HomeMy WebLinkAboutHX Decision, Pleasant Harbor compressed
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 1 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Before Hearing Examiner
Gary N. McLean
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
Application for Preliminary Plat
approval, submitted by
PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND
GOLF RESORT, LLP,
Applicant
(Location: The property is about 238 acres of land
previously used and developed as a campground
and RV park on the Black Point peninsula,
generally surrounded by single-family residential
development to the north, east, and west, accessible
from US Highway 101 to the west, with a high bluff
on the south side that drops to a beach along Hood
Canal, near the Brinnon community in
unincorporated Jefferson County)
_______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. SUB2023-00025
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION APPROVING
PRELIMINARY PLAT
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION.
The pending application for Preliminary Plat approval satisfies applicable review
criteria and merits approval, subject to conditions.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with all applicable development,
design, building code, engineering, and other regulations, including without limitation those
requiring verification of performance, inspections, monitoring, and maintenance associated
with conditions or mitigation measures that might be imposed consistent with this Decision
or any subsequent approval, or authorization issued by any state agency or county department
with jurisdiction over a particular aspect of the Project as on-site work unfolds.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 2 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
II. RECORD.
All exhibits entered into evidence as part of the record, and an audio recording of the
public hearing, are maintained by the County, and may be examined or reviewed by
contacting the County’s public records officer.
Exhibits:
Staff Report, recommending approval subject to conditions, with 117 pages, 22
Figures, 10 Tables, and 69 Exhibits, as identified and numbered on pages 3-7;
Addendum to Staff Report, with 24 pages, with an updated Exhibit Log;
Staff Response to Comments Submitted at the Public Hearing, with 30 pages and 4
attachments as identified and numbers on page 30.
Exhibit Log, attached: County Staff endeavored to generate a complete Exhibit Log,
that identifies and numbers items submitted as part of the record, before, during, and
after the public hearing (post-hearing submittals authorized by the Examiner before
close of the public hearing). The Staff Report items listed above are repeated on the
log, a copy of which is attached to and incorporated as part of this Decision.
Testimony: The public hearing for this matter was conducted using an online audio/video
platform coordinated by County staff, accessible to parties and members of the public using
sign-in details provided in public notices. The following persons provided testimony under
oath as part of the record during the open-record hearing:
1. Mandi Roberts, AICP, PLA, Contract Planner for Jefferson County, with the OTAK firm,
prepared the Staff Report, Addendum, and Response materials for staff, and served as the
primary staff representative through the public hearing, for Jefferson County Department of
Community Development;
2. J.T. Cook, attorney for the applicant, submitted a detailed letter addressing the applicant’s
support for most all of the analysis and recommended conditions included in the Staff Report,
noting some modifications that the applicant would prefer, asked for the opportunity to
respond to hearing comments in writing at some point after conclusion; coordinated testimony
from applicant representatives; coordinated responses from applicant team to address some
questions or comments made during course of the public hearing;
3. Garth Mann, CEO of the ownership entity, expressed thanks to those in attendance at the
hearing, noted the length of time the project has been under various reviews, including the
lengthy archaeological investigation work on the site;
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 3 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
4. Darlene Schanfald, on behalf of the Sierra Club North Olympic Group, noted that her
organization has been tracking the project since 2009; written comments are included in the
record as Ex. 65P; expressed concerns about possible sewage solids on land, what to do with
sludge, loss of land for use by area wildlife;
5. Rick Aramburu, attorney for project opponents known as the Brinnon Group, submitted
extensive written comments throughout the review process, prior to, and the day of the public
hearing, copies of which are included in the record, noted that he relies/stands on his written
materials; briefly expressed concerns that adequate provisions have not been made for various
utilities, transportation, and other aspects that should be addressed before a preliminary plat
can be approved; argued that the application cannot be approved because it is not consistent
with the Development Agreement;
6. Allie Taylor, Historic Preservation Officer with the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, expressed
the significance of the property to local tribes; expressed concerns about “Kettle Ponds” on
the project site, hoping they can be preserved; requested that maps be verified/corrected so
significant features are properly identified and legible; asked that any archeological
monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery protocols (Appx. Q) use the most current standards,
and are updated with current contact information and a current site plan;
7. Alex Scagliotti, environmental planner for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, noted the tribe is
not opposing the project or seeking its delay, but seeks to improve it in some aspects,
including request for clarification on some water quality issues, and a request for elk exclusion
fencing around the entire property;
8. Marla Powers, environmental planner with the Port Gamble S’Klallum Tribe, noted that her
tribe is also not opposing the project, but requests some conditions mentioned in her written
comments, included in the record as Ex. 78; noted request for conditions addressing Dark
Skies/lighting; understandings as to when notifications to Tribes will occur if some
monitoring benchmarks might be exceeded; regular meetings requested between developer
and Tribes during construction and periodic meetings during operation of the resort;
9. Chloe Donaldson, environmental staff with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, written
comments included in the record as Ex. 78; asked that archeological monitoring and IDP
protocols and contact details be updated; supports preservation of Kettles B and C and
wetlands on the site; expressed concerns that water quality requirements; asked for monitoring
of beaches, opportunities for public education and signs; asked for clarification of tree
retention requirements;
10. Shelly Yarnell, appeared to read a letter into the record from Susy Ames, President of
Peninsula College (Ex. 85), expressing support for the project;
11. Jean Ball, 24-year local resident, expressed strong support for the project, hoping it will bring
economic development to the Brinnon community;
12. Ryan Hodges, the applicant’s project manager, called by the applicant team to provide brief
response to some public comments, addressed the Inadvertent Discovery Plan, work on
cultural resource issues, updates, map changes, confirmed that current and updated materials
will be used if/when project work moves forward.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 4 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
All written comments received after public notices were issued are included as part
of the record. The Staff Report, the Staff Report Addendum, and Staff’s written Response to
Public Hearing Comments, all include credible, substantial, and thoughtful responses to
public comments, with citations to reports, studies, controlling regulations, and the like,
clarifying or adequately addressing such comments.
Site Visit: The Examiner personally visited the project site and roadways in the vicinity,
observing conditions and natural features on the property.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT.
Based on the record, and following consideration of all the evidence, testimony,
codes, policies, regulations, and other information included therein, the undersigned issues
the following findings of fact:
1. All statements of fact included in previous or following sections of this Decision that
are deemed to be findings of fact are incorporated by reference into this section as findings
of fact issued by the Hearing Examiner.
2. The applicant and property owner in this matter is a legal entity known as Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP.
3. The property addressed in this Decision is a 238-acre site on the Black Point
peninsula, near the unincorporated community of Brinnon, in unincorporated Jefferson
County along the west side of Hood Canal, generally south and above Pleasant Harbor. (Staff
Report, page 13; Figure 2).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 5 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
(Staff Report, page 14, Figure 2, 2023 Aerial view of project site and vicinity).
4. The application before the Hearing Examiner is a preliminary plat application.
Jurisdiction of Hearing Examiner.
5. There is no dispute that this project requires a Type III Preliminary Plat approval,
which is subject to public notice, public hearing, and a decision by the Jefferson County
Hearing Examiner. The County Code vests the Hearing Examiner with authority to hear and
issue decisions on applications for Type III land use decisions. (See JCC 18.40.040,
explaining Project permit application framework, Table 8-1, types of permits, decisions
required, and Table 8-2, showing final decision made by the Hearing Examiner on Type III
land use matters).
Property description, vicinity.
6. The property consists of variable topography ranging from flat to an extreme vertical
slope, making access down to the beach challenging [from a personal safety point of view].
(Site visit; Staff report, page 13). To the north and east, the property borders single-family
homes; single-family residences and US Highway 101 lie to the west. On the south side, a
bluff measuring between 60 and 80 feet in height descends sharply to a beach along Hood
Canal.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 6 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
7. The Staff Report explains that the property was originally homesteaded (in part) and
eventually developed and used as the “American Campground” that included RV campsites,
internal access roadways, a lodge, and various outbuildings and accessory structures. (Staff
Report, page 13; citing the FEIS Appendix 1).
8. Buildings from the former campground use have been demolished recently in accord
with permits for demolition issued by the County’s Department of Community Development.
Significant infrastructure, like internal roads and septic systems, remain in place. Aside from
areas developed for campground facilities, the property is now largely forested with existing,
mature vegetation. There are steep slopes, erosive soils, landslide hazard areas, and wetlands
present on the property. (Staff Report, page 13; Site visit).
9. The applicant provided additional, unrebutted, background information showing that
the former campground/RV park on the site once included supportive infrastructure, like a
lodge, showers, power, street lights, paved roads, and restroom facilities connected to septic
systems located throughout the site. The applicant submitted a photo of the area from 1979,
with a site plan for the former RV park on the site, as part of Ex. 75, copies of which are
provided below:
(Aerial photo of former RV park development on site, from 1979, included as part of Ex. 75,
on page 2)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 7 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
(Site plan for former RV park on site, included as part of Ex. 75, on page 3).
10. There is no dispute that the Brinnon area was historically used by Native American
tribes. The blend of forest, rivers and shoreline produced ample salmon and other fish,
shellfish, berries, roots, whales, seals, birds, and game sufficient to support numerous thriving
communities. Winter village communities are documented along Hood Canal and in
particular at the mouth of the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers. The Skokomish Tribe, the
S’Klallam Tribe,1 the Suquamish Tribe, and the Squaxin Island Tribe have been documented
to have used this area for fishing, gathering, and hunting. Culturally significant places are
recorded in the project vicinity, and comments submitted by the Point No Point Treaty
Council, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe indicate the
geologic kettles on the property are culturally significant features. (Staff Report, page 13).
Preliminary Plat Proposal.
11. For this matter, there has been a lengthy and extensive history of litigation and appeals
challenging various planning, land use, and environmental actions taken by the County
regarding potential development on the project site. (See Staff Report, summary provided in
Project Background on pages 11-13). Those processes and reviews cannot be reopened or
collaterally attacked as part of this preliminary plat review process. This Decision applies
facts to specific approval criteria that apply to the applicant’s request for preliminary plat
approval.
12. As of date the applicant submitted their current preliminary plat application, there is
no dispute that development on the project site is subject to compliance with a Development
Agreement, as amended, and all conditions of a Final Environmental Impact Statement and
1 The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe are all federally
recognized tribes who are successors to the treaty rights of the S’Klallam Tribe.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 8 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, among other things.
13. The Staff Report describes the pending preliminary plat application as a project to
develop what is known as the “Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort” (PHMPR). PHMPR
master planned resort zoning was approved by Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 on January 28,
2008. PHMPR is regulated under a Development Agreement (executed on June 6, 2018) with
amendments (dated June 4, 2018, and July 22, 2019). The Development Agreement contains
a Master Plan in Section 3.2, which controls all development on the property. (Staff Report,
page 8).
14. Under applicable provisions the Development Agreement, the FEIS, the FSEIS,
county codes and ordinances, there is no credible dispute that the project is allowed up to 890
residential units and up to 56,608 square feet of commercial space, and that the project MUST
provide related amenities and facilities. This application identifies up to 822 residential units
within the boundaries of the proposed plat, in a mix of short-term and long-term stay units.
(Staff Report, page 14).
15. The Staff Report, on pages 15-16, provides a summary of project elements that are
included as part of this preliminary plat application, with a table showing the mix of
residential units.
Project Component Type Units
Inn by the Sea Hotel 225
Staff Housing Multifamily Residential (Staff) 52
Cascadia House Condominiums 126
Olympia House Condominiums 126
Eagles Nest Condominiums 56
Sea View Villa Detached Residential 107
Golf Vista Detached Residential 43
Manor Village Multifamily Residential (Senior Living) 14
The Views Condominiums 18
Hawks Landing Condominiums 55
Total Units: 822
Hotel Units 225
Condo Units 381
Multifamily Units 66
Detached Residential 150
(Staff Report, on page 15, Table 1: Summary of Proposed Residential Uses. Source: Preliminary Plat
Drawings (Exhibit 33) and Preliminary Civil Drawings (Exhibit 34)).
16. The proposed plat also includes areas for the following commercial uses, as shown in
Ex. 34, on Sheet 1:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 9 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
• Inn by the Sea & Recreation Center, described as hotel and sports arena2
• Event Center described as parking garage and conference center
• Golf course, with nine holes shown on the plans
17. The proposed plat also includes supporting infrastructure, facilities, and amenities,
including:
• Highway 101/Black Point Road intersection improvements
• Park and ride
• Wastewater treatment plant and sewer system and related infrastructure, to be
owned by the Pleasant Harbor water and sewer district
• Water wells and water system and related infrastructure, to be owned by the
Pleasant Harbor water and sewer district
• Internal private roadways
• Internal pedestrian pathways and golf cart trails
• Stormwater management and related infrastructure
• Open space, including the 200-foot shoreline buffer preserved in an easement
recorded on February 29, 2024
18. In sum, the preliminary plat would create 150 residential lots for the detached
dwelling units and 29 tracts for the condominium/multifamily residential, hotel, commercial,
recreation, open space, and infrastructure elements noted above.
19. The following screenshot from a portion of the Preliminary Civil Drawings cover
sheet (Ex. 34, Sheet 1) shows the general layout and some of the key elements included in the
preliminary plat proposal:
2 Hotel units accounted for in residential unit count.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 10 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
20. In response to some comments that expressed confusion about how residential unit
caps were calculated, the Staff Report Addendum, on page 12, provides a clear summary that
reads as follows:
Some comments indicate that the total residential development thresholds reviewed in
the FEIS and FSEIS and established in section 3.2 of the Development Agreement and
JCC 17.60.070 are confusing. The FEIS and FSEIS considered short- and long-term
rentals as well as permanent residences in the same “residential” use category, likely due
to how water use is calculated.
