HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-3-22 PH_MPR_Dev. Agreement final staff report
STAFF REPORT
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Development Agreement
DATE: April 9, 2018
TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
FROM: Patricia Charnas, Director
Jefferson County Dept. Community Development
SUBJECT: MLA08-00188/ZON08-00056: Development Agreement for Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Development Agreement -attachments links for reference
http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/1757828/Row1.aspx
http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/1757803/Row1.aspx
2. Ordinance 01-0128-08
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Department of Community Development staff is providing a proposed development agreement
by and between Jefferson County, Washington and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort,
LLC for the development commonly known as Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR).
Staff recommends approval of this development agreement.
PURPOSE OF STAFF REPORT:
This staff report brings forward the proposed final development agreement of the Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort as recommended by County staff (staff). The purpose of this
staff report is to reference the planning history and background of MPR designation for Pleasant
Harbor that substantially frames the development agreement analyzed in this report. Staff is
also forwarding a parallel report prepared separately on proposed development regulations for
the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
Application Number: MLA08-00188/ZON08-00056
Date of Application: An application to amend the GMA Implementing regulations (Unified
Development Code – Jefferson County Code Titles 17 & 18) and a request for a Development
Agreement was submitted to DCD on April 16, 2008 consistent with JCC 18.45.090(1)(c), and
deemed complete on May 14, 2008 per JCC 18.40.110(4).
Type of Application: Development Agreement, Type V Legislative approval
2
Project Request: The request is for approval of a development agreement to develop the site
for a period of 25 years or from the effective date to until five years after the build-out is
complete.
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 502-153-002, 502-153-003, 502-153-023, 502-154-002, 502-
152-005, 502-152-014, 502-152-015, 502-152-016, 502-152-013, 502-152-012, 502-153-020,
502-153-021, & 502-153-022
Applicant and owner: Applicant’s Attorney:
Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP Houlihan Law
Garth Mann, President/CEO JT Cooke, Attorney
7370 Sierra Morena Blvd SW 100 N. 35th Street
Calgary, AB T3H 4H9 Canada Seattle, WA 98103
PROJECT LOCATION:
The project site is located on the east side of Highway 101 and west of Hood Canal
approximately one and a half (1.5) miles south of the Brinnon Community and south of Pleasant
Harbor on the Black Point Peninsula.
SITE VISITS:
Jefferson County staff have conducted several site visits; more recently June 2015, October 3,
2016, May 24, 2017 and November 2017
2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
The BoCC amended the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and re-designated the subject
parcels to MPR from Rural Residential on January 28, 2008, as approved by Ordinance 01-
0128-08. A more detailed discussion of the over 15-year planning history for this project is in
the section below titled Project, Permitting and SEPA History.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcels as Master Planned
Resort (MPR). The purpose and intent of the MPR designation is to establish a master planned
resort land use district to be applied to those properties the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) determines are appropriate for development as a master planned resort consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360.
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort is comprised of fourteen (14) parcels (one of which
is privately owned with an existing bed and breakfast; 502-152-017). The proposal consists of a
9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units of which 52 are allocated
to staff housing and a ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences,
56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103-acres of natural
area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for the golf course grading.
Approximately 900 feet of the Pleasant Harbor public boat launch road will be moved
approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast along Black Point Road, all on Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owned property. The relocated road will create a
3
safer entrance to the marina and help alleviate congestion during the fishing and shellfish
seasons.
The Pleasant Harbor 300 slip marina, although within the boundaries of the master planned
resort, is not included in this analysis because it was re-developed under an Amended Binding
Site Plan.
Site development will be conducted in the following phases:
Phase 1 consists of the construction of primary infrastructure needed to service initial
construction of the MPR including the large onsite septic system that will become the back-up
when the wastewater treatment plant is constructed and the first water storage tank and piping
distribution system will also be constructed. Phase 1 will also consist of developing 202
residential units.
Phase 2 involves initial development of the central resort facilities. Golf course construction will
commence with the Golf Terrace Recreation and Conference Center consisting of 208
residential units and 36,000 square feet of commercial space will be constructed. The Maritime
Village building consisting of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial space will also be
constructed. Phase 2 also involves construction of the State Route 101 intersection
improvements, wastewater treatment plant, development of a second water well, electric power
4
infrastructure and construction of stormwater facilities. A 52 unit building for staff quarters and
maintenance will also be constructed.
Phase 3 involves reconstructing Black Point Road, relocating the WDFW access road,
constructing the sanitary sewer pump stations and force main, and constructing the majority of
the residential units including Golf Terrace 2, 3 and 4, Sea View Villas and Golf Terrace
buildings, comprising 360 total units.
PROJECT, PERMITTING AND SEPA HISTORY:
The Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) of 2002 identified the existing, yet idle NACO Campground
on Black point (BSAP, page 45) as an ideal location for a Master Planned Resort (MPR). A
pre-application conference for an MPR on Black Point was requested by The Statesman Group
of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and held on January 10, 2006. On March 1, 2006, The Statesman
Group submitted to Jefferson County an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re-zone a portion of Black Point from Rural Residential to MPR (MLA06-87).
Initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping, conducted in May 2006, identified
probable significant adverse impacts. On October 2, 2006, The Statesman Group, formally
requested that the EIS be changed from a permit-level, project EIS to a non-project, or
programmatic EIS, necessitating the need for a Supplemental or project level EIS (SEIS) prior to
development. On November 27, 2007, a programmatic Final EIS (FEIS) was issued in
association with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to re-designate the subject 256
acres from rural residential to Master Planned Resort. The Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28, 2008 with Ordinance 01-0128-08
(attached to this report), stipulating through thirty conditions that any subsequent project level
action would require a Supplemental EIS (SEIS).
There was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the 2007 FEIS that ended in 2011. The Growth
Management Hearings Board reviewed the FEIS in its 2008 decision approving it under SEPA.
[The Brinnon Group] alleges that the SEPA analysis is inadequate with respect to
stormwater management to be able to determine if it might be possible to reach
zero discharge from the golf course site. Further, they allege that the FEIS fails
to analyze water quality impacts of the anticipated traffic associated with the
development.1
The Growth Management Hearings Board decided as to the FEIS: “The environmental impacts
of this project were studied at an appropriate level of detail, with provision for further
environmental review at the project level stages of development.”2 The Thurston County
Superior Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 2011.
1 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *20 (2008)
2 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *26 (2008).
5
In April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC) Text
Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08-00188) to implement the MPR. A public
“Scoping Meeting” was held at the Brinnon School house on October 28th, 2009, and on March
31, 2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining the scope of the SEIS. DCD
issued a revised Scoping Memo on October 12, 2011 to address applicant-initiated changes to
the alternatives of the project due to the adoption of new Shoreline regulations. On July 3,
2012, DCD informed the applicant that it would be hiring a third party consultant to draft the
SEIS. On February 11, 2013, DCD signed a contract with EA Blumen (now EA Engineering) to
author the SEIS.
