HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-3-22 PH_MRP_Dev. Regulations final staff report1
STAFF REPORT -
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations
DATE: April 9, 2018
TO: Jefferson Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Patricia Charnas, Director, Dept. Community Development
SUBJECT: MLA08-00188/ZON08-00056: Development Regulations for Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR)
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning
Commission recommended development regulations)
2. Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development
Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
3. Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and
Recommendation
4. Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County
Commissioners
5. Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Department of Community Development staff is providing proposed development regulations for
the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Staff is forwarding the Planning Commission recommended
development regulations with staff recommended revisions in underline/strikeout format. Staff
recommends approval of these proposed amendments to Titles 17 and 18 of the Jefferson
County Unified Development Code (UDC) as it relates to the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
PURPOSE OF STAFF REPORT;
The purpose of this staff report is to reference the history and background of MPR designation
and planning of the Pleasant Harbor MPR located in the community of Brinnon. This staff report
brings forward proposed final development regulations of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned
Resort as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission with recommended
revisions from staff of the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (staff).
These development regulations apply to the zones within the Pleasant Harbor MPR as analyzed
2
in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 1(FSEIS). Consideration and
approval of amendments to Jefferson County Code, after public review and comment and a
public hearing, is a legislative action by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). Staff is
also forwarding a parallel report prepared separately on a proposed development agreement.
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: Type V Legislative approval on amendments to Jefferson County Code
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 October 2107
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
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. The BoCC re-designated the subject
parcels to MPR from Rural Residential on January 28, 2008, as approved by Ordinance 01-
1 Jefferson County, Dept. Community Development. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). Port Townsend, WA, 2015
3
0128-08, subject to thirty conditions. There was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the
Comprehensive Plan amendment that ended in 2011. The Growth Management Hearings
Board reviewed and approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment in its 2008 decision. The
Thurston County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
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 FSEIS published a
preferred alternative consisting 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. The FSEIS also included draft development regulations
for the MPR designated are consisting of three zones.
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
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, was not included in the analysis of the FSEIS because it was re-developed under an
Amended Binding Site Plan.
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 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 Environmental Impact Statement 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 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 No. 01-
0128-08 (Exhibit A of this report), stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project
level action would require a Supplemental EIS (SEIS). subject to thirty conditions of Ordinance
01-0128-08. There was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the 2007 FEIS that ended in 2011.
4
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.2
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.”3 The Thurston County
Superior Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 2011.
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 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
2 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *20 (2008)
Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant
Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *26 (2008).
5
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.
The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site consists of
gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface
drainfields. 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 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.
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS:
Public Notice of this action was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader
newspaper.
APPLICABLE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES:
Jefferson County Code (JCC), Title 17 and 18, Unified Development Code, as amended
6
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 applicant’s consistency
with Washington State Statutes, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County
Unified Development Code, and Ordinance 01-0128-08.
COMPLIANCE WITH WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES:
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)
(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, the
proposal complies with this RCW section. Subsequent development shall comply with the
conditions of approval under Ordinance 01-0128-08 #63(a) through (dd), and specifically
condition 63 (aa) requires the Maritime Village be limited to rentals and timeshares; or at the
very least, each section kept to the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and timeshares to permanent
residences. The Maritime Village will consist of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial
space. Proposed amenities include a 9-hole golf course, spa services, amphitheater, pool,
sports courts, and other available resort 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 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
7
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.”
RCW:
(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 resort will be completely self-contained in terms of water, waste water
and stormwater treatment. Buildings will require that sprinkler systems be installed and basic
security systems and personnel will be provided on-site by the Applicant, 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 63(c), the Applicant entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with Jefferson Healthcare which signed the MOU on September 30, 2010
as well as a MOU with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, which the elected Sheriff
signed on May 10, 2017 and the Brinnon Fire Department Chief was consulted on the MOU for
emergency services.
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.
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 01-0128-08 condition 63(n).
8
RCW:
(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 Comment: No more than 35% of residential units shall be for permanent residential use.
Fifty two (52) residential units shall be dedicated to staff housing as required under Ordinance
01-0128-08 63(g). Both uses are integrated into and support the recreational nature of the
resort.