The 890 residential units authorized in the Development Agreement and JCC 17.60.070
include the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 11 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
• Short-term visitor accommodation, including hotel or motel units
• Multifamily dwelling units, such as staff housing and apartments
• Condominiums
• Townhouses
• Single-family dwelling units
• And all other uses intended for long-term and short-term occupation
A key distinction that is not typical for other projects is that hotel units and similar short-
term rental units (such as the bed and breakfast houses in the Pleasant Harbor Marina
district) are counted toward the residential cap in this project. Hotels are more usually
classified as a commercial use, rather than a residential use, possibly leading to confusion
about the amount of residential development proposed on this site. The project will
include 225 hotel units, 66 multifamily units, 381 condominium units, and 150 detached
residential units. Off-site residential uses include the two existing bed and breakfasts and
the Maritime Village building (66 units). Refer to Table 2 in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1)
for a breakdown of the residential uses proposed in the upland golf resort, that will be
accommodated within the preliminary plat. (Staff Report Addendum, on page 12).
Public Notices, Opportunities for public comment.
21. This preliminary plat application was processed as a Type III permit under Chapter
18.40 JCC, which requires issuance of a Notice of Application and a Notice of Public
Hearing, as well as an open record public hearing prior to a final decision.
22. The record demonstrates that following submission of application materials and
subsequent revisions, Jefferson County issued a determination of completeness on April 16,
2024 (Exhibit 51), and thereafter issued a Notice of Application on May 1, 2024 (Exhibit 52),
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.40 JCC.
23. The Notice of Application was issued in accordance with Article III of Chapter 18.40
JCC, including the specific requirements applicable to preliminary plat applications under
JCC 18.40.240.
24. Following submission of revised materials by the Applicant, Jefferson County issued
a Notice of Revised Application on August 27, 2025. (See Exhibit 53).
25. The Addendum to Staff Report clarifies that issuance of a Notice of Revised
Application is not required under Chapter 18.40 JCC, but was provided as a courtesy to
interested parties in light of revisions to the proposal.
26. The Notice of Revised Application included a 14-day public comment period, which
concluded on September 16, 2025, during which additional public and tribal comments were
received and incorporated into the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 12 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
27. The Hearing Examiner finds that the issuance of this additional notice, while not
required, provided enhanced opportunity for public participation beyond the minimum
requirements of the code.
28. Following its technical review and preparation of the Staff Report, as required by
Code, Jefferson County issued a Notice of Public Hearing on September 24, 2025 (Exhibit
54), in accord with JCC 18.40.230.
29. The Notice of Public Hearing included information regarding the availability of
project documents and the opportunity to submit written and oral testimony, consistent with
applicable procedural requirements.
30. The record reflects that public comments were accepted throughout the review
process, including: during the Notice of Application period; during the Notice of Revised
Application comment period; and up to and including the close of the public hearing on
October 15, 2025.
31. The Hearing Examiner further allowed submission of written responses to public
comments by both Jefferson County and the Applicant team following the close of testimony,
with deadlines established for submission of such responses and updating of the exhibit log.
32. This process provided multiple opportunities for public participation, including
submission of written comments, oral testimony, and post-hearing responses.
33. The Addendum to Staff Report identifies minor errors in the Notice of Public Hearing,
including an incorrect parcel number in the list of subject properties. The Addendum further
explains that the Notice of Public Hearing included a correct street address and a vicinity
map, which were sufficient to allow interested parties to identify the project location and
participate meaningfully in the review process. The Addendum also identifies an incorrect
statutory citation included in the Notice of Revised Application, which is explained as
inapplicable to this Type III hearing process and does not affect the validity of the notice.
34. The Hearing Examiner finds that these errors are minor and non-prejudicial, and that
the record demonstrates that interested parties were able to identify the proposal and submit
meaningful comments covering a wide range of topics and concerns.
35. Consistent with JCC 18.40.280(2), the Staff Report and Addendum include and
consider all written public comments received on the application, including those submitted
in response to the Notice of Revised Application. The Response to Public Hearing Comments
(Exhibit 91) further summarizes comments submitted between publication of the Addendum
and the close of the public hearing and provides responses organized by subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 13 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
36. The Hearing Examiner finds that the County has satisfied its obligation to consider
public comments and to respond to substantive issues raised.
37. Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Examiner finds that Jefferson County complied
with all applicable public notice requirements for a Type III preliminary plat under Chapter
18.40 JCC, including issuance of a Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing, and
provision of an open record public hearing.
38. The Hearing Examiner further finds that the County provided additional notice and
opportunity for comment beyond what is required by code, including issuance of a Notice of
Revised Application and acceptance of comments throughout the review process. The
Hearing Examiner concludes that any minor errors in notice were non-prejudicial, did not
impair public participation, and did not affect the validity of the proceeding.
39. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner finds and concludes that the procedural and
notice requirements applicable to this preliminary plat have been satisfied.
SEPA (Environmental) Review.
40. There is no credible dispute that the environmental impacts associated with the
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort have already been evaluated through a
comprehensive environmental review process, including preparation of a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (“FSEIS”), which analyze project-related impacts and establish mitigation
measures applicable to development of the site. The Staff Report and Addendum to Staff
Report expressly rely on and incorporate the FEIS and FSEIS as the controlling
environmental analysis for this project.
41. Based on the record, the Examiner finds that this preliminary plat application does
not propose development beyond the scope or intensity of impacts evaluated in the FEIS and
FSEIS. The Staff Report Addendum confirms that revisions to the proposal remain consistent
with the overall development thresholds and environmental assumptions analyzed in those
documents.
42. County Staff, in the Staff Report, its Addendum, and Response to Public Comments,
credibly addressed environmental issues raised in comments received, including water
quality, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, shellfish protection, and related
ecological concern, and relied on the FEIS, FSEIS, and supporting technical analyses, as well
as applicable regulatory programs and permitting requirements to credibly explain how such
issues have been addressed or conditioned.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 14 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
43. The FEIS and FSEIS continue to provide the appropriate level of environmental
review for the project at the preliminary plat stage and establish mitigation measures,
monitoring requirements, and performance standards that are enforceable through the
Development Agreement, conditions of approval, and subsequent permitting processes. For
instance, conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report and Addendum, and
imposed by the Examiner as Conditions of Approval for this preliminary plat, require
compliance with:
• Mitigation measures identified in the FEIS and FSEIS;
• Applicable Best Management Practices, including those governing stormwater and
erosion control;
• Water quality monitoring and reporting requirements; and
• All applicable state and local regulations governing environmental protection,
including permits required prior to construction.
44. These conditions ensure that environmental impacts are addressed not only at the
planning stage but throughout project development, construction, and operation.
45. During the public comment and hearing process, numerous comments raised concerns
regarding potential environmental impacts, including impacts to groundwater, Hood Canal
water quality, shellfish resources, and ecosystem health. The Hearing Examiner finds that
these concerns are generally consistent with issues previously evaluated in the FEIS and
FSEIS and addressed in the Staff Report, Addendum, and Response to Comments.
46. No one submitted studies, technical reports, or testimony from qualified professionals
that contradict the environmental analysis contained in the FEIS, FSEIS, or supporting
technical documentation relied upon by County Staff.
47. While the Hearing Examiner acknowledges that public comments reflect genuine
concern regarding environmental impacts, such comments do not provide evidence sufficient
to rebut the technical conclusions of the FEIS, FSEIS, and related analyses.
48. Based on the entire record, the Hearing Examiner finds that the environmental review
conducted for the project is adequate, that the FEIS and FSEIS remain valid and applicable
to the preliminary plat, and that no new information or evidence has been presented that
would require preparation of additional environmental review or supplemental analysis.
49. The Hearing Examiner therefore finds that, with implementation of the conditions of
approval and continued compliance with the FEIS, FSEIS, Best Management Practices, and
applicable regulatory requirements, the project will not result in probable significant adverse
environmental impacts beyond those already identified and mitigated through the existing
environmental review process.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 15 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
50. Based on the foregoing findings and the entire record, the Hearing Examiner
concludes that the environmental review conducted for the project complies with the
requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and its
implementing regulations, Chapter 197-11 WAC. The FEIS and FSEIS provide an adequate
analysis of probable significant adverse environmental impacts, and no new information or
changed circumstances have been identified that would require supplemental environmental
review. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the existing environmental
documentation may be relied upon for purposes of this decision, and that no additional SEPA
review is required.
Public comments.
51. Public comments submitted throughout the review process, including those
summarized in the Staff Report, Addendum to Staff Report, and Staff’s Response to Public
Hearing Comments, reflect consistent and recurring themes rather than materially distinct or
novel issues. (Staff Report, Ex. 1, §9; Addendum to Staff Report, Ex. 74, §3.A; Staff Response
to Public Hearing Comments, Ex. 91, §3.A).
52. Comments received after publication of the Staff Report and Addendum largely
reiterate concerns previously raised in earlier written submissions and addressed by County
Staff in those documents. The following findings summarize topics raised by general
categories, noting that all comments were reviewed and considered as presented, whether the
writer or speaker intended their input to be organized in this fashion. County Staff, and then
the Hearing Examiner, systematically reviewed each comment, ensuring that every
submission was evaluated based on its relevance or weight. This process highlights the
thorough and transparent approach taken in assessing public feedback.
n Procedural, Legal, and Phasing Concerns
53. Procedural and legal concerns were raised primarily by Rick Aramburu, attorney for
the Brinnon Group (Exs. 65W, 75), as well as other commenters including Lys Burden (Ex.
65R) and Laura Straight (Ex. 65S). These comments raised concerns about:
• Inconsistency with the Development Agreement
• Improper phasing and sequencing of development
• Insufficient detail at the preliminary plat stage
• Improper permit processing
• Concerns regarding financial feasibility
(Testimony of Mr. Aramburu; Exs. 65W, 75; Ex. 91, §3.A).
54. These concerns are repeated across multiple submissions and reflect a consistent
theme regarding timing, sequencing, and completeness of development planning. This is a
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 16 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
large project. Planning, litigation, contract negotiations, public reviews, all take significant
time and resources for all involved. So, it is understandable that local residents want to see
what they might get on the site, and have some assurances that it will actually happen.
County Staff responded to these concerns in the Staff Report, Addendum, and Response to
Comments by explaining that:
• A preliminary plat requires only general layout, not construction-level detail (Ex. 74,
§§3.C.2–3; Ex. 91, §3.B.2);
• Phasing is governed by the Development Agreement and enforceable through
conditions (Ex. 1, §7.G; Ex. 74, §3.C.2);
• Financial feasibility is not an approval criterion for a preliminary plat (Ex. 91,
§3.B.3);
• Applicable review is limited to statutory criteria under RCW 58.17.110 (Ex. 91,
§3.B.3).
55. The Hearing Examiner finds that these responses are consistent across all Staff
documents, legally grounded, and supported by the regulatory framework governing this
preliminary plat proposal. The procedural and phasing concerns raised by commenters
are not supported by evidence demonstrating noncompliance with applicable legal standards,
and are instead based largely on disagreement with the timing and potential phases of the
development, and what elements might be included in which phase. Additional findings
address the Phasing issue.
56. Staff responses on this topic are deemed credible and supported by more than a
preponderance of evidence in the record, including the Development Agreement and
applicable state subdivision statutes.
n Infrastructure, Utilities, and Public Services
57. Numerous comments raised concerns regarding infrastructure adequacy, including:
• Water availability and fire flow (Exs. 65S, 65U, 65W)
• Wastewater treatment and sewer system, how sludge might be handled, etc. (Ex. 65P;
Sierra Club testimony)
• Transportation and intersection improvements (Exs. 65L, 65N, 65U)
• Emergency services and evacuation (Exs. 65R, 65U)
58. These concerns were raised by multiple individuals including Cindy Ger (Ex. 65L),
Julia Cochrane (Ex. 65N), Lou Leet (Ex. 65U), and Rick Aramburu (Ex. 65W), as well as
individuals submitting comments as part of local organizations.
59. These comments are largely repetitive and reflect a shared concern that infrastructure
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 17 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
may not be sufficient at full buildout or at earlier phases of development. County Staff
responded consistently across all documents by explaining that:
• The applicable standard for preliminary plat review is “appropriate provision”, not
completed infrastructure (Ex. 91, §3.B.7);
• Infrastructure systems are supported by technical plans and agency review (Ex. 1,
§7.D; Ex. 74, §§3.C.5–6);
• Final design and capacity determinations occur at subsequent permitting stages (Ex.
74, §3.C.3).
60. Staff provided responses addressing these issues, relying on engineering reports,
agency coordination, and regulatory review processes, and are consistent across the Staff
Report, Addendum, and Response to Comments. No one submitted technical studies,
engineering analyses, or expert reports contradicting the County’s infrastructure analysis.
Accordingly, Staff’s responses are deemed credible and supported by more than a
preponderance of evidence in the record.
n Environmental Impacts and Water Quality
61. Environmental concerns were raised by multiple commenters, including: Sierra Club
North Olympic Group (Ex. 65P; testimony of Dr. Schanfald), Bob Carson (Exs. 65M, 65X),
Beth Stroh-Stern (Ex. 65T), and other members of the public. These concerns included:
• Water quality and pollution
• Stormwater runoff and aquifer impacts
• Wastewater treatment risks
• Shellfish and marine ecosystem impacts
• Golf course chemical use
62. The Hearing Examiner finds that these concerns are consistently expressed across
multiple comments and largely repeat issues previously raised and addressed during SEPA
review. County Staff responded by relying on:
• The FEIS and FSEIS environmental review
• Stormwater management plans
• Water quality monitoring programs
• Regulatory oversight by state and local agencies
(See Ex. 1, §§7.C–7.D; Ex. 74, §3.C.10; Ex. 91, §3.B.10).