On November 19, 2014, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency
review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Re-development and
renovation of the Marina under an existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was
completed in April 2015. In July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new
preferred alternative #3, which reduced the size of the golf course from 18 to 9 holes with a 3-
hole practice course. This change necessitate re-review of some of the environmental
elements. A Final SEIS (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood
Canal, about 1.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Brinnon. More specifically, the
site is located on a 710-acre peninsula known as Black Point that is surrounded by the waters of
Hood Canal on the north, south and east, and is bordered by U.S. Hwy 101 to the west.
Pleasant Harbor is an all-weather deep-water harbor formed by the west shore of Black Point
and the mainland, and is connected to Hood Canal by a narrow channel at the harbor’s north
end. The project site consists of 13 parcels and is located on approximately 256-acres; 220-
acres are located south of Black Point Road, 36-acres are located north of Black Point Road.
Currently, the Black Point campground (formerly NACO 1,000 Trails Campground) located to
the south of Black Point Road is unused and consists of overgrown vegetated areas (trees,
shrubs, and grasses), a system of paved and graveled roads, paths, parking areas, tent camp
sites, over 500 paved recreation vehicle (RV) pad sites, picnic areas with shelter buildings, an
activity center and de-activated, playground equipment, restroom buildings with septic tanks and
drain fields, wells for water supply, gravel borrow areas, an entry guard house, and fenced
equipment storage areas. None of the buildings within the former Black Point campground are
in use.
The private water system infrastructure within the site area presently includes supply wells,
storage facilities and distribution piping. Two wells supply water to the site including an existing
well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second
well north of Black Point Road serves the existing Bed and Breakfast. Another well outside of
the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional wells
within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the
Black Point Peninsula.
6
The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site consists of
gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, force mains, and subsurface
drain fields. The Pleasant Harbor House has its own pump tank and grinder pump. The Bed
and Breakfast is served by its own septic system. There are several septic systems throughout
the Black Point campground area that are currently not in use. Existing utilities in both areas of
the site include electrical power, propane gas and telephone. Electricity is supplied to the site
via the Mason County Public Utilities District (PUD). Propane gas is utilized by the adjacent
marina and surrounding residential uses.
The southern portion of the site is a steep bluff (100+ feet high) and a narrow beach fronting the
shellfish beaches on the Duckabush River delta south of the Black Point peninsula. A small
path presently leads from the top of the bluff to the beach, but no development is located in
proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. Beach access will not be allowed as part of this proposal.
A Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) property located north of Black Point
Road is approximately 28.7-acres and contains a boat ramp and picnic facilities at the sound
end of Pleasant Harbor. A boat access road connects Black Point Road to the boat launch. The
remainder of the WDFW property is forested hillside.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The request is for a proposed Development Agreement between Jefferson County and Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP to develop approximately 237.88-acres that previously was
approved as a Master Planned Resort (MPR) through a Comprehensive Plan amendment as
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 28, 2008 through Ordinance 01-
0128-08. A MPR shall require approval of a Development Agreement as required by Jefferson
County Code (JCC) 18.15.126(2) and as authorized by JCC 18.40.820 and RCW 36.70B.170
through 36.70B.210.
The Development Agreement ensures that the project will meet the goals and purposes for
which the Development Agreement Laws were enacted, and determines that the agreement is
in the public interest, will serve a public use, will promote the health, safety, prosperity and
general welfare of the citizens of the County by, among other things, eliminating uncertainty in
long-term planning; provides for the orderly development of the Project on a comprehensive
basis consistent with the Growth Management Act; and effectively utilizes county resources.
To provide consistency in development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, (PH MPR) the
Development Agreement will vest the project for 25 years from the effective date or until five
year after the build-out is complete. Build-out is defined as the completion of all proposed
development phases of the MPR as described in the Phasing Plan submitted by the
Developer/Property Owner, provided above. The Development Agreement outlines the
requirements for approval for all project phases by providing certainty over time with respect to
permitted densities, amenities and uses, development standards, and other aspects of the
development review process.
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS:
7
Public Notice of this action was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader
newspaper.
APPLICABLE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES:
Jefferson County Code (JCC), Title 18, Unified Development Code, as amended
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, as amended
(including the amendments in Ordinance 01-0128-08)
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
This section constitutes staff’s findings and conclusions regarding the consistency of the
proposed action (approval of the development agreement) with Washington State statutes, the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Unified Development Code, and
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
RCW 36.70A.360 Master Planned Resorts: The proposed development is subject to the
following criteria and requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.360 for
MPRs:
(1) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master
planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as
limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully
integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with
primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor
recreational facilities.
Staff comment: As reviewed, approved and conditioned under Ordinance 01-0128-08
(attached) the proposal complies this criterion. Subsequent development shall comply with the
conditions of approval under the thirty conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08 #63(a) thru (dd), and
specifically condition 63 (aa) that requires each section to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental
and timeshares to permanent residences. Proposed amenities include a 9-hole golf course, spa
services, amphitheater, pool, sports courts, and other resort related facilities.
NOTE: Ordinance 01-0128-08 was appealed and upheld by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board (Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition v. Jefferson County
and Pleasant Harbor - Case No. 08-2-0014 Final Decision and Order) on September 15, 2008.
The Board’s Synopsis of Decision is reproduced here:
“In this Order the Board finds that the process employed by Jefferson
County to adopt a comprehensive plan amendment authorizing a
proposed Master Planned Resort map legal description and text
amendment for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort complied with the
Growth Management Act's public participation requirements, as well as
the process required under the Jefferson County Code. In addition, the
Board finds in this Order that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that
any of the challenged aspects of the Brinnon MPR create an
8
inconsistency such that one feature of the Jefferson County plan is
incompatible with any other feature of its plan or regulation. The Board
also finds that Petitioners have not demonstrated that the adoption of the
Ordinance and environmental review fails to comply with the substantive
and procedural requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW including
implementing regulations in Chapter 197-11 WAC and JCC 18.40.700 et
seq. including the procedural requirement for consideration of alternatives
in the EIS. As the Board has not found any area of noncompliance, there
is no basis for a finding of invalidity.”
The proposed development also is subject to the following criteria and requirements of RCW
36.70A.360 for MPRs:
(2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm
water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be
limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and
services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers,
including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated
with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master
planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service
providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided
that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth
areas.
Staff Comment: The MPR will be completely self-contained in terms of water, waste water and
stormwater treatment. Buildings will require sprinkler systems be installed and basic security
systems and personnel will be provided on-site by the developer, along with a 500 square foot
room dedicated to law enforcement. Fire and emergency medical will be provided by the
Brinnon Fire District and Jefferson Healthcare.
Consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(c), the developer entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Jefferson Healthcare who signed the MOU on
September 30, 2010 as well as a MOU with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department of which
Sheriff Stanko signed on May 10, 2017 and the Brinnon Fire Department Chief was consulted
on the MOU for emergency services.
Water Rights under the RCW:
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing
applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing certificates of water
right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place of use for a water right; or
affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing water right.
All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters 90.03
and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise.
9
Staff Comment: Water rights have been granted for three (3) on-site wells by the Department
of Ecology under application number G2-30436. Approval of a Class A Water System by the
Department of Health is required prior to any County development permit approval per
Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(n).
The proposed development also is subject to the following criteria and requirements of RCW
36.70A.360 for MPRs:
(3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but
only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature
of the resort.
Staff Report: No more than 35% of residential units shall be for permanent use. Fifty two (52)
residential units shall be dedicated to staff housing as required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-
08 condition 63(g). Both uses are integrated into and support the recreational nature of the
resort.
The proposed development also is subject to the following criteria and requirements of RCW
36.70A.360 for MPRs:
(4) A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if:
(a) The Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of
master planned resorts;
Staff Comment: Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural element goal LNG 24.0 and
policies LNP 24.1 thru 24.13 guide the development of new Master Planned Resorts and will be
addressed specifically in the following section on the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Under Ordinance 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion.
(b) The Comprehensive Plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude
new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in
areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110;
Staff Comment: Under Ordinance 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement (page
5 #33 of said Ordinance) that the Comprehensive Plan already includes policies to guide the
development of new MPR and the related development regulations serve to preclude urban or
suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR.
(c) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better
suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the
commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that
otherwise would be designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW
36.70A.170;
10
Staff Comment: Under Ordinance 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to
satisfy this criterion stating “the land at the site in question is better suited for an MPR than for
the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production. The parcels were previously
zoned as rural residential prior to the re-zone of the MPR.
(d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations
established for critical areas; and
Staff Comment: Applicable sections of the Critical Area ordinance (JCC 18.22) will be
addressed under the Jefferson County Unified Development Code section.
(e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation measures for
transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public
services, and under Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(c), Memoranda of Understanding are
required and have been secured for all public service providers.
The proposed development also complies with the following intent of RCW 36.70A.360 for
MPRs:
NOTES:
Intent—1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the
1994 department of community, trade, and economic development's master planned resort task
force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of capital facilities, utilities, and
services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for shared
facilities with such providers, when all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity
increases, are fully borne by the resort." [1998 c 112 § 1.]
Staff Comment: The BoCC response to this intent is addressed in the 30 conditions of
Ordinance 01-0128-08 imposed on the developer and specifically condition 63(c) which requires
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with service providers.
1. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed development is subject to the
goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The following Plan goals
and policies apply to the proposal:
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Rural Element
Master Planned Resorts
As required under Ordinance 01-0128-08 Section Two, the following text amended the
Comprehensive Plan narrative on page 3-23, last paragraph:
“Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon.
The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant
11
Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to
include additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black
Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a
resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential
construction would not exceed 890 total units.”
Staff Comment: Since the adoption of Ordinance 01-0128-08 on January 28, 2008, the then
proposed marina development has changed due to the required 150 foot shoreline buffer under
the new Shoreline Master Program. The proposed additional residential and commercial
development was moved out of the marina area and up to and abutting Highway 101 as the
Maritime Village complex. As such, staff recommends the following revision to this text to be
included the Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement, as well as included in the
periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment due June, 2018:
“Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon,
known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The new Master Planned Resort is
237.88 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point areas. The
Marina area is existing and was redeveloped under a legally permitted Amended Binding Site
Plan. The Black Point area and Maritime Village along the Highway 101 of the new resort would
include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas,
staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed
890 total units.”
GOALS AND POLICIES – LAND USE AND RURAL ELEMENT:
Goal 24.0 - Provide for the siting of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs) pursuant to the adoption of
development regulations consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A.360), in locations that are appropriate from both an economic and environmental
perspective.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this goal since Ordinance 01-0128-08
approved the re-designation of the subject parcels from Rural Residential to Master Planned
Resort on January 28, 2008, effectively siting the resort on the subject parcels.
Policy 24.1 - Master planned resorts are generally larger in scale, and involve greater potential
impacts on the surrounding area, than uses permitted under the Small -Scale Recreation and
Tourist Uses standards. MPRs may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as
limited by RCW 36.70A.360.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance 01-
0128-08. A maximum of 890 residential units and 56,608 square feet of commercial space is
allowed in addition to many resort amenities. Several amenities will be available to the general
public for their use and enjoyment.
Policy 24.2 - Owners of sites where MPRs are proposed to be located must obtain an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, giving the site a master planned resort
12
designation prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review. The
comprehensive plan amendment process should evaluate all of the probable significant adverse
environmental impacts from the entire proposal, even if the proposal is to be developed in
phases, and these impacts shall be considered in determining whether any particular location is
suitable for a master planned resort.
Staff Comment: Through Ordinance 01-0128-08, the subject parcels were re-zoned from rural
residential to Master Planned Resort. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.3 - The process for siting a master planned resort and obtaining the necessary
Comprehensive Plan designation shall include all property proposed to be included within the
MPR and shall further include a review of the adjacent Comprehensive Plan land use
designations/districts to ensure that the designation of a master planned resort does not allow
new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR. This policy should not be
interpreted, however, to prohibit locating a master planned resort within or adjacent to an
existing Urban Growth Area or within or adjacent to an existing area of more intense rural
development, such as an existing Rural Village Center or an existing Rural Crossroad
designation.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance 01-
0128-08.
Policy 24.4 - MPRs should not be located on designated Agricultural Resource Lands or Forest
Resource Lands, unless the County specifically makes the finding that the land proposed for a
Master Planned Resort is better suited and has more long-term importance for the MPR than for
the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and also makes the
finding that the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent Agricultural or Forest Resource Land
production.
Staff Comment: The parcels were previously zoned as rural residential prior to their re-
designation to master planned resort in 2008. Some logging of the site occurred around 1980
from previous owners. The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance
01-0128-08.
Policy 24.5 - The master planned resort shall consist of predominantly, short-term visitor
accommodations and associated activities, but may include some other permanent residential
uses, including caretakers' or employees' residences and some vacation home properties,
provided they must be integrated into the resort and consistent with the on-site recreational
nature of the resort. MPRs may propose clustering construction, setbacks, lot sizes, and
building sizes that vary from those normally found in the Rural or Resource Lands designations.
Staff Comment: A ratio of 64% to 35% of rental to time-shares to permanent housing shall be
maintained as well as a minimum of fifty two (52) residential units dedicated to staff housing as
required under Ordinance 01-0128-08. Both uses are integrated into and support the
recreational nature of the resort. The proposal includes suggested development and zoning
13
regulations that deviate from those found in other zoning districts. The proposal is consistent
with this policy.