RCW:
(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;
(b) 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;
(c) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations
established for critical areas; and
(d) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
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 are
addressed in subsequent sections of this staff report. The MPR development will be subject to
these new development regulations addressing the MPR zones and all applicable sections of
existing Jefferson County planning and development code, including applicable sections of the
Critical Area Ordinance (JCC 18.22). Further, the FSEIS fully considered and suggested
mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications
and public services, and under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (c), Memorandums of
Understanding are required for all public service providers. The 30 conditions imposed on the
developer under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and specifically condition (c) that requires
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with service providers is the BoCC response to this
intent. Under Ordinance 01-0128-08 the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy these
criteria.
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
9
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
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 marina development was separated from the
MPR and approved through a separate permitting process. The proposed additional residential
and commercial development was moved out of the marina area and up to and abutting
Highway 101, just north of the Highway 101 and Black Point Road intersection, as the Maritime
Village complex. The preferred Alternative 3 as analyzed in the FSEIS a much smaller footprint
than the initial project proposal but still includes a golf course (reduced from 18-holes to 9-holes)
restaurant, resort center and community center, amenities and a ratio of 65% to 35% of rental
and time-shares to permanent residences, not to exceed a total of 890 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 Jefferson County Code contains
adopted procedural requirements for pursuing a MPR designation and 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.
Comprehensive Plan:
10
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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
11
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 previously approved under
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 65% 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 condition (g) and (aa). Both uses are integrated into and
support the recreational nature of the resort. The proposal includes suggested development
and zoning regulations that deviate from those found in other zoning districts. However, the
proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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
proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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
12
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 suggested mitigation 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 Applicant. 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. The
proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 suggested mitigation 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 Applicant. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 were
analyzed in the FSEIS. The final preferred alternative, namely Alternative 3 - 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 was
13
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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, described in further detail in the Jefferson County Unified Development Code
section below. The application includes draft development regulations and a development
agreement (subject of a separate staff 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. Proposed section JCC 17.60.060 of the development regulations
allow Title 15 (building code) and Title 18 (Unified Development Code) to supplement the
proposed new development regulations for the resort, including JCC 18.22 Critical Areas. The
proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 Applicant
over the terms and scope of development, and is also a requirement under JCC 18.15.123(4).
A draft development agreement is the subject of a separate staff report. The proposal is
consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
Policy 24.12 - The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review
and designation of master planned resorts that include, at a minimum, compliance with
these policies.
Staff Comment: JCC Title 18 Article IV Master Planned Resorts – Special Provisions
constitute the development regulations cited above, and shall be reviewed in detail in the
Jefferson County Unified Development Code sections below. The proposal is consistent with
this policy. See the separate staff report on the development regulations for a discussion.
Comprehensive Plan:
14
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
marine waters. The site is also within close proximity to access of the Olympic National Park
and adjacent National Forests. 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 be
provided.
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:
(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 designed to serve resort and
recreation uses and has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is served located within 2
miles of the Brinnon Rural Center, which accommodates LAMIRD-scale commercial uses
15
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
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: Proposed changes to the above language in current code are indicated by in
underline additions. 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.
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:
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.
16
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this purpose and intent.
JCC:
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;
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 Appendix S. Uses and amenities not
listed there but allowed here, may be established at a future date, or deemed allowable by the
17
Administrator if they are consistent with the purpose and intent of this section and the
development agreement.
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
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.
18
(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, FSEIS and
predecessor EISs, maps, mitigation measures, phasing plan and the Development Agreement
constitute the “master plan”.
JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts
(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 proposed
Development Agreement meeting the required elements of this section is the subject of a
separate staff report.
JCC:
(3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort
shall require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map to a master planned resort land use designation, pursuant to the
19
requirements of JCC 18.45.040; provided, that the subarea planning process
authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and JCC
18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the
county. The Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be
processed by the county concurrent with the review of the resort master plan and
development agreement required for approval of a master planned resort.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. Ordinance 01-0128-
08 established the boundary and siting of the master planned resort through the formal site-
specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process as signed by the Board of County
Commissioners on January 28, 2008.