63. The Examiner finds that Staff’s responses are comprehensive, technically supported,
and consistent across all review documents, and further finds that none of the environmental
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 18 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
concerns raised by commenters are supported by studies, reports, or testimony from qualified
professionals that contradict the technical analysis contained in the FEIS, FSEIS, or
supporting reports. As addressed in other findings provided above, the FEIS and FSEIS and
follow-up reviews conducted for this project ensure that environmental review for this project
was adequate, and that no additional SEPA review is required.
64. While such comments reflect genuine concern, they are not supported by expert
evidence sufficient to rebut the County’s technical analysis. Accordingly, Staff’s responses
are deemed credible and supported by more than a preponderance of evidence in the record.
n Cultural Resources and Tribal Concerns
65. As noted above, the Brinnon area was historically used by and holds special
significance to local Tribes. The Examiner appreciates and carefully considered cultural
resource concerns raised in public comments, including without limitation, that provided on
behalf of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Ex. 78; testimony of Marla Powers), and the
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (Ex. 79; testimony of Allie Taylor). These concerns focused on:
• Protection of Kettles B and C
• Adequacy of cultural resource studies
• Accuracy of Appendix Q (which details protocols for monitoring and inadvertent
discovery contacts, among other things)
• Need for consultation and coordination
66. These comments are detailed, consistent, and grounded in tribal expertise and
historical context. County Staff responded by explaining that:
• Cultural resource protection is governed by the Development Agreement and
applicable plans
• Monitoring and inadvertent discovery protocols are in place
• Coordination with tribes is required and ongoing
(Ex. 1, §7.F; Ex. 74, §3.C.10; Ex. 91, §3.B.8).
67. The Examiner finds that Staff’s responses appropriately recognize tribal concerns
while applying the applicable regulatory framework governing preliminary plat approval.
The Examiner has added new conditions of approval mandating that Tribal contact
information used for monitoring and inadvertent discovery protocols is regularly verified;
that contractors are informed on IDP requirements; and that the applicant should confer with
interested tribes to generate an educational signage plan.
68. Staff responses to these comments are deemed credible and supported by more than
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 19 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
a preponderance of evidence in the record.
n Wildlife, Light, and Natural Resource Management
69. Several comments, including some tribal representatives and members of the public,
raised general concerns about:
• Elk exclusion fencing, might be needed around the site
• Wildlife habitat disruption
• Lighting/Dark Sky standards
• Tree retention and vegetation removal.(See Exs. 78, 79, 65O; public hearing
testimony).
70. County Staff responded by relying on The Wildlife Management Plan, adaptive
management requirements, and applicable development standards. (See Ex. 74, §3.C.11; Ex.
91, §3.B.11).
71. For example, on the subject of dark sky lighting standards for the project, the record
shows that the applicant is already committed to using the International Dark Sky
Association’s standards. (See Staff Report page 25, Development Agreement Appendix S
Dark Sky-Lighting Standards, and Development Agreement section 8.8.10). Light fixture cut
sheets will be reviewed with construction permits and installed fixtures are inspected during
construction to ensure compliance with these standards. (Ex. 91, on page 26).
72. The Examiner finds that Staff responses on these topics are consistent across their
submittals included in the record and are supported by technical analysis or reference to
controlling provisions of the Development Agreement. No contrary expert analysis was
provided by commenters. Accordingly, Staff’s responses are deemed credible and supported
by more than a preponderance of evidence in the record.
n Traffic and Rural Character
73. Numerous comments asserted that the project is incompatible with the rural character
of Brinnon and would generate unacceptable traffic impacts. (Exs. 65L, 65N, 65U, 65O).
These concerns were raised repeatedly and reflect a consistent theme across public testimony.
County Staff responded by explaining that the project is consistent with the Master Planned
Resort designation; that traffic impacts have already been sufficiently analyzed and
mitigated; and that required transportation system improvements will be implemented as part
of this development. (Ex. 1, §7.A; Ex. 74, §§3.C.5, 3.C.7; Ex. 91, §§3.B.5–6).
74. The Hearing Examiner finds that these responses are supported by transportation
analysis and applicable planning documents. No expert traffic analysis was submitted by
commenters to contradict these findings. Staff’s responses are therefore deemed credible and
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 20 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
supported by more than a preponderance of evidence in the record.
n Repetition and Nature of Public Comments
75. In reviewing the record, it is apparent that a substantial portion of the public
comments repeat similar concerns across multiple submissions and stages of review,
including issues related to environmental impacts, infrastructure adequacy, and project
compatibility. Many of these issues were already addressed in public processes leading to
the Development Agreement, Amendments to the DA, reviews for the FEIS and the SFEIS,
which all apply to this project.
76. Most, if not each and every comment was addressed by County Staff in the Staff
Report, Addendum, and Response to Comments, and subsequent comments largely reiterate
those same issues without introducing materially new evidence.
77. Public comments provide important context and reflect community concerns;
however, in most instances, such comments are not supported by technical analysis, expert
testimony, or other evidence sufficient to rebut the County’s findings.
78. During the public hearing, no one provided studies, reports, or testimony from
qualified professionals that contradict the technical conclusions relied upon by County Staff,
including environmental, engineering, and planning analyses.
79. Accordingly, the County’s responses to public comments, as set forth in the Staff
Report, Addendum, and Response to Comments, are found to be credible, consistent, and
supported by more than a preponderance of evidence in the record.
Collateral attacks on prior planning and environmental determinations.
80. A preliminary plat hearing is not an appeal of previous legislative acts, administrative
decisions, SEPA determinations, Environmental Impact Statements, or other actions that may
not be favored by some parties but stand following expiration of applicable appeal periods
and legal processes.
81. Washington caselaw is very clear, mindful of, and regularly applies the policy of
finality in land use decisions. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. v. State, 4 Wn.3d 228
(2025); Cmty. Treasures v. San Juan County, 192 Wn.2d 47, 427 P.3d 647 (2018). So, a
project application review process, like this Preliminary Plat application, cannot be used to
attack or seek changes to regulatory permits, agency decisions, legislative actions and the
like by agencies – including the Board of Commissioners – with appropriate jurisdiction over
matters that were never appealed or for which the appeal review process has concluded. See
lengthy discussion and summary of relevant caselaw in Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 21 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wn.2d 825, 175 P.3d 1050 (2008)(summarizes the well-established
principle of Washington law that prohibits collateral attacks of prior government decisions
to give closure and clarity to interested citizens where agencies and public had sufficient
notice to resolve any dispute in court or another forum but did not do so); See, e.g., Wenatchee
Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 4 P.3d 123 (2000) (a challenge to a
Chelan County decision concerning residential development permits under the Growth
Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW, must be brought under LUPA); Skamania County
v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n, 144 Wn.2d 30, 26 P.3d 241 (2001) (construing a federal
act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a), no collateral attack on a local final land use decision can be made
when no timely appeal is filed); and Chelan County v. Nykriem, 146 Wn.2d 904, 931-33, 52
P.3rd 1 (2002)(holding that land use decisions are final after available appeal period expires
and cannot be collaterally attacked).
82. The Examiner is without authority to amend the Development Agreement, or to
modify the Master Plan provisions of the County’s code, as some comments appear to
request.
Hearing Examiner’s authority is limited to that granted by ordinance.
83. There is no dispute that this project requires a Type III Preliminary Plat approval,
which is subject to public notice, public hearing, and a decision by the Jefferson County
Hearing Examiner. The County Code vests the Hearing Examiner with authority to hear and
issue decisions on applications for Type III land use decisions. (See JCC 18.40.040,
explaining Project permit application framework, Table 8-1, types of permits, decisions
required, and Table 8-2, showing final decision made by the Hearing Examiner on Type III
land use matters).
84. In this state, a hearing examiner has only the authority granted by ordinance, and an
examiner generally lacks jurisdiction to consider requests for equitable relief. See HJS Dev.,
Inc. v. Pierce Co., 148 Wn.2d 451, 471, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003); Chaussee v. Snohomish County
Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 640, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984).
85. Some comments suggested that the Examiner should condition this project to include
bonds or other financial surety measures to ensure or guarantee that major elements of this
project are built or completed, or that work is performed without need for the County to step
in and spend its resources making corrections or completing the project. While some
Washington jurisdictions include bonds and financial surety measures as part of possible
preliminary plat conditions, such authority is absent in the Jefferson County Code.
86. Other parts of the County Code allow for bonds and surety devices. Not the land
division code provisions that apply to preliminary plat reviews. For instance, JCC 18.30.080,
captioned “Roads”, notes that a maintenance bond guaranteeing certain improvements may
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 22 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
be required as a condition of final plat approval. (See JCC 18.30.080(1)(t)). A similar grant
of bond authority is not provided in the County’s code with addressing preliminary plat
approval.
87. The County’s Shoreline Master Program, at JCC 18.25.270, re: Critical areas,
shoreline buffers, and ecological protection, mandates bonds/surety for projects that include
compensatory mitigation measures: “(2)(f) When compensatory mitigation measures are
required, all of the following shall apply: […] (vi) The county shall require the
applicant/proponent to post a bond or provide other financial surety equal to the estimated
cost of the mitigation in order to ensure the mitigation is carried out successfully.
The bond/surety shall be refunded to the applicant/proponent upon completion of the
mitigation activity and any required monitoring.” There is no dispute that this preliminary
plat project does not propose development within the County’s shoreline jurisdiction, so the
SMP provisions do not apply.
88. More significantly, the County’s Shoreline Master Program expressly empowers the
Hearing Examiner to impose conditions requiring a bond or other acceptable security “to
assure that the project proponent and/or his or her successors adhere to the approved plans
and all conditions attached to the shoreline permit.” (See JCC 18.25.610(2)(h), which reads
as follows:
Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner is vested with the authority and responsibility
to: […] (h) At his or her sole discretion, require any project proponent granted a shoreline
permit to post a bond or other acceptable security with the county, conditioned to assure
that the project proponent and/or his or her successors adhere to the approved plans and
all conditions attached to the shoreline permit. Such bonds or securities shall have a face
value of at least 150 percent of the estimated development cost including attached
conditions.
89. The Examiner’s authority is limited to the application of the criteria set forth in the
applicable subdivision code provisions and governing law. Washington courts have
consistently held that preliminary subdivision decisions must be based on articulated
standards and supported by substantial evidence tied to those standards, and may not rest on
generalized concerns or discretionary judgment untethered to adopted criteria or authority.
Public opposition or generalized concerns do not constitute a lawful basis to add conditions
like bonding or financial security measures, especially given the absence of specific code
criteria delegating authority to impose such conditions. Clearly, the County’s legislative
body, its Board of Commissioners, is fully informed and aware of how it can – and in fact it
has – granted express authority for the Hearing Examiner to impose bonding/financial
security requirements as part of Shoreline permit approvals. Its failure to include even the
most general of grants allowing for such authority for a preliminary subdivision is telling. If
they meant to say it, they could have. They did not. The Examiner is without authority to
amend or craft new code language.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 23 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
90. When a legislative body, like the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, enacts
a law, it is presumed to be familiar with its prior enactments. See Leonard v. City of Bothell,
87 Wash. 2d 847, 853 (1976), citing Daly v. Chapman, 85 Wn.2d 780, 539 P.2d 831 (1975).
91. The Board of Commissioners adopted the County’s Land Division code that applies
to this application in July of 2006. (See Development Agreement, appendix D, copy of Land
Division Code version that applies to this application, adopted by Ord. No. 8-06, July 10,
2006 [as listed on County’s online Ordinance Table]). In that version of the County’s code,
at former JCC 18.35.350, Surety requirements are authorized for Final Subdivisions, NOT
preliminary subdivisions.
92. In 2013, the Board of Commissioners approved a version of the County’s Shoreline
Master Program, which expressly authorized bond/surety requirements for aspects of some
Shoreline Permits. (See Appendix F, Shoreline Codes that apply under the Development
Agreement, adopted by Ord. No. 7-13 on Dec. 16, 2013 [as listed on County’s online
Ordinance Table]).
93. The Development Agreement for this project location was adopted by the Board of
Commissioners in 2018, and amended in 2019. (Staff Report, pages 11 and 12). At no point
did the Commissioners modify development regulations that would apply to this project to
authorize the Examiner to impose bond/surety requirements similar to those for Shoreline
Permits.
94. Then, in 2024, the Board of Commissioners repealed a number of older codes, and
replaced them with the current Unified Development Code (UDC), which includes the
County’s current Land Division code provisions, found in JCC Chapter 18.35. Just like the
older version of the County’s Land Division code, the newer version does NOT provide
express authority for bonds or surety requirements as part of a preliminary plat approval, and
only allows such devices to be used in connection with Final Subdivisions. (See current
18.35.350, adopted by Ord. No. 9-24 on December 9, 2024 [as listed on County’s online
Ordinance Table]).
95. Each time the Commissioners enacted ordinances addressing subdivisions,
development regulations and the like, it is presumed to have been aware of bonding and
financial security powers that it previously included in its Shoreline Master Plan. The
Examiner presumes that the Commissioners were well aware of their power to impose
bonding or surety requirements as part of a preliminary plat approval, a grading permit, or
other approval required for aspects of this proposal. State law gives the County’s legislative
body broad power to control land-use matters. By enacting new Land Division code
provisions and language in the Development Agreement that do not require or authorize
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 24 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
bonds or surety requirements as part of preliminary plat approvals, the Commissioners
demonstrated their intent to omit such delegation of authority to the Examiner.