Policy 24.6 - The master planned resort may include indoor and outdoor recreational facilities,
conference facilities and commercial and professional activities and services that support and
are integrated with the resort. These facilities shall be primarily designed to serve the resort
visitors, either day visitors or overnight visitors, but may also provide some limited goods and
services for the surrounding permanent residential population.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing a 9 hole golf course, swimming pool, indoor
recreation court, amphitheater, spa and beauty salon, restaurant and professional services just
to name a few. Additionally, Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(d) requires the applicant
provide a list of amenities that identifies which services are accessible to the general public.
The development agreement currently has an attachment detailing those amenities. The
proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.7 - The capital facilities, utilities and services, including those related to sewer, water,
storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical provided on-site shall be limited
to meeting the needs of the resort. These facilities, utilities, and services may be provided by
outside service providers, such as special purpose districts provided that the resort pays all
costs associated with service extension capacity increases, or new services that are directly
attributable to the resort, and provided that the nature of the facilities and services provided are
adequate to meet the increased needs of the resort, based on the planned concentration of
guests, structures and other facility, utility and service demands. Plan approval shall provide
that facilities serving the resort, which may be urban in nature, not be used to serve
development outside the resort areas, except at appropriate rural densities, uses, and
intensities.
Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation measures for
transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public
services. Additionally, under Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(c), Memoranda of
Understanding are required for all public service providers to ensure that those infrastructure
and services required by the resort, are contained within the resort and fully paid for by the
developer. No resort infrastructure or services are to be provided to areas outside the resort,
with the exception of water service to those residential uses under the Neighborhood Water
Supply Program (appendix O to the development agreement). The proposal is consistent with
this policy.
Policy 24.8 - MPRs should only be approved when it can be demonstrated that, on-site and off-
site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully considered and mitigated.
Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation measures for
transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public
services, and under Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition (c), Memoranda of Understanding are
required for all public service providers to ensure that those infrastructure and services required
by the resort are fully paid for by the developer. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
14
Policy 24.9 - The MPR shall contain sufficient portions of the site in undeveloped open space
for buffering and recreational amenities to help preserve the natural and rural character of the
area. Where located in a rural area, the master planned resort should also be designed to
blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent practical, screen the development and
its impacts from the adjacent rural areas outside of the MPR designation.
Staff Comment: Natural open space, pervious and impervious surface area calculations are
contained in Table 2-3 (page 2-35) of the FSEIS. Alternative 3, the Applicant’s preferred
alternative, preserves 103 acres of natural undisturbed open space from a total site acreage of
237.88 acres - 45% or nearly half of the total site area. With the exception of the Maritime
Village Complex (which needed to be relocated from the Marina to along Highway 101), and
those properties at higher elevations west of the resort, the resort shall be screened from view
with vegetation and site topography to the maximum extent practical. The proposal is
consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.10 - The MPR must be developed consistent with the County's development
regulations established for environmentally sensitive areas and consistent with lawfully
established vested rights, and approved development permits.
Staff Comment: The FSEIS analyzed impacts consistent with current Critical Area regulations
under JCC 18.22, and shall be described in further detail in the Jefferson County Unified
Development Code section below. The application includes draft development regulations (the
subject of a separate staff report) and a development agreement (attached to this report) that
regulate how development will occur, and address vested, legal non-conforming rights and
uses, as well as development permit review and approval for the resort. All existing
development standards of Jefferson County unified development code apply to the Pleasant
Harbor MPR and all land use, stormwater and building permits are required. The proposal is
consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.11 - Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development Agreements,
as authorized by RCW 36.7013.170, to implement these policies.
Staff Comment: The Development Agreement is a contract between the County and
Developer over the terms and scope of development, and is also a requirement under JCC
18.15.123(4). A draft of the Development Agreement is attached to and the subject of this
report. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.13 - New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas or
existing shoreline development, such as marinas and shoreline lodges, which promote public
access to developed shorelines, and/or locations which promote public access and use of
National Parks and National Forests.
Staff Comment: The proposed resort as located includes Pleasant Harbor, a marina and public
access point to the shoreline, and Black Point Peninsula, which is completely surrounded by
15
marine waters. The site is also within close proximity to access of the Olympic National Park
and the adjacent Olympic National Forest. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
COMPLIANCE WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE:
Jefferson County Unified Development Code: The proposal is subject to a review to
determine consistency with the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. The following
code sections are applicable to the proposal.
JCC 18.15.025 Master Planned Resort
Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated
development with primary focus on resort destination facilities that includes short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the
property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. A resort may include other
residential uses, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site
recreational nature of the resort.
Staff Comment: As previously described above, the proposal is consistent with this description
as a land use district. The resort includes a large on-site sewage treatment facility, stormwater
facilities, public water supply, internal roadways, utilities, pedestrian paths and an assortment of
recreational opportunities including a the Pleasant Harbor Marina, 9-hole golf course, swimming
pool, spa and beauty salon services just to name a few. Housing will maintain a ratio of 65% to
35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08
condition 63(aa). Additionally, a maintenance building including 52 staff housing units will also
be provided. The proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
The following is the proposed new subsection (2) to this section of Code, to follow subsection
(1) describing Port Ludlow as the first Master Planned Resort. Staff’s suggested edits are
indicated by strike-through and underline:
(2) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is
the second officially designated master planned resort in the County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR
is designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360 as a new master planned resort and is
subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17 Article II. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is characterized by
a golf course resort facility with associated residential uses south of Black Point Road, and a
300 slip marina at Pleasant Harbor, / and a Maritime Village mixed use recreation center with
and associated housing north of Black Point Road. The resort is predominately designed to
serve resort and recreation uses and has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is served
located within 2 miles by of the Brinnon Rural Center which accommodates LAMIRD-scale
commercial uses serving the resort and local population. The master planned resort's internal
regulations and planning restrictions such as codes, covenants and restrictions may be more
restrictive than the requirements in JCC Title 17. However, Jefferson County does not enforce
private codes, covenants and restrictions.
JCC Chapter 18.15 Article IV. Master Planned Resorts – Special Provisions
16
JCC 18.15.115 – Designated – “Master planned resort” (MPR) is a land use designation
established under the Comprehensive Plan. The only existing officially designated master
planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, provisions for which are codified in JCC
Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70.A.362 regarding designation
of existing master planned resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-
specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required
by JCC 18.45.080.
Staff Comment: The Applicant’s proposed changes to the above language in current code are
indicated by strikethrough and underline. Ordinance 01-0128-08 established the boundary and
siting of the resort through the site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process as
finalized on January 28, 2008. The proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
Proposed JCC 18.15.115 – Designation - "Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use
designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The officially designated master
planned resorts in the county are the Port Ludlow MPR and the Pleasant Harbor MPR,
provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts. Pleasant Harbor
MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 pertaining to new Master Planned Resorts.
Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires
compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-specific amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required by JCC 18.45.080.
JCC 18.15.120 Purpose and intent - Jefferson County has a wide range of natural
features, including climate, vegetation, water, natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and
geological features, which are desirable for a wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New
master planned resorts authorized by RCW 36.70A.360 offer an opportunity to utilize these
special features for enjoyment and recreational use, while bringing significant economic
diversification and benefits to rural communities. The purpose of this article is to establish a
master planned resort land use district to be applied to those properties the board of county
commissioners determines are appropriate for development as a master planned resort
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360.
Staff Comment: The proposal, including amended language to recognize the addition of
Pleasant Harbor MPR (in underline) is consistent with this section of code.
JCC 18.15.123 Allowable Uses - The following uses may be allowed within a master
planned resort classification authorized in compliance with RCW 36.70A.360:
(1) All residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures,
condominiums, time-share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided,
such uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the
master planned resort.
(2) Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels,
lodges, and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental;
17
provided, that short-term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65
percent of the total resort accommodation units.
3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to,
golf courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses,
practice facilities, and maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools,
marinas, hiking and nature trails, bicycle paths, equestrian facilities, sports
complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent with the on-site
recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites.
(5) Visitor-oriented amenities, including, but not limited to:
(a) Eating and drinking establishments;
(b) Meeting facilities;
(c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the
needs of the users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons
and spas, gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real estate/property
management offices; and
(d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and
outdoor equipment rental and sales.
(6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative
centers and exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums.
(7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and
operate the master planned resort.
(8) Temporary and/or permanent structures to serve as sales offices.
(9) Any other similar uses deemed by the administrator to be consistent with the
purpose and intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding
master planned resorts, and RCW 36.70A.360.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. Proposed uses and
amenities are listed in Chapter 2 of the FSEIS and in Section 10.3. of the development
agreement (attached). Uses and amenities not listed there but allowed here, may be
established at a future date, or deemed allowable by the Administrator if they are consistent with
the purpose and intent of this section, the Development Agreement and Development
Regulations.
JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts - An applicant for an MPR
project must meet the following requirements:
(1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project
and provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall
include:
(a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being
situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational
features that will attract people to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including
short-term visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor
recreational facilities, off-site recreational opportunities offered or
18
provided as part of the resort's services, and commercial and supportive
services provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and
intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and
their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its users.
(d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development,
showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort
and its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential
development types and location.
(e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and
functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site
design and protection of natural amenities, and which further the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how
landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and
parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into
the project site.
(f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the
measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent
to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management
Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed
public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master
Program.
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how
its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote
compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the
development.
(h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be
necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development
will be available, and that concurrency requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan will be met.
(i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if
any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for
the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the
development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project
will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the
project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its
environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should
development cease before all phases are completed.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. The proposed zoning
regulations, along with the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08 and FSEIS,
maps, mitigation measures, phasing plan and the Development Agreement constitute the
“master plan”.
JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts
19
(2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a
development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC
(Development Agreements), and RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210.
Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.70B.170, the development
agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set forth the
development standards applicable to the development of a specific master
planned resort, which may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
(b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant;
(c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans;
(d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if
applicable), visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor
accommodations, on-site recreational facilities, and on-site
retail/commercial services;
(e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy
Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and
(f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840
and RCW 36.70B.170(3).
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. A draft Development
Agreement meeting the required elements of this section is attached to this report.
JCC 18.15.135 – Criteria for Approval
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or
approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or
modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the
application shall be denied.
(1) The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI-D of
this chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA)).
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. The FSEIS technical
reports analyzed the proposal under current ESA regulations contained in the County’s Critical
Area Ordinance – JCC Chapter 18.22. The FSEIS, along with its published mitigation measures,
concluded that the proposal would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, and
would comply with JCC 18.22 as it pertains to Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish & Wildlife
Conservation Areas, and Wetlands. Also, Critical Aquifer Recharge and Saltwater Intrusion
Protection Zones were further analyzed under by the Department of Ecology use State
protection standard, and those standards are consistent with standards under JCC 18.22.
(3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space,
recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand
alone if no subsequent phases are developed.
Staff Comment: As detailed in the Master Plan requirement under JCC 18.15.126(1)(i), the
proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
20
(4) The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and sufficient
services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to
adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR.
Staff Comment: The list of available resort and recreational amenities; the increase in
undisturbed open space between FSEIS Alternatives 1 and 3; the proposed infrastructure
improvements to Black Point Road, the DNR boat ramp, shuttle service to and from the resort
and SeaTac Airport, and between the golf and marina side; and the MOUs for public service; all
demonstrate compliance with this section of code.
(5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory
on-site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented
to serve the MPR.
Staff Comment: As described and analyzed in the FSEIS and the development agreement, the
proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
(6) Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening
of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each
other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of
natural features, historic sites, and public views.
Staff Comment: As described in the Master Plan as required under JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), the
proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
(7) All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered
and mitigated.
Staff Comment: Per the FSEIS, the proposal complies with this criterion.
(8) Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid
or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this standard. Development along the south
bluff is setback at least 200 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark and permanently protected in a
conservation easement, and south beach access is decommissioned and avoids and minimizes
impacts to the marine waters of Hood Canal. Also, the stormwater system is designed to
prevent any discharge into Hood Canal per Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(q). Siting of
buildings and recreational activities were designed to be buffered from adjacent properties.
(9) The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the
character of the resort.
Staff Comment: The master plan contains zoning and development standards specific to each
zone in order to maintain the specific character of each zone, such as golf course, marina and
21
mixed use recreational (Maritime Village) as different aspects of the overall resort. The proposal
is consistent with this section of the code.
(10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more
long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber
or production of agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect
adjacent agricultural or forest resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Ordinance 01-0128-08 contained findings per the RCW that satisfy this
criterion. The proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
JCC 18.20.190 – Golf Courses
(1) Applications for a golf course must be accompanied by a design plan and best
management practices plan. The design plan shall minimize the use of
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and groundwater by the type and placement of
appropriate vegetative materials and other means. The use of pesticides,
herbicides, or fertilizers that are known to leach into groundwater are prohibited.
The design plan shall also demonstrate that an adequate water supply shall be
provided without diminishing the level of service for system users or others
dependent upon the resource. The best management practices plan shall include
monitoring procedures and an integrated management plan. Once approved by
the county, the management plan shall be a condition of project approval and
failure to comply with the approved plan shall be grounds for revocation of the
permit.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this standard. The Applicant submitted a Golf
Course Development and Operation Best Management Practices Plan as part of the SEIS,
which shall be incorporated into a design plan that shall be required as a condition of approval
for further development and submitted for review and approval at time of stormwater
management permit application to grade and develop the golf course under Phase 2 of the
overall resort development.