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a
master planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned
action pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 and
197-11-168.
Staff Comment: The proposal is not a Planned Action.
(5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site
urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the
boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR.
New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the
boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated as
urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. All supportive
commercial and resort services with the exception of gasoline and to an extent, groceries (a
farmer’s market on site will provide fresh produce), shall be provided within the resort. No new
urban or suburban (subdivision) developments shall be allowed outside the boundaries of the
MPR.
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 under the County’s Critical Area
Ordinance – JCC Chapter 18.22, specifically for a Habitat Management (Plan), Geologically
Hazardous Areas, and Wetlands. The FSEIS concluded that the proposal, with mitigation
20
measures, would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, and would comply with
JCC 18.22. Critical Aquifer Recharge and Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zones were analyzed
by the Department of Ecology using the State protection standards, and the proposed
regulations and the accompanying development agreement are consistent with both state and
local standards under JCC 18.22.
JCC:
(2) The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other
applicable sections of this code and all other codes and policies of the county.
Staff Comment: As stated above in the applicable sections of this report, the proposal
complies with this section of the code. No new resort development shall take place within the
Shoreline jurisdiction.
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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 Alternatives 1 and 3 (from 31-acres of natural area for
Alternative 1 to 103-acres of natural area for the preferred Alternative 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 the code.
JCC:
(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.
21
Staff Comment: As stated in the FSEIS and Master Plan, the proposal complies with this
section of the code.
JCC:
(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 complies with this section of the code.
JCC:
(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 section of the code.
JCC:
(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: Development along the south bluff is setback at least 200 feet from Ordinary
High Water Mark, and south beach access is prohibited specifically to avoid any 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. The proposal
complies with this section of the code.
JCC:
(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
mixed use recreational (Maritime Village) as different aspects of the overall resort.
JCC:
(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]
22
Staff Comment: Ordinance 01-0128-08 contained findings per the RCW that satisfy this
section of the code.
JCC 18.15.138 - Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be
consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of
this UDC.
Staff Comment: The strikethrough in the section above is the recommended change to this
section in order to reflect the addition of Pleasant Harbor as the second MPR in Jefferson
County, should the amendment be approved.
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 section of the code. 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.
JCC:
(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.
23
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. 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 proposed development regulations.
JCC:
(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.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. 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 proposed development regulations for the resort.
JCC:
(4) No occupied building accessory to a golf course shall be located within 100 feet
of any property line.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. 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 proposed development regulations for the resort.
JCC:
(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: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. 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 proposed development regulations for the resort.
ATTACHMENTS TO THIS STAFF REPORT
1. Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission recommended
development regulations)
2. Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with
Staff Recommended Revisions
3. Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation
4. Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
5. Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
24
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) should consider the substantial project history and
studies, plans and programs to avoid and mitigate impacts; consider staff discussion and
supporting documents presented here; should consider public written and verbal testimony
provided on the development regulations. Staff recommends approval of the proposed
development regulations contained herein.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
25
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
(Jefferson County Planning Commission Version 2016)
Title 17
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS
Title 17, Article I, Port Ludlow MPR
Chapters 17.05-17.50
No change
Title 17, Article II, Pleasant Harbor MPR (17.60-17.80)
Chapter 17.60, General Provisions
17.60.010 Authority.
This title is adopted pursuant to Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, and Title 18 JCC.
17.60.020 Title.
The regulations set forth in this title shall be known as the “Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort Code” or by the short title “Pleasant Harbor MPR Code.” Citations to these
regulations shall be made using the applicable JCC section number.
17.60.030 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR code is to regulate land
development uses to set forth development regulations that comply with and are consistent with
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development within the boundaries of the
Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort. The Pleasant Harbor MPR provides a mixture of visitor-oriented
transient accommodations, secondary homes, recreational facilities, and supporting commercial
facilities
17.60.040 Master Plan
For the purposes of this Article, the Master Plan for future development of the Pleasant Harbor
MPR consists of the regulations, along with the conditions and requirements of Ordinance
010128-08 and Final Environmental Impact Statements and Final Supplemental Impact
Statement, maps, mitigation measures, and the Development Agreement between the County
and the Developer.