96. And, where a legislative body leaves an enactment unchanged in the face of a decision
interpreting or applying such enactment, courts can conclude that if the legislative body
wanted to change terms of its enactment it would have expressly amended relevant language
to do so rather than leave it unchanged.3
97. Here, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners have granted undisputed
authority for the Hearing Examiner to impose bonding/financial security requirements for
some matters, like Shoreline Permits and compensatory mitigation for impacts on regulated
critical areas, among other things. The same or even vaguely similar language is not found
in code provisions addressing preliminary plats. So, by crafting language that would
accomplish such purpose, allowing for bond requirements as part of conditions for shoreline
permits and other approvals, it could be argued that the Examiner would be acting beyond
his authority, and contrary to the County Commissioners’ express intent reflected in their
delegation of authority to impose bonding/financial guarantee/security conditions of approval
for some matters but not others.
98. Based on the record, and language found in – and absent from – the Jefferson County
Code, the Examiner respectfully declines requests from some parties of record to craft
language that would impose bonding/financial guarantee/security conditions of approval on
this preliminary plat. Even if such authority existed, or existing codes could be read to allow
for bonds or financial surety conditions, the facts in this record would not support such
request, and instead demonstrate that the applicant has performed work on the site under other
permits that are not part of this preliminary plat application, including a Stormwater Permit,
and while Jefferson County has received complaints about such work, the complaints were
investigated by the County and the Washington Department of Ecology, and no violations
have been found. (See summary of permits issued by some state agencies and the County for
work on the site, lack of violations found after investigating complaints, on page 20 of the
Staff Report Addendum).
Baseless request for recusal.
99. As explained during the public hearing, there is no factual or legal basis for the last-
minute attempt to obtain recusal. In addition to reasons already explained on the record, and
further supported by written submittals from County staff (See Ex. 91, analysis and
discussion on page 14), any unfair influence, conflict of interest, or similar grounds for
recusal of a hearing officer cannot be generated or based upon a matter of the moving party’s
own creation. Washington caselaw soundly rejects efforts to recuse hearing officers based
3 Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 118 Wash. 2d 488, 496-97 (1992).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 25 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
on lawsuits or claims raised by the moving party against the hearing officer. Just as one
cannot manufacture an appearance of unfairness or bias by filing a lawsuit against a presiding
official, in this matter, the moving party cannot manufacture a basis for recusal based on the
effect or influence they groundlessly allege must exist when County officials took some
action expressing their support for this project – especially here, where the document was not
known and certainly not top-of-mind to the Examiner until it was brought to his attention by
the moving party.4
Phasing.
100. To be crystal clear – phasing is not mandatory for this preliminary plat. It is optional,
provided that any phasing proposal (i.e. proposal to develop and then seek final plat approval
for one portion of the plat-property before others, and so forth) must follow the Phasing Plan
that applies to this project, which is detailed in Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement,
at Section 10 and the site plan included as Exhibit 4 to such Amendment.
101. Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement specifies terms of the Phasing Plan that
must be followed if this project is to be developed in phases. If the applicant chooses to move
forward and develop the preliminary plat as a single project with one Final Plat approval
required from the County, it may do so. But, if the applicant chooses to develop the project
in phases, the sequencing and contents of each phase must abide by the terms of the binding
Phasing Plan found in Amendment 2. (Staff Report, page 90; Amendment 2 to Development
Agreement).
102. Compliance with the Phasing requirements found in Amendment 2 to the
Development Agreement is mandatory. (See Amendment 2; Staff Report, paragraphs 168-
173; Ex. 74, Staff Report Addendum, page 11; Ex. 91, Staff Response to Hearing Comments,
on pages 17-18).
103. The Examiner, like several public commenters, found parts of the Development
Agreement and Amendment 2 unclear and difficult to understand as to what might or might
not be required to happen as part of Phase 1, as people understandably expressed concerns
that the applicant might just move forward with residential aspects of the plat before ever
building various public amenities called for in the Development Agreement and various
planning instruments subject to public review over many years. Fortunately, on the subject
4 “One cannot manufacture an appearance of unfairness by merely filing a lawsuit against the presiding
official. See, e.g., United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (“It cannot be that an automatic recusal
can be obtained by the simple act of suing the judge.” (citing Ronwin v. State Bar of Ariz., 686 F.2d 692, 701
(9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938 (1983))). Mr. King's suit against [the hearing officer] Mr. Schoeggl
casts no taint on Mr. Schoeggl's appearance of fairness and is not grounds for disqualifying Mr. Schoeggl as the
hearing officer, alone or in concert with other allegations.” In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168
Wn.2d 888, 232 P.3d 1095 (2010).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 26 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
of Phasing, the Staff Report stands unrebutted by the applicant or any public comments on
its summary and explicit identification of the specific public amenities that must be provided
as part of Phase 1. That list of public amenities that must be included as part of any Phase 1
reads as follows:
1. Nine-hole golf course
2. Spa services
3. Sports courts
4. Pool
5. Water slides
6. Community Center/Recreation Center. (Staff Report, on page 91).
104. The applicant is fully aware and readily acknowledges that they are required to build
and provide what they call “minimum recreational amenities” to function as a master planned
resort, and that they cannot move on to subsequent phases of residential development until
including the “minimum recreational amenities in the first phase of development.” (See Ex.
75, Applicant’s Response to Staff Report). The applicant’s counsel wrote:
The Project Description in the Staff Report includes a list of recreational amenities
provided by the Applicant that it intends to build. It is important to distinguish between
the recreational amenities that the Applicant intends to build and the minimum
recreational amenities that must be built. The Development Agreement entered into
between the County and the Applicant identify the minimum required recreational
amenities that must be provided for the project to function as master planned resort. The
Applicant has, during its marketing efforts and communications with the County,
indicated a desire to include additional recreational amenities beyond those identified in
the Development Agreement including, but not limited to, a go-kart track and hockey
rink. We provide this distinction because the Applicant’s ability to move on to subsequent
phases of residential development is dependent upon including the minimum recreational
amenities in the first phase of development. The DA and applicable development
regulations do not require any additional amenities be built. (Ex. 75, on page 1).
105. The Examiner acknowledges and finds that while a go-kart track and hockey rink
would be welcome amenities that can be developed as part of this preliminary plat, the list of
“minimum recreational amenities” that must be included as part of any Phase I is mandatory,
as listed in the previous finding derived from an unchallenged portion of the Staff Report
which credibly consolidates and summarizes the specific requirements associated with the
Phasing Plan.
106. That binding Phasing Plan expressly mandates that, as part of Phase 1 – i.e. the FIRST
phase of the development – certain recreational amenities must be constructed and complete.
Phase 1 means phase 1, the first phase. So, Phases 2 and 3 cannot receive final plat approval
until after Phase 1 is complete, and Phase 1 cannot receive final plat approval until all
conditions are satisfied for such phase, expressly including completion of the recreational
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 27 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
amenities that shall be available to the general public as listed above.
A preponderance of evidence demonstrates the proposed project, as conditioned, satisfies
applicable approval criteria.
107. There is no dispute that is application is vested to the version of Chapter 18.35 JCC
in effect when the Development Agreement was executed, and that these regulations are
included in Appendix D to the Development Agreement.5 Project opponents and concerned
citizens may find some comfort in knowing that the preliminary plat approval language has
not changed in a profound manner since the Development Agreement was adopted. They are
substantially similar to the same criteria found in the state subdivision statute, in Ch. 58.17
RCW. No one directed attention to something critical that is missing that would be reviewed
under current codes but is somehow missing from the prior code that could result in detriment
to the community at large.
108. So, for this preliminary plat application, the applicable Approval Criteria derived
from Appendix D to the Development Agreement [found in former JCC 18.35.310] are as
follows, with 3 numbered sections with subparts, and additional findings from the Examiner
provided below each criterion:
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:
a. The proposed subdivision conforms to all applicable county, state and
federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations, and plans,
including, but not limited to, the following:
i. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
ii. The provisions of this code, including any incorporated standards.
Findings: As described and analyzed in Section 7.A of the Staff Report, the project is
consistent with and implements the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, including the
Brinnon Subarea Plan, as required in section 8.2 of the Development Agreement.6 The
Comprehensive Plan establishes, at a policy level, that a master planned resort should be
located on the Black Point peninsula. The project advances goals related to expanding
urban-level development and infrastructure in master planned resorts and implementing
policies crafted to guide development of master planned resorts. The BOCC, in its
findings for Ord. No. 01-0128-08, determined that the project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular Land Use Policies 24.1-24.13, and each of the criteria
5 Development Agreement section 8.5.
6 This section requires that the Comprehensive Plan in effect on the date the Development Agreement was executed serves
as the policy guidance and foundation for project development. The applicable plan is the 2004-2017 Comprehensive Plan.
The Brinnon Subarea Plan is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and is unchanged since its amendment in 2004.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 28 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
applicable to the proposal had been met. The BOCC further found that the project is
consistent with the Brinnon Subarea Plan, Goal 1.0, and Policies 1.1-1.3, and each of the
criteria applicable to the proposal had been met.
As further documented in Section 7.B of the Staff Report, with conditions the project
complies or will comply with applicable zoning, land use, environmental, and health
regulations. The project consists of land divisions to support master planned resort uses.
Environmental (SEPA) review was completed at a programmatic and at a project level
with the FEIS and FSEIS, and with conditions the project will meet applicable
development thresholds. Further environmental analysis was performed to evaluate
critical areas, including critical aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and
wetlands, and with conditions the project will meet applicable standards for development
near these areas. The project is designed to and, with conditions, will protect public
health through provision of appropriate utilities, drainage, roadway design, and other
features.
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.
Findings: As conditioned, the project has provided for utilities and other public services
necessary to serve the needs of the proposed project proposal and to mitigate its impact
on the surrounding community. PHMPR will establish the Pleasant Harbor Utility
District to own, manage, and maintain the Pleasant Harbor Water System and Pleasant
Harbor Wastewater System. A draft WSP and WWSP have been provided, and the
WWSP has received approval from DOE. WSP plan approval will be required as a
condition of approval prior to issuing construction permits for infrastructure and WSP
will include resolution of the deficiency in total domestic water availability to DOE’s
satisfaction. Stormwater management will comply with the 2024 SWMMWW and a
Drainage Report has been prepared with proposed facilities that provide the necessary
detention, flow control, and water quality treatment. An internal transportation network
allowing for vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart access has been provided, and
road sections will be amended to address safety for non-vehicular modes. The
transportation network has been designed to ensure safe walking conditions for students
that may be present on the property. The project includes substantial open spaces and
resort amenity facilities throughout the property that provide wildlife habitat
conservation as well as recreational opportunities. Memoranda of Understanding have
been executed with BSD, BFD, JCSO, Jefferson Transit Authority, Jefferson Healthcare,
and Jefferson County (for housing and parks and recreation) to satisfy applicable
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 29 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
requirements in Ord. No. 01-0128-08 and the FEIS and FSEIS. Conditions of approval
are included to ensure the proposed facilities and necessary services are adequate and
consistent with applicable code requirements and standards. With conditions, the project
has made available utilities and other public services.
c. The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed
subdivision, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse
impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an
unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment, in
accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) implementing
provisions contained within Chapter 18.40 JCC and Chapter 43.21C
RCW.
Findings: As described in Section 6.E of the Staff Report, a programmatic FEIS was
issued in 2007 and a project-level FSEIS was issued in 2015 to evaluate the proposal.
The FEIS and FSEIS evaluated potential probably significant adverse environmental
impacts and recommended mitigation measures. Compliance with the mitigation
measures is mandatory pursuant to JCC 17.60.060. As described in Section 7.B of the
Staff Report, the project has incorporated the required mitigation measures or, with
conditions, will meet the mitigation measures set forth in the FEIS and FSEIS. The
probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision,
together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered
such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of
the environment, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
implementing provisions contained within Chapter 18.40 JCC and Chapter 43.21C
RCW.
d. Approving the proposed subdivision will serve the public use and interest
and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
Findings: The project as proposed and conditioned advances the public use and interest
and makes adequate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare. The project
is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, a document that safeguards
the public interest and public health, safety, and general welfare at a policy level. The
project is also consistent with the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which focuses on the public
use, interest, health, safety, and general welfare of the Brinnon community at a policy
level. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Brinnon Subarea Plan are
implemented by the development regulations set forth in the Jefferson County Code,
including Titles 17 and 18. With its basis in Title 18 JCC, the development agreement
also implements the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Brinnon Subarea
Plan. With conditions, the proposed land division meets applicable standards and
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 30 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
policies in place to serve the public use and interest and protect the public health, safety,
and general welfare.
The project proposal has satisfied the conditions related to Comprehensive Plan
consistency; land use, zoning, environmental, and public health regulations consistency;
adequate provision of utilities and public services to support the development; SEPA
review and incorporation of required mitigation measures; protection of the public use
and interest; and adequate provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare.
2. Notwithstanding approval criteria set forth in subsection (1) of this section,
in accordance with RCW 58.17.120, as now adopted and hereafter amended,
a proposed subdivision may be denied because of flood, inundation or swamp
conditions. Where any portion of the proposed subdivision lies within both a
flood control zone, as specified by Chapter 86.16 RCW, and either the 100-
year floodplain or the regulatory floodway, the county shall not approve the
preliminary plat unless: (a) The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the hearing examiner that no feasible alternative exists to locating lots and
building envelopes within the 100-year floodplain; and (b) It imposes a
condition requiring the applicant to comply with Article VI-F of Chapter
18.15 JCC7 and any written recommendations of the Washington State
Department of Ecology. In such cases, the county shall issue no development
permit associated with the proposed short subdivision until flood control
problems have been resolved.