(2) Accessory uses to golf courses shall be limited to those either necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the course, or those which provide goods or
services customarily provided to golfers at a golf course. Accessory uses may
include parking, maintenance facilities, cart storage and repair, clubhouse,
restrooms, lockers and showers, food or beverage service, pro shop, and
practice or driving range, swimming pools, tennis courts, weight rooms, or similar
uses oriented to persons other than golf course patrons.
Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort,
accessory uses are listed as permitted uses in the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the
development regulations (17.65) for the resort. The proposal is consistent with this standard.
22
(3) Accessory uses which provide commercial services, such as food and beverage
service and pro shop, shall not exceed a total of 5,000 square feet of gross floor
area.
(4) No occupied building accessory to a golf course shall be located within 100 feet
of any property line.
(5) No off-street parking or loading area shall be permitted within 50 feet of a side
and rear property. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort,
applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the
development regulations (17.65) for the resort.
JCC Chapter 18.40 Article XI – Development Agreements
18.40.820 Purpose.
This article establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into
development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A decision to enter into a
development agreement shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement
may be appropriate for large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not
contemplated by existing development regulations or existing application procedures. [Ord. 8-06
§ 1]
18.40.830 General requirements.
(1) Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an
optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the county, except a
development agreement shall be required for applications for master planned
resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and major industrial developments in
accordance with JCC 18.15.605.
Staff Comment: The Development Agreement is part of the Type V application. The proposal
is consistent with this section of the code.
(2) Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the county shall be parties to a
development agreement; provided, that if a proposed development is within an
adopted municipal UGA, the applicable town or city shall also be a party to the
agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in
a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party beneficiaries
and utility service providers.
Staff Comment: The proposed development agreement is between Jefferson County and the
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP. The proposal is consistent with this section of
the code. The application is consistent with this requirement.
(3) Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be
prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and
23
other conditions that shall apply to and govern the development, use and
mitigation of the property subject to the agreement.
Staff Comment: The proposed development agreement is consistent with this requirement.
(4) When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement
may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project
permits for development of the property.
Staff Comment: Approval and recording of the development agreement shall take place prior
to approval of any project permits for development of the property. The proposal is consistent
with this section of the code.
(5) Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and
conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the
applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code,
except in the case of a master planned resort (which requires a site-specific
Comprehensive Plan amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by
the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project
impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements
related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Article VI-D of
Chapter 18.15 JCC may not be varied by adoption of any development
agreement. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: The development standards contained in the development agreement
(Section 8 of the development agreement, attached) concerning permitted uses, density
standards, stormwater management, critical areas, land division, shorelines and site
development rely on existing adopted code and the specific conditions contained in Ordinance
01-0128-08 constitute the development standards. Pleasant Harbor MPR development
regulations are the subject of a separate staff report and are consistent with this section of code
therefore the proposal is consistent with this section of the code.
18.40.840 Development standards to be addressed.
(1) A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more
of any of the following types of development controls and conditions:
(a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential and nonresidential
densities, scale and intensity of uses and/or building sizes;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. These standards are
addressed in the development regulations Title 17 Article II as adopted under Section 8
Development Standards of the proposed development agreement.
(b) Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements
pursuant to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW;
24
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. Section 8 of the
proposed development agreement addresses development standards as well as several
conditions imposed by Ordinance 01-0128-08. The development regulations addresses
mitigation measures as well as development conditions for each specific zone within the MPR.
(c) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and
water quality requirements, screening and landscaping and other
development features;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. These standards are
addressed in Section 8 of the proposed development agreement and also within the specific
zones identified in the proposed development regulations.
(d) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure
requirements;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. These standards are
addressed in Section of the proposed development agreement.
(e) Affordable housing;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. This is addressed in
the MOU for housing attached to the development agreement.
(f) Recreational uses and open space preservation;
Staff Comment: Recreational uses are identified in the development agreement. Condition
63(s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, requires a conservation easement be recorded for natural
greenbelts and buffers. Additionally, a vegetation management plan was prepared is an
appendix to the development agreement.
(g) Phasing;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. This is addressed in
Section 10 of the development agreement.
(h) Development review procedures, processes and standards for
implementing decisions, including methods of reimbursement to the
county for review processes;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. These are addressed
in Sections 8 and 9 of the proposed development agreement.
(i) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures.
25
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code and are specifically
addressed in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the proposed development agreement.
(2) A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services,
infrastructure, or other facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities
may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over
time for financing public facilities.
Staff Comments: Not included as part of the proposed development agreement.
(3) Development agreements shall:
(a) Establish a process for amending the agreement;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. There is a process for
amendment, modification and revisions in the development agreement.
(b) Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires;
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. Addressed in Section
2 and 9 of the development agreement.
(c) Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code addressed in Section
2 and 9 of the development agreement.
(d) Reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent
required by a serious threat to public health and safety. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code and is addressed in
section 7 and 9.3.3 of the proposed development agreement.
18.40.850 Procedures.
(1) A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the
property owner to the administrator of the department of community
development. The request should describe the project and the specific reasons
why the project is suitable for a development agreement. The request should
identify the development standards set forth in JCC 18.40.840 that the applicant
is requesting to be included in the development agreement and any other
reasonable information requested by the county.
Staff Comment: The application (MLA08-00188) submitted April 16, 2008 satisfies this
requirement.
(2) If the administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development
agreement should be considered by the county, the property owner shall be so
26
informed, except that development agreements shall be required for the approval
of master planned resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and for the
approval of major industrial developments in accordance with JCC 18.15.605.
Staff Comment: The development agreement was required as part of the application to
implement a master planned resort as approved under Ordinance 01-0128-08.
(3) When a development agreement is being considered prior to project permit
approvals, the property owner shall provide the county with the same information
that would be required for a complete application for such project permits in order
for the county to determine the development standards and conditions to be
included in the development agreement.
Staff Comment: MLA08-00188 included a request to amend the UDC to adopt new standards
for development under proposed Title 17 Article II. The proposal is consistent with this section of
code.
(4) When a development agreement is being considered following approval of
project permits, the development standards and other conditions set forth in such
project permits shall be used in the development agreement without modification.
Staff Comment: Not applicable since the development agreement is required prior to project
permits.
(5) The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or
resolution after a public hearing. The board of county commissioners may, in its
sole discretion, approve the development agreement. If the development
agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of Chapter
36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development
agreement.
Staff Comment: The BoCC is holding a duly noticed public hearing prior to approval of the
development agreement. The proposal is consistent with this section of code.
