 Page 14 Building Permit Application In October 2024, Statesman submitted a building permit application for a 41,000- square- foot multipurpose building. DCD staff made repeated attempts to acquire information from the applicant in order be able to move forward with permit review. As confirmed by a consultant that supports DCD with commercial plans review, this missing information is needed in order for the Building Official to determine whether the ground and proposed foundation would be strong enough to support a building of that size at the planned location. Also missing from the application is a narrative on the proposed uses of the building and related details that are needed to determine the appropriate building code occupancy, which would then inform the applicant as to specific code requirements, including whether a sprinkler system would be required to be installed to comply with the International Fire Code adopted by the State of Washington. Following multiple meetings with the applicant to discuss permit status, Statesman committed on May 9, 2025 to providing all missing information, but has not done so yet. The permit application for the “41,000 square feet multipurpose building” appears to be that for the “AGRA” building on Lot X-7 of the proposed subdivision. However, no applications for building permits or similar permits can be considered by Jefferson County until the final plat is approved. No water, sewer, electrical or other services are available for this building and cannot be until extensive improvements are made, the water-sewer district is formed and State Route 101 intersection improvements are completed. These facilities will create thousands of square feet of impervious area, not counting undisclosed parking areas, that contribute to stormwater runoff. However, there are no drawings that show how stormwater will be controlled on Tract X-7 except shunting water to what appears to be an underwater vault on Exhibit 34, Sheet 10. That same drawing shows a “storm pond” with “100% infiltration” on Tract F. However, Exhibit 31D shows the same pond but with an indication that the stormwater test pit in that proposed pond is “Not Suitable” for infiltration due to the presence of “cemented silty sand with gravel.” Page 7. No test pit is shown for the underground storm pond on Tract X-17. The Staff Report indicates as follows: Project elements are adjacent to these districts along the north property line (the Recreation Center, Inn by the Sea, Conference Center, and parking garage) and along the northeast property line (staff housing, AgraCenter, surface parking lot, stormwater facilities, sewer lift station). October 14, 2025 Page 15 The proposed subdivision layout cannot accommodate the required interior lot line landscaping depth. Pursuant to JCC 18.30.130(2)(b), however, the development code administrator may authorize variations to the landscaping and screening requirements, and the Applicant is required to seek this approval during construction permitting or revise the project layout to accommodate the landscaping requirements. Variations to landscaping cannot be separated from compliance with standards. The Staff Report indicates that the applicant proposes to use the “AGRA Building” for “modular construction,” including the “assembly of prefabricated structures.” See Exhibit 12B. However, there is no indication of the number of workers in the modular construction site, the amount of traffic (especially from trucks delivering materials) or the period of time the modular construction will take place. The Applicant’s November 17, 2023 sequence of construction document indicates that applicant will use “temporary construction site power” which appears to be portable gas or diesel generators, not the electric power required from the Mason County PUD. It appears that modular construction will continue during the entirety of the project. There is insufficient description of this proposal and its impacts to meet SEPA standards. Either a supplemental EIS or an addendum is required to address the environmental impacts of this revision to the proposal. 4. MANUFACTURING FACILITY: SEPA COMPLIANCE . The proposal for modular construction fabrication is not included in the Amended Development Agreement. Nor is it included in JCC 18.15.123 as an allowable use. There is no showing that the modular fabrication must take place in the master planned resort area. Of additional concern is that the duration of the use and its impacts are not specified. The AGRA building includes provisions for a “maintenance and operations yard” without providing dimensions or uses. Nor is there compliance with the requirements of SEPA for this newly introduced facility. As described above, this manufacturing facility is not sufficiently described nor are its various impacts, including noise, number of employees, traffic, including deliveries, visual appearance, parking or other requirements. Because it is a part of the preliminary subdivision approval, these features must be identified and supplemental SEPA compliance is required.