Finding: The project is not located within a flood control zone, 100-year floodplain, or
regulatory floodway. The criteria in this section do not apply.
3. Pursuant to RCW 86.56.345 current year and any delinquent taxes must be
paid before approval of any subdivision.
Finding: As of the date of the Staff Report, all properties are current on taxes. Property
tax payments will be verified prior to final plat approval.
109. JCC 18.40.280(5) includes additional review criteria that apply to this preliminary
plat application. This section specifies that, in addition to the approval criteria listed
elsewhere in the Unified Development Code, the hearing examiner shall not approve a
proposed development unless he/she first makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. The development adequately mitigates impacts identified under Articles VI-D
7 Chapter 18.15 JCC was recodified into Chapter 18.22 JCC.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 31 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
through VI-I of Chapter 18.15 JCC8 (i.e., environmentally sensitive areas) and
Article X of [Chapter 18.40 JCC] (i.e., SEPA implementing provisions).
Finding: The unrebutted Staff Report explains that Articles VI-D through VI-I of
Chapter 18.15 formerly contained regulations for Environmentally Sensitive Areas
District Overlays, but were repealed in 2008. Environmentally sensitive areas regulations
were codified in Chapter 18.22 JCC at that time. The project is vested under Section 8.4
of the Development Agreement to the critical areas standards that were in place when
the Development Agreement was executed, adopted as Appendix C to the Development
Agreement. As described in Section 7.B of the Staff Report, the applicant team has
provided reports and other information to investigate and characterize the variety of
environmentally sensitive (critical) areas present on the subject property and to review
and analyze the proposal and potential impacts therefrom. With conditions, the project
meets applicable standards for development in or near critical areas and their buffers.
As described in Section 6.E of the Staff Report, the project was reviewed under SEPA
at a programmatic level in 2007 and at a project-specific level in 2015. The FEIS and
FSEIS contain mitigation measures that must be implemented to achieve no significant
adverse environmental impact. Adherence to mitigation measures is mandatory pursuant
to JCC 17.60.060(2) and enforceable through Title 19 of the Jefferson County Code.
Section 7.B of the Staff Report documents the incorporation of SEPA mitigation
measures where appropriate to the preliminary plat. Future analysis of compliance with
applicable SEPA mitigation measures is required in all phases of permitting, land
division, and project development and operation. With conditions, the project has
addressed environmental impacts and SEPA mitigation measures appropriate to this
stage of project review.
2. The development is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and meets the requirements and intent of this Unified Development Code.
Finding: Compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Brinnon
Subarea Plan, and applicable development standards in the Jefferson County Code are
discussed in Section 8.B of the Staff Report. As noted in the Staff Findings in that Section
8.B, the project is consistent with and implements the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan and the Brinnon Subarea Plan, per the analysis in Section 7.A of the Staff Report.
With conditions, the project is also consistent with applicable development standards in
the Jefferson County Code, as documented in the analysis in Section 7.B of the Staff
Report.
3. The development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
8 Chapter 18.15 JCC was recodified into Chapter 18.22 JCC.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 32 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Finding: The project is being developed under applicable codes and standards set forth
in the Jefferson County Code, the Development Agreement (including Amendment 1
and Amendment 2), and the FS&CA (including Amendment 1). These codes and
standards were adopted to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and development
consistent with the codes and standards is presumed to be not detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare. Further, the project was reviewed under a FEIS and FSEIS
and is required pursuant to JCC 17.60.060(2) to implement the mitigation measures
identified therein. This includes measures to eliminate and/or mitigate potential impacts
such that there are no adverse impacts to the public health, safety, and welfare.
4. For subdivision applications, findings and conclusions shall be issued in
conformance with Chapter 18.35 JCC and RCW 58.17.110.9
Finding: The proposal is for a preliminary subdivision. Findings and conclusions
addressing Chapter 18.35 JCC are provided in previous findings and are not duplicated
here. RCW 58.17.110(2) requires the County to make substantially similar 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 schoolgrounds 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. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and
dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and
interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the
proposed subdivision and dedication.
Finding: With respect to RCW 58.17.110(2)(a), the project has made adequate
provisions for the public health, safety, and welfare. The project, as conditioned, is
in general conformance with applicable plans, policies, codes, standards, and the
Development Agreement (including Amendment 1 and Amendment 2). The project
design includes adequate provision of open spaces, drainage ways, streets and roads,
other public and private ways, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and
9 These criteria apply to preliminary subdivision applications. Preliminary subdivision applications are Type III processes
decided by the Hearing Examiner. Final subdivisions are Type IV applications decided by the Board of County
Commissioners. The Hearing Examiner is required to make findings with respect to the criteria in RCW 58.17.110; therefore
these criteria must be considered in the Hearing Examiner’s review and decision-making processes.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 33 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
recreation, and playgrounds. An MOU with the BSD makes adequate provision for
schools and schoolgrounds. Separate walking paths are proposed and will support safe
walking routes for children. Compliance with specific standards and criteria will
occur with each construction permit.
With respect to RCW 58.17.110(2)(b), the public use and interest is served by platting
the subdivision. The proposal, as conditioned, implements the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which both identify a master
planned resort on Black Point. The project will be developed in accordance with
applicable standards in the Jefferson County Code, the Development Agreement
(including Amendment 1 and Amendment 2), the FS&CA (including Amendment 1),
and the mitigation measures in the FEIS and FSEIS to protect the public health,
welfare, and safety. The project will provide additional amenities accessible both to
local residents in the Brinnon community as well as contributions to Jefferson County
quality of life and economic prospects. This will be verified as appropriate with
construction permits.
110. Based on this record, and as conditioned below, there is insufficient evidence and an
absence of legal authority to support denial of the requested preliminary plat. No one offered
testimony or written comments that would refute the analysis and findings regarding the
project’s compliance and consistency with relevant codes, plans and policies, Comprehensive
Plan Polices, or County development regulations, as set forth in the Staff Report issued for
this project. An unrebutted preponderance of evidence in the record fully supports the
analysis, findings, and recommended conditions contained in the Staff Report. Additional
conditions have been added by the Examiner, all of which are supported by evidence in the
record.
111. This application came with a large record, many comments, and a long history of legal
challenges and administrative reviews. So, the Examiner tried to review all materials,
consider all points of view, and update legal research on relevant topics. The Examiner
reviewed the applicable approval criteria for preliminary plats as set forth in RCW 58.17.110,
Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.35, and the provisions governing the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort, including the Development Agreement. The Staff Report credibly
evaluates the proposal under these criteria, and the Addendum to Staff Report (Exhibit 74)
and Response to Public Comments (Exhibit 91) supplement and refine that analysis.
112. The Staff Report provides a comprehensive evaluation of each applicable approval
criterion, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compliance with zoning and
development standards, provision of infrastructure and services, protection of environmental
resources, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. (Ex. 1, §7.A–7.G).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 34 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
113. The Addendum to Staff Report confirms that revisions to the application and
additional information submitted following issuance of the Staff Report do not alter the
fundamental analysis or conclusions regarding compliance with approval criteria, but instead
provide clarification and additional detail supporting those conclusions. (Ex. 74, §§3.C.1–
3.C.11).
114. As discussed in previous findings, the Response to Public Comments further
addresses issues raised during the public comment and hearing process and confirms that
such comments do not identify deficiencies in the proposal that would prevent the project
from meeting applicable approval criteria. (Ex. 91, §3.B).
115. The Hearing Examiner further finds that no evidence has been presented
demonstrating that the proposal fails to meet any required criterion, and that the conditions
of approval provide sufficient mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance and protection of
public health, safety, and general welfare.
116. The record, including without limitation the application materials, supporting studies
and professional consultant reports, Staff Report, Addendum to Staff Report, and Response
to Public Comments, demonstrates that appropriate provision has been made for these
elements. The County’s analysis relies upon technical studies, agency review, environmental
analysis, and enforceable conditions of approval, which collectively establish that
infrastructure, utilities, environmental protections, and public services will be provided in a
manner consistent with applicable law and the Development Agreement.
117. Thoughtful public comments raised concerns regarding potential impacts to water
quality, infrastructure capacity, wildlife, cultural resources, traffic, and community character.
These concerns have been carefully considered and are reflected throughout the record.
However, as discussed in the Findings above, such concerns are addressed through the
applicable regulatory framework, prior environmental review, mitigation measures, specific
conditions of approval and subsequent permitting processes.
118. Approval of this preliminary plat, subject to conditions, will serve the public use and
interest. This conclusion is based on the comprehensive regulatory framework governing the
project, the extensive environmental review conducted to date, the enforceable provisions of
the Development Agreement, and the requirement that subsequent permits must comply with
all applicable laws and standards prior to construction or occupancy.
119. Except as modified in this Decision, all Findings, and statements of fact contained in
the Staff Report, the Staff Report Addendum, and the Staff Response to Hearing Comments
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 35 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
are incorporated herein by reference as Findings of the undersigned-hearing examiner.10
120. Consistent with authority granted in County and State regulations, the Examiner has
conditioned approval of the preliminary plat to ensure the proposal is consistent with the
County code, the applicable Development Agreement, and to mitigate or avoid potential
adverse impacts.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. The record includes a preponderance of evidence establishing that the pending
application satisfies applicable approval criteria and merits approval, subject to conditions.
2. As conditioned, the proposal meets the goals, policies, and implementation
recommendations and requirements set forth in the applicable Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, Brinnon Subarea Plan, Development Agreement (including
Amendment 1 and Amendment 2) with exhibits and appendices, Jefferson County Code, and
the FS&CA (including Amendment 1).
3. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with applicable Federal and State laws and
regulations.
4. As conditioned, the public use and interest are served by approving the proposal. The
proposal makes adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare. The
proposed preliminary plat addresses the relevant factors to be considered. Appropriate
provisions are made for potable water supply, sanitary waste, and other utilities, streets, open
spaces, and drainage ways. Impacts to schools, transit, parks and recreation facilities,
emergency services, police, and healthcare have been identified and mitigated. Sidewalks
provide safe walking routes to school bus stops in the event that school-aged children live on
the property.
5. None of the public comments questioning or challenging aspects of the project were
supported by professional reports or studies of comparable weight to those submitted by the
applicant or relied on by County officials, nor were they supported by credible evidence to
establish that the project will result in any significant adverse impacts of the sort that require
additional mitigation beyond that included in the FEIS, the SFEIS or the conditions of
approval recommended in the Staff Report. No one offered sufficient credible testimony or
evidence at any point through the public hearing process that would serve as a basis to require
additional environmental review or to deny the requested preliminary plat.
10 For purposes of brevity, only certain Findings from the Department’s Recommendation are highlighted for discussion in this Decision,
and others are summarized, but any mention or omission of particular findings should not be viewed to diminish their full meaning and
effect, except as modified herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 36 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
6. Any finding or other statement contained in a previous section of this Decision that is
deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such and incorporated by reference.
VI. DECISION.
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence
presented through the course of the open record hearing, all materials contained in the
contents of the record, and the Examiner’s site visits to the area, the undersigned Examiner
APPROVES the Pleasant Harbor Master Planner Resort Preliminary Plat application,
assigned File No. SUB2023-00025, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, which
are incorporated as part of this Decision by this reference.
Decision issued: April 17, 2026.
Gary N. McLean
Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 37 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
PRELIMINARY PLAT
FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
In accord with authority granted in the Jefferson County Code, the hearing examiner approves
the above-referenced preliminary plat application subject to conditions, modifications and restrictions set
forth below, all found necessary to make the application compatible with the environment, and carry out
applicable state laws and regulations, and the regulations, policies, objectives and goals of the County’s
comprehensive plan, development codes, the Development Agreement, as amended, and other ordinances,
policies and objectives of the County.
Conditions Added by the Hearing Examiner:
A. Development of the plat shall be substantially consistent with drawings provided in the
Preliminary Plat application materials, included in the record as Ex. 33 (plans dated August 28,
2025), subject to modifications necessary to comply with these conditions of approval.
B. No construction or site development activities related to the plat may be undertaken until required
county approvals become effective, and the County and other regulatory authorities with
jurisdiction issue applicable permits.
C. All development on the project site shall comply with all professional report conclusions and
recommendations submitted in connection with the preliminary plat and engineering reviews, as
approved and/or amended by the County.
D. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for consulting with state and federal agencies, and tribal
entities with jurisdiction (if any) for applicable permit or other regulatory requirements. Approval
of a preliminary plat does not limit the applicant’s responsibility to obtain any required permit,
license or approval from a state, federal, or other regulatory body. Any conditions of regulatory
agency permits, licenses, or approvals shall be considered conditions for this project.
F. The final engineering plans and submittals necessary to obtain final approvals for the plat shall
conform to all applicable provisions of the Jefferson County Code and the Conditions of Approval
herein.
G. The preliminary plat shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Development Agreement
and the Jefferson County Code, whether or not such provisions are enumerated or referenced in
the approved preliminary plat plans, in the staff report, or in this Decision. The burden is on the
applicant to show compliance with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement, the
County code and these conditions at every stage of development.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 38 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
H. The project shall not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions
or which unreasonably impacts existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel pursuant to JCC
18.20.350.