(6) An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with
the county auditor. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Addressed as a recommended condition of approval. The proposal is
consistent with this section of code.
18.40.860 Effect.
(1) A development agreement is binding on the parties and their successors,
including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of
the area covering the property subject to the development agreement.
27
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of code and is addressed in
Section 12 of the proposed development agreement.
(2) A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the
agreement.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of code and is addressed in
Section 7of the proposed development agreement.
(3) A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or
that part of the development specified in the agreement and may not, unless
otherwise agreed to in the development agreement, be subject to an amendment
to a local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation
or a new local government land use ordinance or development standard or
regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of code and is addressed in
Section 12 of the proposed development agreement.
(4) Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement
shall be consistent with the agreement.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of code and is addressed in
Section 8 of the proposed development agreement.
(5) Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.200 and Section 501, Chapter 374,
Laws of 1995, or this chapter is intended to authorize the county to impose
impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any other financial
contributions or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by other
applicable provisions of state law. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of code. No impact fees have
been applied to the project. The development is subject to several MOU’s as conditioned by
Ordinance 01-0128-08 and are identified in the proposed development agreement under section
8. Within the MPR boundary, there is an “open space” zone adjacent to the south shoreline
bluff. This area will be included in a conservation easement.
4. Compliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08
The project is subject to 30 conditions imposed under Ordinance 01-0128-08. These conditions
are discussed below.
Condition 63 (a): Any analysis of environmental impacts is to be based on science and data
pertinent to the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoff projections, and potential
impacts on Hood Canal.
28
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance. Site specific data
that included rainfall projects, runoff projections and potential impacts on Hood Canal were
analyzed in the SEIS and FSEIS Appendix F.
Condition 63 (b): All applications will be given an automatic SEPA threshold determination of
Determination of Significance (DS) at the project level except where the SEPA-responsible
official determines that the application results in only minor construction.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance. This is
addressed in the proposed Development Agreement, Section 9 and in proposed development
regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR
Condition 63 (c): The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of
understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the
Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides
Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner’s Association regarding marina use, costs, dock access,
loading and unloading, and parking.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance. Memoranda of
understanding for the Brinnon School, Brinnon Fire District, housing, police, public health, parks
and recreation and transit have been secured as addressed in the Development Agreement
under Section 8.
Condition 63 (d): A list of required amenities shall be in the development agreement along
with conditions for public access.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance and is addressed
in the proposed development agreement under section 10.3.
Condition 63 (e): Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices
in East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and employment,
and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and competitive in terms of
pricing.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance and is addressed
in the proposed development agreement under section 8.
Condition 63 (f): Statesman will prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from within
Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance and is addressed
in the proposed development agreement under section 8.
29
Condition 63 (g): The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to
be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
average median income (AMI). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.g., no more
than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly proportional to the
number of jobs created that earn 80 % or less of the Brinnon area AMI. The developer may
satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing
development.
Staff Comment: An analysis was completed and included in the SEIS, Appendix N. The
developer is providing 52 onsite staff housing. The proposal is consistent with this section of
the ordinance and is addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 8.
Condition 63 (h): The possible ecological impact of the development’s water plan that alters
kettles for use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved.
Staff Comment: The 2012 Grading and Drainage Report includes an analysis of the
interconnection between stormwater, water storage, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and
wetlands. The applicant plans to preserve, enhance, and enlarge Kettle C and its associated
wetland. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (i): Any study done at the project level pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) shall
include a distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the impacts to the
hydrogeology of the MPR location of the developer’s intention to use one of the existing kettles
for water storage. Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a second scientist mutually chosen by
the developer and the county. The developer will bear the financial cost of these reports.
Staff Comment: An aquifer test was conducted by Subsurface Group in 2008 and subsequent
analysis by the Pacific Groundwater Group was performed in 2009. These analyses, which
were incorporated into the SEIS, were confirmed by the Department of Ecology in 2010 and
also incorporated into the FSEIS Appendix F. The proposal is consistent with this section of the
ordinance.
Condition 63 (j): Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one
kettle preserved as a cultural resource.
Staff Comment: The consultant who drafted the Cultural Resources Management Plan sent
letters to six local tribes including the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) requesting
consultation on identifying cultural resources on-site. Additionally, the developer’s
representative, Don Coleman, sent a letter with the Cultural Resources Management Plan
attached on May 11, 2012 to Josh Wisniewski, Ph.D. of the PGST of which no response was
received. The only Tribe to respond was the Skokomish Tribe. The Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation (DAHP) sent a letter to DCD dated January 14, 2013 stating three
tribes concurred with the plan and three did not comment. The PGST was a recipient of the
2013 DAHP letter. Kettle C will be preserved, enhanced, and enlarged as a part of the
proposal. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
30
Condition 63 (k): As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any
shoreline permit or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the
County Auditor a document reflecting the developer’s written understanding with and among the
following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historical
preservation that includes a cultural resources management plan to assure archaeological
investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject property prior to issuing permits; and
during construction to maintain site integrity, provided procedures regarding future ground-
disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to
provide for community education opportunities.
Staff Comment: Monitoring results would be reviewed with DAHP staff and tribal
representatives prior to any adjustment of the monitoring schedule. This is addressed in the
proposed development agreement under section 8. The proposal is consistent with this section
of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (l): A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be
developed in the public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and
local tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub-Area
Plan (e.g., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the potential for
vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 101, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging
on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce the dangers to
predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to humans.
Staff Comment: The Wildlife Management Plan was prepared in consultation with WDFW and
local tribes that focused on non-lethal strategies to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife. The
wildlife management plan contains additional language on fencing specific to elk. This is
addressed in the Appendix P of proposed development agreement and in section 8. The
proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (m): No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate
water rights and an adequate water supply.
Staff Comment: Adequate water supply has been determined to be available. A total of three
wells will be drilled. State oversight agency issued a water right approval on June 16, 2010
under permit G2-30436. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (n): Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of
Health, and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be
required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development.
Staff Comment: Water rights permit G2-30436 granted for (3) wells on the Pleasant Harbor
site – (1) year round domestic & commercial, (2) summer irrigation – total of 300 gallons per
minute. Proof of potable water is required at time of permit application and will be reviewed by
County public health programs, state health, and environmental agencies. The proposal is
consistent with this section of the ordinance.
31
Condition 63 (o): Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that
water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is
based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units (ERU)
for the development using a standard of 175 gallons per day (gpd). The goal of the
development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on the
standard of 175 gpd.
Staff Comment: Water quantity issues were addressed in SEIS Section 3.16 and 3.2. Water
rights approval based on 175 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. See Appendix F of
FSEIS. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (p): A Neighborhood Water Policy (NWP) shall be established that requires
Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater
intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for
additional recharge wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause
mounding.