I. Regular updates of Tribal contact information. Jefferson County shall annually verify current
contact information for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) and shall immediately
update contact information if Tribes notify Jefferson County of THPO staffing changes. With
each issued development permit associated with this preliminary plat that involves land-disturbing
activity, Jefferson County shall provide current THPO contact information and shall require
PHMPR to incorporate it into the Inadvertent Discovery Protocol kept on site. Development
permits that involve land-disturbing activity shall include the following condition of approval:
PHMPR shall append to the site copy of the Inadvertent Discovery Protocol (IDP) a list of current
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer contact information provided by Jefferson County and shall
use such contact information in case of inadvertent discovery or any other notification required
by the IDP.
J. Archaeological Monitoring and IDP compliance. All contractors and personnel shall be familiar
with the inadvertent discovery plan and protocols that apply to this development. PHMPR and its
contractors engaged in land-disturbing activity shall follow the approved Plan for Archaeological
Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocol (Appendix Q to the Development Agreement)
and shall provide a final report to affected Tribes at the completion of excavation in each high-
probability area shown in Appendix Q. To the extent allowed or mandated by applicable law,
parties shall keep reports and maps confidential to respect concerns of local Tribes.
K. Educational signage opportunities. Considering the historical and cultural importance of prior
uses and certain physical features present on the site, PHMPR will consult with relevant Tribes to
develop a comprehensive signage plan, subject to review and approval by the County’s DCD
Director. This plan will be implemented at suitable locations within the plat site and should
provide educational information for future residents and visitors about notable events and
activities that occurred there, or the significance of a physical feature itself (i.e. a kettle; shellfish
beds, and the like).
L. Best Management Practices. Compliance with applicable Best Management Practices [BMPs]
for all development work associated this preliminary plat is expressly required as Condition of
Approval for this preliminary plat. With respect to water quality related BMPs, Jefferson County
shall, at the next annual review and update of the “Best Management Practices [BMPs] for the
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (Including the Pleasant Harbor Marina),” provide a
summary table that documents all applicable water quality standards, the document in which the
standard is located, and clarification of which standard(s) control in the case of conflict.
M. Enforcement. Compliance with this Preliminary Plat Decision and Conditions of Approval is
mandatory, as is compliance with applicable terms of the Development Agreement, as amended.
Violations of any condition or provision of such instruments shall be subject to enforcement by
County officials, including without limitation through Title 19 JCC captioned “Code
Compliance”, as currently written or as it may subsequently be amended.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 39 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Conditions derived from the Staff Report.
1. This preliminary approval of the plat shall expire five years from the date the preliminary approval
becomes final pursuant to JCC 18.35.400 as set forth in Appendix D to the Development Agreement.
2. A Final Plat shall be submitted to Jefferson County in the form and manner prescribed in JCC 18.35.370
as set forth in Appendix D of the Development Agreement. The Final Plat shall be in substantial
conformance with the lot and tract configuration and road layout and design set forth in Exhibit 33. Any
modifications to the preliminary plat must be requested in writing and reviewed subject to the standards
and procedure for minor and major modifications in JCC 18.35.340 as set forth in Appendix E to the
Development Agreement.
3. The following shall be included on the final plat drawing, with final proposed text subject to approval by
the Development Code Administrator or his designee:
a. A statement that the subdivision has been made with the free consent and in accordance with the
desire of the owner or owners. This shall include a signature block for the owner, whose signature
shall be written and notarized on the final plat document once the document is accepted by Jefferson
County as being ready for final approval and recording.
b. A certificate giving a full and correct description of the lands divided as they appear on the final plat.
c. Survey requirements consistent with WAC 332-130-050 and JCC 18.35.370 as set forth in Appendix
D of the Development Agreement.
d. Correct legal description of all new lots and tracts in the plat.
e. New easements to be recorded with the final plat, including their legal descriptions and associated
dedication blocks.
f. Certificates for the Community Development Director, Public Works Director, and Board of County
Commissioners signature block approvals.
g. Certificate of Payment for Jefferson County taxes and assessments containing Assessor and
Treasurer signature blocks.
h. County Finance Manager signature block.
i. Auditor’s recording certificate.
j. If a financial institution appears on the title report at the time of final plat approval, the signature of
an official authorized to sign on behalf of the financial institution’s interest shall be included on the
final plat drawing.
4. The following shall be deleted from the final plat drawing: setback lines, conceptual building footprints
(building envelopes shall be provided pursuant to JCC 18.35.370(3)(k)), street improvement details, and
other items not relevant to the division of land and/or plat recording unless specified in JCC 18.35.370.
5. Plat Notes shall be revised as follows:
a. Plat Note 24 shall read: Except as noted below, Lots 108-117 and Tracts C, X-3, X-4, and X-14 shall
have a setback for all structures of 100 feet from the top of the steep slope indicated on the Plat
Maps. Single- and multi-use paths, tee boxes, and stormwater conveyance facilities including berms,
ditches, and swales shall have a setback of 30 feet from the top of the steep slope.
b. Plat Note 25 shall read: Tract I, X-12, and X-14 shall have a setback of 20 feet from the outer
boundary of the Master Planned Resort per JCC 17.65.040(1).
c. Plat Note 28 shall read: All lots and tracts associated with this Plat of the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor
shall follow setback requirements set forth in JCC 17.65.040.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 40 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
d. A new Plat Note shall be added to read: The coastal bluff shall have 30-foot buffer from the top of
the steep slope. No new structures shall be located within the buffer. Single- and multi-use paths, tee
boxes, and stormwater conveyance facilities including berms, ditches, and swales, are allowed within
the 100-foot setback from the top of the steep slope described in Plat Note 24, provided they are not
located within the 30-foot buffer.
The Applicant may make minor adjustments to the Plat Note language specified in this condition;
provided, all plat note language will be reviewed by Jefferson County and determined acceptable prior to
granting final plat approval.
6. A. Phased approval of the final plat is allowed pursuant to JCC 18.35.330. Section 10 and Exhibit 4 of
the Development Agreement (as amended) delineate the phases of the subdivision that are to be
developed in increments as required by JCC 18.35.330 and JCC 18.35.660. Submission of a final plat
application for less than the entire area of the preliminary plat shall adhere to the delineation of phases,
the order of phases, and all other requirements for phasing set forth in section 10 and Exhibit 4 of the
Development Agreement (as amended).
B. For clarity moving forward, it is expressly understood that the specific public recreational amenities
that must be provided as part of any Phase 1 reads as follows:
1. Nine-hole golf course
2. Spa services
3. Sports courts
4. Pool
5. Water slides
6. Community Center/Recreation Center. (See Staff Report, on page 91; Amendment 2 to the
Development Agreement, at Sec. 10, and Ex. 4 attached to such amendment).
7. A recent title report (dated within 30 days of the date of the application) and information on lot closures
shall be provided with the application for final plat.
8. The Applicant shall obtain approval for the proposed road names within the plat. A Road Name Petition
for each road shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review. Road Name
Petitions shall be submitted with each application for final plat that includes an unnamed road. Approved
road names shall be shown on the final plat drawing.
9. The Applicant shall obtain addresses for each building and applicable structure as required pursuant to
RCW 58.17.280. An Address Permit for each building or structure requiring an address shall be
submitted to the Department of Community Development for review. Address Permits may be deferred to
each applicable Building Permit for each building or structure requiring an address. Addresses obtained
prior to final plat approval shall be shown on the final plat drawing.
10. Prior to approval and recording of the final plat, the applicant shall obtain approval from Jefferson
County of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Additionally, the Parties agree to address residential
cap issues and entry for maintenance and repair for stormwater facilities, roads, and other infrastructure.
PHMPR and Jefferson County may enter into a separate Right of Entry agreement or similar legal
instrument for these purposes.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 41 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
11. The project shall comply with the Development Agreement, as amended.
12. The project shall comply with applicable mitigation measures in the Master Plan for the development as
described in Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement and JCC 17.60.040. The Master Plan requires
compliance with the FEIS, FSEIS, Development Agreement (as amended), and Ord. No. 01-0128-08, all
of which are incorporated as conditions of this preliminary plat approval.
13. The code interpretation for JCC 17.65.040 issued on August 26, 2025, and included in Exhibit 4 applies
to this project. Setbacks in the MPR-GR zone shall be interpreted, applied, and administered consistent
with this code interpretation.
14. PHMPR shall either revise the project proposal such that all lots and tracts accommodate the required
interior lot line landscaping requirements set forth in JCC 18.30.130(5) or shall submit a request in
writing to reduce the required screening landscaping between the proposed development and the adjacent
Rural Residential zones. The written request shall address the approval criteria set forth in JCC
18.30.130(2)(b) in Appendix G to the Development Agreement and shall demonstrate how proposed
landscaping will fulfill the intent of the required Screen-A landscaping with less than the required width.
The written request may, at the sole discretion of the Development Code Administrator, require submittal
of accompanying landscaping plans and/or details, including proposed species selection and sizing
information. Actual landscape design shall be reviewed with construction permits and may be
consolidated with or separate from review of the written request for reduction in screening landscaping.
15. PHMPR shall install the west-oriented fence identified in the Wildlife Management Plan’s (Appendix P
to the Development Agreement) strategies for deterring elk from using the property in lieu of the
installation of flashing signage. The fence shall be installed, at a minimum, along the westernmost
property lines south of the main access road and north of the westernmost proposed residential
neighborhood. In the event that the design of the plat changes between preliminary plat approval and final
plat, the location and extent of the fence may be revised such that it excludes elk from golf course
fairways and open space that are attractive food sources. The fence shall meet or exceed the minimum
requirements for height and materials set forth in the Wildlife Management Plan. The fence shall be
installed with infrastructure and shall be complete and inspected prior to final plat approval.
Conditions Applicable to Developing Infrastructure
16. PHMPR shall construct or bond the preliminary facilities consistent with section 10.2.1 through 10.2.5 of
Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement prior to final plat approval.
Transportation
17. Access easements from the Jefferson County road system to the subdivision shall be provided consistent
with JCC 18.30.080. Easements shall be shown on the final plat. The final language of the easement(s)
shall be provided to and approved by Jefferson County prior to final plat approval.
18. PHPMR shall establish an agreement for the continuing maintenance of private roads either by recording
a separate instrument and referencing said instrument on the final plat or by declaring a maintenance
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 42 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
agreement on the plat. The agreement shall be provided to and approved by Jefferson County prior to
final plat approval.
19. Any proposed release of Old Black Point Road requires recording a formal release of easement after
review and approval by Jefferson County. Nothing in this Decision shall be construed to have reviewed or
approved release of Old Black Point Road or any other County-owned public ingress and egress/road
easement.
20. The main entrance intersection shall include pedestrian and bicycle access, including any appropriate
intersection control, sufficient to connect the preliminary plat to future development in the Maritime
Village zone and to the Pleasant Harbor Marina zone. Such pedestrian and bicycle access shall be
designed to satisfy the transportation mitigation measures set forth in the FEIS.
21. The secondary entrance on the east side of the property shall be designed and maintained to provide fire
access in perpetuity. Construction permits for the driveway shall demonstrate, to the Fire Marshal’s
satisfaction, the ability of the road to support the weight of fire apparatus that may be needed in an
emergency, including but not limited to a ladder truck. If access through this entrance will be limited by a
gate or similar means, the Fire Marshal shall review any proposed gates or other means of limiting access
and PHMPR shall work with the Fire Marshal during construction permit review to determine an
appropriate access control device (i.e., with a permit for a gate) to incorporate fire access (i.e., installation
of Knox boxes or similar devices acceptable to the Fire Marshal) and to ensure unimpeded egress in case
of evacuation.
22. New or altered intersections on Black Point Road, including but not limited to the maintenance area
access and the proposed maintenance road for Storm Pond 3, require a Road Approach Permit from
Jefferson County. The Road Approach Permit shall be obtained prior to construction related to said
driveways.
23. All roads within the preliminary plat shall be considered to be “available for public use” and shall be
designed to Jefferson County’s adopted road standards pursuant to transportation mitigation conditions in
the FEIS. If PHMPR determines that any roads will not be available for public use, PHPMR shall provide
a drawing clearly depicting such roads and the drawing shall be accompanied by a written description of
how access will be controlled to prevent public use. This information shall be submitted prior to or
concurrent with construction permits for affected roads.
24. PHMPR shall provide a parking layout plan with each construction permit for an occupancy that requires
parking pursuant to JCC 18.30.100. Where a use is specifically listed, parking shall be calculated
consistent with the requirements for that use. Where a use is not specifically listed, parking shall be
determined by the administrator pursuant to requirements for Small-Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses
in Table 6-2 Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required for Different Land Uses. Modification of
parking requirements shall be allowed pursuant to JCC 18.30.100(1)(a)(iii) and JCC 18.30.100(1)(g). The
administrator retains the right to require a parking study prepared by a licensed civil engineer to support a
parking determination for Small-Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses.
25. PHMPR shall provide an improved shared-use path connection between the golf resort and the Pleasant
Harbor Marina. This shared-use path shall be constructed or bonded prior to final plat approval.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 43 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
26. For roads with Average Daily Traffic (ADT) exceeding 1,000, PHMPR shall provide design hourly
volume (DHV) projections for each internal access road. Based on the ADT and DHV projections,
Jefferson County shall identify the applicable standard roadway section for each internal access road.
Where PHMPR proposes to deviate from Jefferson County’s assigned standard road sections, one
deviation request per road shall be made in writing prior to or concurrent with construction permits for
the subject road(s). Deviations must be approved prior to or concurrent with construction permits for
affected roads. If a request for deviation is not approved, the Applicant shall revise the plat to
accommodate Jefferson County’s assigned standard road sections.
27. Jefferson County Public Works shall review and approve the proposed Black Point Road right-of-way
dedication area prior to final plat approval. The final size and configuration of the dedication area shall
accommodate all proposed Black Point Road improvements intended to be transferred to and accepted for
maintenance by Jefferson County Public Works, and may be required to extend beyond the edge of
pavement by a distance determined during Public Works’ review to accommodate utilities and
maintenance. Prior to final plat approval, PHMPR shall request and the County Engineer shall provide a
written statement deeming the proposed Black Point Road right-of-way dedication to be of general public
benefit.
28. The proposed Black Point Road right-of-way dedication area shall be dedicated to Jefferson County in fee
simple.
29. Improvements to Black Point Road, including the re-alignment and proposed right-of-way dedication
area, shall be designed to meet adopted Jefferson County road standards. This shall be demonstrated with
construction permits for said Black Point Road improvements.
30. Prior to final plat approval, PHMPR shall request and the County Engineer shall provide a written
statement deeming the proposed Black Point Road right-of-way dedication to be of general public benefit.
31. Roads must be consistent with adopted Jefferson County roads standards in width and construction.
Where aerial apparatus access is required, roads must withstand 75,000 pounds of weight to support water
tender for fire access. PHMPR may request, in writing, a deviation from adopted Jefferson County road
standards. The deviation shall demonstrate adequacy for emergency access, including by aerial
apparatus/ladder truck. A deviation shall not be granted for bearing weight. Deviations shall be approved
prior to or concurrent with construction permits for affected roads.
32. Any deviation request for width shall be accompanied by a fire apparatus turning radius analysis. Such
analysis shall be coordinated with the Fire Marshal and shall consider actual fire apparatus likely to be
needed for emergency response. The Fire Marshal, in his sole discretion, shall determine the adequacy of
the analysis and suitability of roads for fire apparatus access and shall issue a written determination of
adequacy for the deviation. The deviation shall be reviewed by Public Works and shall not be approved
without the Fire Marshal’s written determination of adequacy.
33. Final easement width and location shall be amended based on as-built conditions of roads, paths, and
utilities. Final easement width and location shall consider access for maintenance. Final easement width
and location will be reviewed with the final plat application.
34. Two-way shared-use paths (also described in the Staff Report as multi-use paths) shall meet WSDOT’s
adopted standards in Chapter 1515 of the WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01. The proposed roadway
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 44 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
sections shall be revised to accommodate either minimum three-foot separation (preferred) or a concrete
barrier as shown in Exhibits 1515-4 and 1515-6 of the WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.
Utilities
35. All existing and proposed new utilities serving each phase shall be installed or relocated underground
prior to final plat approval for that phase.
36. Improvements for potable water and sanitary sewer serving each phase shall be installed or bonded prior
to final plat approval for that phase. All construction of potable water and sanitary sewer (wastewater)
facilities shall be in accordance with the standards, specifications, and regulations of the Washington
State Department of Health and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Written verification from
the Washington State Department of Health and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology that all
improvements have been installed and completed must be provided to Jefferson County prior to approval
of the final plat for each phase.
37. The new Pleasant Harbor water and sewer district shall be established consistent with Section 10 of
Amendment 2 to the Development Agreement and the Washington State Department of Health’s Office
of Drinking Water requirements. Final location and size of sewer and water utility easements shall be
recorded with the final plat and conveyed to the Pleasant Harbor water and sewer district when formed.
Any temporary uses shall comply with applicable requirements for fire, safety, and sanitation.
38. PHMPR shall provide documentation from the Washington State Department of Health’s Office of
Drinking Water approving or conditionally/provisionally approving the water system plan prior to issuing
construction permits that include water system infrastructure.
39. The Pleasant Harbor Water System Plan shall conform to the Washington State Department of Health’s
Group A Public Water Systems Waterworks Standards and to Jefferson County’s Coordinated Water
System Plan Design and Construction Standards.
40. The written analysis provided in Exhibit 25 is sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to adequate water
rights to serve the preliminary plat. Approval of the water system plan by the Washington State
Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water shall satisfy the FEIS condition to demonstrate
sufficient entitlement for the final plat. Upon approval of the water system plan, PHMPR shall provide
water availability information with each development application for a use that will connect to the
Pleasant Harbor Water System.
41. The wastewater (sewer) system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Washington
State Department of Ecology’s “Criteria for Sewage Works Design” dated August 2008, or as amended,
replaced, or revised. Water and sewer line crossing shall conform to Jefferson County Environmental
Public Health’s “Water/Sewer Line Crossing Policy.” An additional easement may be required to
facilitate horizon separation requirements.
42. Construction and operation permits for the wastewater treatment system shall be obtained by PHMPR
from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The approved operational plan shall be provided to
Jefferson County prior to final plat approval and prior to issuing construction permits for any structures or
buildings to be served by the wastewater treatment system.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 45 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
43. Prior to Jefferson County issuing construction permits that include electrical infrastructure for a phase,
PHMPR shall provide documentation from Mason County PUD No. 1 to demonstrate that the project can
be sufficiently served with electricity for that phase. Verification of adequate electric supply shall be
provided prior to final plat approval for that phase. Jefferson County may, in its sole discretion, request
additional information about the feasibility of electrical service following submittal of any documents
related to this condition.
Stormwater
44. Stormwater discharge shall meet the requirements set forth in the version of the Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington and the current Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, if applicable, in effect at the time each construction permit is
determined complete. Verification of compliance will occur with construction permits.
45. Proposed stormwater treatment for Basin 3 shall be provided in an update or addendum to the Drainage
Report. The update or addendum shall be provided prior to or accompanying the earlier of either the first
construction permit application submitted for work in Basin 3 or the final plat application.
46. Proposed stormwater treatment for Kettle B Basin shall be provided in an update or addendum to the
Drainage Report. The update or addendum shall be provided prior to or accompanying the earlier of
either the first construction permit application submitted for work in Kettle B Basin or the final plat
application.
47. Each stormwater facility shall have an easement granting Jefferson County access for maintenance and
inspections. These easements shall be shown on the final plat. The final language of the easements shall
be approved by Jefferson County prior to final plat approval.
48. Drainage shall be managed privately through an Owner’s Association, utility district, or similar entity or
shall be incorporated into the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). If incorporated into
CC&Rs, Jefferson County shall be allowed right of entry to perform maintenance work if PHMPR fails to
appropriately discharge its responsibilities and charge back to PHMPR. PHMPR and Jefferson County
may enter into a separate Right of Entry agreement or similar legal instrument for this purpose in lieu of
addressing drainage management through CC&Rs.
Fire Suppression
49. PHMPR shall ensure the water system will provide for adequate sustainable fire flow as specified by Title
15 JCC. Demonstration of adequate fire flow shall be provided to the Fire Marshal following construction
of an approved water system. An additional easement may be required to facilitate horizon separation
requirements.
50. All buildings requiring automatic sprinkler systems as defined in IFC 903 and 905 shall include internal
sprinkler systems with FDC connections. FDC locations shall be reviewed prior to construction of
infrastructure. Internal sprinkler systems shall be reviewed with building permits.
51. PHMPR shall incorporate Firewise design standards in the layout of the proposed resort, as appropriate
and approved by the local fire authority.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 46 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
52. All subsurface parking will provide fire systems, including air handling, water, and emergency access and
egress. These systems shall be reviewed with building permits.
53. PHMPR shall install hydrants and related fire suppression equipment at the maintenance area as approved
by the Fire Marshal. Fire suppression equipment required by the FEIS mitigating conditions has already
been installed at the Pleasant Harbor marina.
Other
54. Mailbox locations shall be approved by the Brinnon postmaster and the Department of Public Works
prior to installation to ensure compliance with required intersection sight distances and that they do not
interfere with traffic operations or pedestrian travel paths.
Conditions Applicable to Critical Areas
55. Where residential lots include a critical area, its buffer, and/or an easement for same, a Notice on Title
shall be recorded describing the presence of the critical area, buffer, setback, easement (if applicable), and
a statement that limitations on actions in or affecting such areas may exist.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
56. The recommendations and conditions set forth in the following geotechnical documents shall be
incorporated into the project design and followed during construction and operation of the resort:
a. “Jefferson County Review Comments Response Letter” prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc.,
dated October 15, 2024, including any documents referenced therein.
b. “Final Draft Geotechnical Investigation – Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort – Jefferson
County, Washington – Project No. SG0801” prepared by Perrone Consulting, Inc., dated January 23,
2013, including any documents referenced therein.
c. “Geotechnical Investigation – Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort – Brinnon, Washington”
report prepared by Subsurface Group, LLC, dated December 17, 2008, including any documents
referenced therein.
d. “Limited Geotechnical Engineering Letter – Top of Coastal Bluff/Shoreline Slope Setback and
Buffer Clarification” prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated September 10, 2025, including
any documents referenced therein.
Any recommendations set forth in the geotechnical documents shall be included as conditions to be
satisfied prior to applicable permits, approvals, and authorizations for land division or development
activity on the property.
57. The top of slope of the coastal bluff on the west side of the property shall be determined by a
geotechnical engineer or equivalent qualified professional. The geographic extent of the top of slope, the
base 30-foot landslide hazard area buffer, and the 100-foot setback applicable to buildings, roadways, and
infrastructure facilities as described in JCC 18.22.170 and the geotechnical documents shall be shown on
all relevant plans, including but not limited to the final plat and plans for infrastructure or building
construction in the vicinity. Relevance of this information shall be determined by the development code
administrator in his sole discretion. All improvements shall adhere to the buffer and setback requirements
established in the geotechnical documents and JCC 18.22.170.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 47 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
58. A permanent physical separation along the boundary of the 30-foot landslide hazard area buffer shall be
installed and permanently maintained pursuant to JCC 18.22.170(5). The method of physical separation
shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and approval prior to installation. Physical separations
shall be installed, inspected, and approved prior to final plat approval.
59. Landslide hazard areas and their buffers shall be shown on the final plat.
60. Existing improvements shall be removed from the coastal bluff’s 30-foot buffer and the buffer area fully
restored with native vegetation, consistent with the environmental mitigation measures identified in the
FEIS and FSEIS and adopted in JCC 17.60.060(2). The buffer shall remain naturally vegetated, and any
construction-related impacts shall immediately be restored. Minor pruning and vegetation may be allowed
with an approved written request pursuant to JCC 18.22.170(6)(d) as adopted in Appendix C to the
Development Agreement.
61. PHMPR shall monitor water quality consistent with Appendix N to the Development Agreement and the
Best Management Practices set forth in Amendment 1 to the Future Staffing and Consultant Agreement.
62. Construction permit applications for improvements that are impacted by geologically hazardous areas
shall demonstrate the incorporation and integration of recommendations in the geotechnical report, or an
amended geotechnical report shall be provided. Construction permit applications for improvements that
are potentially impacted by geologically hazardous areas shall be accompanied by a statement from a
qualified professional certifying that the proposal complies with the review criteria set forth in JCC
18.22.170(9)(b).
Wetlands
63. The recommendations and conditions set forth in the Wetland Verification Report prepared by
GeoEngineers, dated October 18, 2024, including documents reviewed and incorporated by reference into
the Report, as set forth in Exhibit 29 and the Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan Report
prepared by GeoEngineers, dated January 26, 2012, as set forth in Appendix J to the FSEIS shall be
followed. Mitigation shall be fully implemented, or financial guarantees provided to Jefferson County in
the form of a bond, prior to approval of the final plat.
64. Wetland buffer averaging around Wetland C is approved and shall conform to the buffer averaging plan
presented in the Wetland Verification Report dated October 18, 2024 (Exhibit 29), and evaluated in the
Response Memorandum to Jefferson County Comments Regarding Wetland C Buffer Averaging Plan
(Exhibit 30). The final (averaged) buffer around Wetland C shall be shown on the final plat and shall be
included in the permanent conservation easement required by Condition 66 prior to recording either the
easement or the final plat documents.
65. Modifications to the approved buffer averaging plan shall be reviewed as a modification to the
preliminary plat.
66. Wetlands and their buffers shall be placed into permanent conservation easements. Easements shall be
shown on the final plat. The final language of the easement(s) and legal descriptions for easement
locations (wetlands and their buffers) shall be provided to and approved by Jefferson County prior to
recording.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 48 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
67. Mitigation required pursuant to the Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan included as Appendix J
to the FSEIS shall be completed to Jefferson County’s satisfaction prior to approval of the final plat.
68. A permanent physical separation along the boundary between Wetland C’s buffers and adjoining
residential lots shall be installed and shall be permanently maintained. The method of physical separation
shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and approval prior to installation. Physical separations
shall be installed, inspected, and approved prior to final plat approval.
Conditions Applicable to Operation
69. The Resort shall be operated such that residential units achieve the residential use restrictions set forth in
JCC 17.60.070. A report of short-term visitor accommodations and short-term rental units compared to
long-term residential uses shall be provided to Jefferson County following construction of each phase of
the plat. Following construction of all phases, PHMPR shall provide a report upon request by the
Development Code Administrator, provided that reports will not be required more than once per calendar
year. If the proportion of short-term units does not meet the minimum requirements set forth in JCC
17.60.070, PHMPR shall provide a written plan of action to correct the deficiency within a reasonable
timeframe to be determined by the development code administrator.
70. All buildings and structures to be served by potable water shall be connected to the Pleasant Harbor
Water System.