Staff Comment: If salt water intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point
as proven as a result from the development of the master planned resort, the developer shall
provide access to the Class A water system that serves the master planned resort. Additionally,
a Neighborhood Water Policy Plan has been developed and is also addressed in the proposed
development agreement in Appendix O. The proposal is consistent with this section of the
ordinance.
Condition 63 (q): Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero
discharge into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and
installing stormwater management infrastructures and techniques that allow no stormwater run-
off into Hood Canal, Statesman shall prepare a soil study of the soils present at the MPR
location. Sols must be proven to be conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural
condition or after amendment. Marina discharge shall be treated by a system that reduces
contamination to the greatest possible extent.
Staff Comment: A soil study was completed by Subsurface Group LLC and the infiltration
rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are presented in the 2012 Grading and
Drainage Report (Appendix E of FSEIS). This is addressed in the proposed development
agreement under section 8. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (r): A County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to
Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and
approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site-specific action,
utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be
funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling of
pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring regime.
32
Staff Comment: A comprehensive water quality monitoring plan has been developed and is
addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section 8 and in Appendix N. The
proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (s): The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on
U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation
easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not limited to, a 200-foot riparian
buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature tees between
U.S Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be
perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers.
Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when
appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the
development from Highway 101.
Staff Comment: A conservation easement as well as a vegetation management plan have
been developed and are addressed in the Development Agreement under Section 8 and as
appendices. However, due to re-development of the marina under a separate amended binding
site plan process due to the new shoreline regulations of 2014, the Maritime Village has been
re-located to the area just north of the Black Point Road and Highway 101 intersection. A
Jefferson Transit stop and parking area will be located just south of Black Point Road adjacent
to Highway 101. Some revegetation will occur, but site distance is a state requirement for
ingress and egress, therefore this area may not be fully vegetated. Wetlands and their
associated buffers will be permanently preserved as well as the 200 foot riparian buffer adjacent
to the south shoreline bluff in recorded conservation easements. The proposal is consistent with
this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (t): The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an
inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate
with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize,
and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the
Maritime Village.
Staff Comment: The developer has worked with WDFW to try and eradicate tunicates from the
marina. WDFW has determined that power-washing vessels and concrete docks are a more
effective removal process than hand picking them. In 2007, approximately 40% of the docks in
the Pleasant Harbor marina were wooden or have Styrofoam billets which are not conducive to
power washing. The marina has embarked on a program of dock replacement consistent with
WDFW guidance. In early 2009, the D-dock was replaced and in early 2013 E and F-docks and
the head walk that connects them to the D-dock were also replaced. The only docks left to
replace are I, J, and K. There is also another existing smaller marina just to the north of
Pleasant Harbor called Home Port Marina. A tunicate agreement has been developed in
conjunction with WDFW and is addressed in the proposed development agreement under
section 8. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (u): In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural
amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
33
18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they
currently exist in order to provide for the “the screening of facilities and amenities so that all
uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as
much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views.” In
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Land use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the MPR shall “be
designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the
development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas.” Evergreen trees and understory
should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with
indigenous trees and shrubs.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section 8
and the Pleasant Harbor development regulations. The conservation easement has been
prepared and will be recorded with the county Auditor. The applicant has also prepared a
vegetation management plan and will preserve approximately 103 acres of the site as
vegetated. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (v): In keeping with the approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to
satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the
buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain
and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings.
Staff Comment: The Maritime Village building will be built into the existing slope to blend in
with the terrain and landscape with two stories visible from Highway 101 to the west and three
stories visible internal to the site. A vegetation management plan was prepared that addresses
Conditions 63(s), (u), (v), and (w). Areas of disturbance would include transplanted healthy
vegetation from the site, as well as native and low water consumption plants. The landscape
plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation plantings islands in the
parking area and along the Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-ways, while providing
adequate visual access from the highway as needed for the retail/commercial structure. The
building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take
advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after
removing invasive plant species. Building architecture will share similar features to those at the
marina and within the golf resort. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (w): Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives
to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An
arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and
surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible,
trees of significant size (i.e., 10 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh) that are
removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use
in salmon recovery projects.
Staff Comment: A vegetation management plan has been prepared to address conditions
63(s), (u), (v) and (w). Individual trees will be inventoried to account for size and health prior to
construction for viability of transplanting. The vegetation management plan addressed
individual trees for health and size and viable trees within proposed development areas that can
34
be transplanted would be relocated on a temporary basis to an on-site nursery located in the
western edge of the development. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (x): Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) and “Green Built” green building rating system standards. These standards applicable
to commercial and residential dwellings respectively, “promote design and construction
practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of
buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being.”
Staff Comment: Appendix K of the FSEIS is a narrative demonstrating compliance with the
intent of LEED standards. This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under
section 8. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (y): There shall be included as a best management practice for the operation and
maintenance of a golf course within the MPR that requires the developer to maintain a log of
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this information will be made
available to the public.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the development regulations and in other areas of code
that establish standards for golf course best management practices. The proposal is consistent
with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63 (z): Statesman shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1
standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for “areas with intrinsically dark
landscapes” such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas
where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited.
Staff Comment: General guidelines that would be followed to minimize potential light and glare
impacts include the following:
Illumination would be to the minimum practical level.
The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical.
The duration of illumination would be as short as practical for Resident Safety.
Illumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light.
Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines).
This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 8 and in the
development regulations. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63(aa): In fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism,
the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the
very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep a ratio of 65% to 35% of
rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2).
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the development regulations. The proposal is consistent
with this section of the ordinance.
35
Condition 63(bb): Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be
obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District.
Staff Comment: In a letter dated November 18, 2013 from Mason County PUD, it states the
PUD is ready and able to meet the total capacity needs of the project at full build-out. A
phased-in approach is planned and the first requirement would be to add cooling fans on the
power transformer in the Duckabush Substation. Beyond the installation of cooling fans in the
Duckabush substation, Mason County PUD will need to perform additional engineering studies
and designs to accommodate the remaining stages/phases of the development. The proposal
is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63(cc): Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate action Committee
(CAC) to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify
techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods.
Staff Comment: A greenhouse gas emissions report was prepared that reviewed and analyzed
the source GHG emissions for the first five year construction period of development as well as
the annual emission profile when in full operation. The report is included in Appendix M of the
FSEIS. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
Condition 63(dd): Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice
groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students.
Staff Comment: The developer is currently exercising this suggestion. This is at the discretion
of the developer. The proposal is consistent with this section of the ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with
the applicable codes, ordinances and statues, and that it satisfies all relevant review and
approval criteria contained in applicable local codes and ordinances. Staff recommends
APPROVAL of the development agreement by and between Jefferson County, Washington and
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort.
Approval is recommended conditioned by:
1. An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County Auditor at the Applicant’s expense.