71. The stormwater pump station associated with Basin 6 near Hole No. 5 in Tract X-3 shall be shown on the
plat and conformed with the civil drawings and drainage report. Final easement locations shall reflect as-
built conditions.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION – APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED
RESORT – FILE NO. SUB2023-00025
Page 49 of 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Final Decision,
Request for Reconsideration or Clarification,
Appeal Rights
The Hearing Examiner is authorized to issue Final Decisions for matters listed in JCC 2.30.080(2).
Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be subject to a request for reconsideration or clarification, by parties with standing
and in the time and manner specified in the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure, including without
limitation HEx Rules 6.5 and 6.6.
Final Decisions of the Hearing Examiner are subject to appeal as explained in HEx Rule 6.7, and JCC 18.40.340, which
reads as follows:
(1) Time to File Judicial Appeal. The applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal from the final decision of the
administrator or hearing examiner to a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner consistent with state law. All
appellants must timely exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing a judicial appeal.
(2) Service of Appeal. Notice of appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served
by delivery to the county auditor (see RCW 4.28.080), and all persons identified in RCW 36.70C.040, within the
applicable time period.
(3) Cost of Appeal. The appellant shall be responsible for the cost of transcribing and preparing all records ordered
certified by the court or desired by the appellant for the appeal. Prior to the preparation of any records, the appellant
shall post an advance fee deposit in an amount specified by the county auditor with the county auditor. Any
overage will be promptly returned to the appellant.
State law provides short deadlines and strict procedures for appeals and failure to timely comply with filing and service
requirements may result in dismissal of any appeal. Persons seeking to file an appeal are encouraged to promptly review
appeal deadlines and procedural requirements and confer with advisors of their choosing, possibly including a private
attorney.
EXHIBIT LOG
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
PRELIMINARY PLAT
File No. SUB2023-00025
Departmental Report and Analysis Documents
1. Staff Report, issued September 15, 2025
2. Summary of Compliance Status for Prior Conditions (EIS, SEIS, Ord. No. 01-0128-08), issued
September 15, 2025
3. List of Referenced Documents, issued September 15, 2025
4. Interpretation of Setback Requirements (JCC 17.65.040), issued August 26, 2025
5. Jefferson County Road Standards
A. Standards adopted between 1995 and 2011
B. Standards adopted November 21, 2022 (Resolution No. 60-22)
Application Forms
6. Preliminary Plat Application, submitted November 20, 2023
7. Supplemental Application – Land Division, submitted November 20, 2023
8. Supplemental Application – Certificate of Water Supply Utility Service for Jefferson County, dated
March 19, 2024
9. Stormwater Management Application and Supplemental Application – Stormwater Management
Permit, Submitted November 20, 2023
10. Stormwater Calculation Worksheets
A. Worksheet for the Hamlet at Pleasant Harbor , dated October 30, 2023
B. Worksheet for the Hamlet at Pleasant Harbor, undated
11. Cover Letter “Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Application for Preliminary Plan of Long
Subdivision,” prepared by Houlihan Law, dated November 20, 2023
12. Environmental Review
A. SEPA Checklist, revised March 20, 2024
B. Modular Construction Impact on EIS Letter, dated March 13, 2024
13. List of Other Permits Required, submitted March 25, 2024
Water and Sewer Availability and System Planning
14. Certificate of Water Right (Certificate No. G2-20465C), dated May 9, 1975
15. Voluntary Partial Relinquishment of Water Right No. G2-20456C and Correspondence, dated May 1,
2025 and June 25, 2025
16. Certificate of Water Right (Certificate No. G2-21134C), issued April 8, 1977
17. Certificate of Water Right (Certificate No. G2-23623C), issued June 20, 1977
18. Permit to Appropriate Public Waters of the State of Washington (Permit No. G2-27964P), issued July
17, 1992
19. Amended Permit to Appropriate Public Waters of the State of Washington (Permit No. G2-27964),
issued August 14, 2008
20. Superseding Water Right Permit (Water Right No. G2-30436), dated October 11, 2007
21. Superseding Water Right Permit (Water Right No. S2-30437), dated October 11, 2007
22. Pleasant Harbor Sewer System General Sewer Plan (Draft), prepared by Hatton Godat Pantier, dated
June 17, 2022
23. Department of Ecology Approval Letter for the Pleasant Harbor Sewer System General Sewer Plan,
dated October 6, 2022
24. Pleasant Harbor Water System Water System Plan (Draft), prepared by Hatton Godat Pantier, dated
June 27, 2025
25. Technical Memorandum: Jefferson County Preliminary Plat Comments, prepared by Hatton Godat
Pantier, dated August 27, 2025
Technical Studies
26. Pleasant Harbor Preliminary Drainage Report, prepared by Hatton Godat Pantier, dated June 20,
20251
27. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for Pleasant Harbor, prepared by Hatton Godat Pantier, dated
June 30, 2023
28. Revised Wildlife Management Plan, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated June 18, 2025
29. Wetland Verification Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated October 18, 2024
30. Response Memorandum to Jefferson County Comments Regarding Wetland C Buffer Averaging Plan,
prepared by GeoEngineers, dated August 29, 2025
31. Geotechnical Documents:
A. Geotechnical Response Letter, prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated October 15, 2024
B. Geotechnical Engineer of Record Letter, prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated April 7,
2023
C. Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Subsurface Group, LLC, dated December 17, 2008,
reviewed by Perrone Consulting, Inc. P.S., dated January 23, 2013
D. Draft Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Letter, prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated June
10, 2024
E. Limited Geotechnical Engineering Letter: Agra Center / Staff Housing Retaining Wall, prepared
by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated August 21, 2024
F. Limited Geotechnical Engineering Letter – Top of Coastal Bluff/Shoreline Slope Setback and
Buffer Clarification, prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated September 10, 2025
32. Roadway Width Documents:
A. Minimum Roadway Width Memorandum, prepared by TENW, dated October 2, 2024
B. Minimum Roadway Width – Response to SUB2025-00025 Technical Review Comments
Memorandum, prepared by TENW, dated August 29, 2025
Project Plans and Drawings
33. Preliminary Plat of the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor, prepared by Hatton Godat Pantier, dated August
28, 2025
34. Preliminary Civil Plans, prepared by Hatton Godat Pantier, dated June 2025
35. Preliminary Site Lighting Plan, prepared by MPE, dated March 14, 2024
36. Landscape Plan, submitted March 25, 2024
Other Project Documents
37. Project Narrative, submitted March 25, 2024
38. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor (Draft),
submitted March 25, 2024
39. The Hamlet of Pleasant Harbor Design Review Guidelines (Draft), submitted March 25, 2024
40. Phasing Response, submitted March 25, 2024
41. Vegetation Management Plan Response, submitted March 25, 2024
42. Cultural Resources Management Plan Response, submitted March 25, 2024
43. Fire Flow Response, submitted March 25, 2024
44. Pleasant Harbor MPR Conservation Easement, dated February 29, 2024
1 The report cover is dated June 20, 2024, but the date of signature is June 20, 2025.
45. Revised Tunicate Monitoring Schedule, submitted March 25, 2024
46. Construction Order Narrative, dated November 17, 2023
47. Draft Grant of Conservation Covenant for Wetlands and Wetland Buffers Located within the Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort, submitted August 29, 2025
Legal Notices
48. Request and Approval for Extension of Completeness Review Deadline Email String with John
Holbert, dated December 8, 2023
49. Determination of Incomplete Application, dated December 21, 2023
50. Request and Approval for Extension to Resubmittal Deadline Email String with John Holbert, dated
March 15, 2024 (latest)
51. Determination of Complete Application, dated April 16, 2024
52. Notice of Application, dated May 1, 2024
53. Notice of Revised Application, issued August 27, 2025
54. Notice of Public Hearing, dated September 24, 2025
Project Correspondence
55. PHMPR Phase 1 Pre-Submittal Comments dated September 29, 2023
56. Comment Response Letter prepared by Statesman, submitted March 25, 2024
57. Technical Review Comments – Planning Discipline with Attachment, dated July 3, 2024
58. Technical Review Comments – Civil Engineering Discipline, dated July 3, 2024
59. Revised Technical Review Comments – Planning and Civil Engineering Disciplines with Attachment,
dated August 16, 2024
60. Response to Revised Technical Review Comments prepared by Statesman, dated January 31, 2025
61. Review on Hold for Scope and Fee Negotiation, dated February 4, 2025
62. PHMPR Review Clock Toll Email String with JT Cooke, dated February 5, 2025
63. Resubmittal Cover Letter prepared by Statesman, dated June 23, 2025
64. Summary of Changes Made to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (“MPR”), Preliminary Plat
Drawings, prepared by Statesman, dated September 1, 2025
Public, Agency, and Tribal Comments
65. Public Comments:
A. Richard Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, dated September 6, 2023
B. Richard Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, dated February 2, 2024
C. Phil Best, Hood Canal Environmental Council, dated February 7, 2024
D. Theresa Crowell, dated May 15, 2024
E. Matthew Iles-Shih, dated May 18, 2024
F. Joan Hendricks, dated May 18, 2024
G. Richard Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, dated May 21, 2024
H. Richard Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, dated August 22, 2024
I. Richard Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, dated January 22, 2025
J. Terence Germaine, dated September 6, 2025
K. Jac Dufresne, dated September 12, 2025
L. Cindy Ger, dated September 12, 2025
M. Bob Carson, dated September 12, 2025
N. Julia Cochrane, dated September 14, 2025
O. Black Point Advocates, dated September 15, 2025
P. Darlene Schanfald, Ph.D., on behalf of Sierra Club North Olympic Group, dated September 15,
2025
Q. Matthew Iles-Shih, dated September 15, 2025
R. Lys Burden, dated September 16, 2025
S. Laura Straight, dated September 16, 2025
T. Beth Stroh-Stern, dated September 16, 2025
U. Lou Leet, dated September 16, 2025
V. Joanie Hendricks, dated September 16, 2025
W. Richard Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, dated September 16, 2025
X. Bob Carson, dated September 27, 2025
66. Tribal Comments
A. Alex Scagliotti, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, dated May 8, 2024
B. Cynthia Rossi, Point No Point Treaty Council, dated May 10, 2024
C. Cynthia Rossi, Point No Point Treaty Council, dated May 20, 2024
D. Marla Powers, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, dated May 21, 2024
E. Alex Scagliotti, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, dated May 21, 2024
F. Point No Point Treaty Council Letter to Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, dated August
15, 2024
G. Alex Scagliotti, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, dated September 3, 2025
H. Allie Taylor, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, dated September 11, 2025
I. Cynthia Rossi, Point No Point Treaty Council, dated October 9, 2025
67. Agency Comments:
A. Andrew Larson, PE ,WSDOT, dated May 15, 2024
B. Mason County Public Utility District No. 1, prepared by Kristin Masteller, dated January 3, 2025
C. Department of Ecology – Wastewater Treatment Email String with David Dougherty, PE, dated
January 21, 2025 (latest)
D. Department of Ecology – Water Rights Email String with Jeff Marti, dated January 8, 2025
(latest)
E. Washington State Department of Transportation Email String with Andrew Larson, PE, and
Attachments, dated January 10, 2025 (latest)
F. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office Email String with Acting Sheriff Andy Pernsteiner, dated
January 17, 2025 (latest)
G. Brinnon Fire Department Email String with Chief Tim Manly, dated February 7, 2025 (latest)
H. Brinnon School District Email String with Superintendent Patricia Beathard, dated January 14,
2025 (latest)
I. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Email String with Brian Calkins, dated August 13,
2024
J. Mason County Public Utility District No. 1 Letter “Power Supply for Pleasant Harbor,” dated
August 26, 2025
68. Jefferson County Response to the Brinnon Group and Hood Canal Environmental Council (Revised),
dated April 16, 2024
69. Jefferson County Response to Point No Point Treaty Council Letter, dated November 13, 2024
70. Jefferson County Response to Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s September 11, 2025, Letter, dated
October 8, 2025
71. Applicant Response to Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s September 3, 2025, Letter, dated October 8,
2025
72. Jefferson County Fire Marshal Response to Emergency Services-Related Public Comments, dated
October 8, 2025
73. Applicant Response to Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s September 11, 2025, Letter, dated October 10,
2025
Other Exhibits
74. Staff Report Addendum, issued October 10, 2025
Exhibits below were added on October 15, 2025, after the start of the hearing:
75. Atty Aramburu on behalf of The Brinnon Group, PHMPR Comments dated October 14, 2025
A. Attachment A to Exhibit 75 letter
Attachment B to Exhibit 75 letter
76. Staff Presentation, dated October 15, 2025
77. Applicant Response to Staff Report and List of Conditions, dated October 14, 2025
78. Marla Powers, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, dated October 14, 2025
79. Allie Taylor, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, dated October 14, 2025
80. Melissa Chittenden – email 101525 at 11:18 a.m.
81. Melissa Chittenden – email 101525 at 12:09 p.m.
82. Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe PHMPR Prelim Plat Comment addition
83. Miriam Murdoch – email 101525 re MPR Brinnon
84. Port Gamble S’Klallam Comments for Pleasant Harbor
85. Shellie Yarnell - Written letter of support from Suzy Ames 101525
86. Patty Schmucker 101525 - comment on PHMPR
87. Nikki Aikman re: FW FPA 2618496 Landowner – Tribal meeting required
88. FW Jan Wold’s public comments for the pleasant harbor MPR hearing 101525
89. Atty Aramburu email 101525 at 4:18pm
Items submitted in compliance with the Examiner ’s direction provided during hearing, allowing
written responses to public hearing comments
90. Applicant’s Response to public hearing comments, with 10 pages, submitted by counsel, John Cooke.
91. Jefferson County’s Response to public hearing comments.