17.60.040 Additional requirements.
In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the
Jefferson County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Applications for
development within the MPR must be submitted as provided for in JCC 18.35 Article V, Binding
Site Plans, and all subsequent development within the MPR area will be subject to the approved
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
26
binding site plan and as specified in the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement
between Jefferson County and the Developer.
17.60.050 Applicability.
The provisions of this title shall apply to all land use actions and siting of infrastructure
including over water or in-water work to be conducted within the boundary of the Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County,
Washington.
17.60.060 Requirements.
Any land disturbing activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must comply with other applicable
development standards and requirements of:
(1) Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code;
(2) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08;
(3) The mitigation measures required in the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final
Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor
Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9,
2015 (2015 FSEIS); and
(4) The terms and conditions of the Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson
County and the Developer.
Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and other applicable code provisions,
or other regulations, the more restrictive shall apply.
17.60 060 Exemptions.
The following structures and uses shall be exempt from the regulations of this title, but
are subject to all other applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but not limited to,
the county building ordinance, interim critical areas ordinance, the shoreline management
master program, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
(1) Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves, tanks, or other similar equipment
for the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity, gas, or water
or the collection of sewage, or surface or subsurface water operated or maintained by a
governmental entity or a public or private utility or other county franchised utilities including
customary meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility
facilities required during building construction, whether any such facility is located underground,
or above-ground; but only when such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an
easement. This exemption shall not include above-ground electrical substations, sewage pump
stations or treatment plants, or potable water storage tanks or facilities, which shall require
conditional use approval in any zone where permitted;
(2) Underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus shelters, informational kiosks, public
bicycle shelters, or similar structure or device which is found by the director of community
development to be appropriately located in the public interest;
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
27
(3) Minor construction activities, as defined by the IBC, Section 106.2 and structures exempt
under Chapter 15.05 JCC, as amended;
(4) Development consistent with the Marina Binding Site Plan approved by the County prior
to adoption of this chapter.
17.60.070 Pre-existing uses and structures.
Existing legally-permitted, residential and non-residential land uses and structures in all
zones of the Master Planned Resort are lawful uses and may be continued in a manner
consistent with state law, Titles 15 and 18 of the Jefferson County Code and any other
applicable regulations or Ordinances.
17.60.070 Resort Cap and Residential Use Restrictions
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 890 residential units
provided, however, short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65
percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential
uses allowed under each zone.. Short-term rental shall be construed to mean less than 30
days. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 56,608 square feet of
resort commercial, retail, restaurant, and conference space.
17.60.080 Nonconforming Uses
Existing nonconforming in all zones of the MPR are lawful uses and may be continued unless
abandoned for a continuous twelve-month period.
17.60.090 Nonconforming Structures
Existing nonconforming structures in all zones of the MPR are lawful uses and may be
continued and maintained. Existing nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed by fire,
earthquake, explosion, wind, flood, or other calamity may be completely restored or
reconstructed if all of the following criteria are met:
(1) The restoration and reconstruction shall not serve to extend or increase the
nonconformity of the original structure.
(2) The reconstruction or restoration shall, to the extent reasonably possible, retain the
same general architectural style as the original destroyed structure, or an architectural style that
more closely reflects the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(3) Permits shall be applied for within one year of the damage. Restoration shall be
substantially complete within two years of permit issuance.
(4) Expansions or substantial modifications to rebuilt nonconforming structures shall comply
with current regulations and codes, except that an existing nonconformity regarding the amount
of impervious surface on a site may be maintained.
17.60.100 Exemptions.
Minor construction activities, as defined by the International Building Code, Section 106.2 and
structures are exempt under Chapter 15.05 JCC, as amended, from this Title.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
28
17.60.080 Enforcement
The enforcement provisions codified in Chapter 18.50 Enforcement of Title 18 of the
Jefferson County Code as currently enacted or as hereafter amended shall apply to any alleged
violation of Title 17, Article II, more commonly known as the “Pleasant Harbor MPR Code.”
Chapter 17.65 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Residential Recreation and
Commercial Zone (MPR-RRC)
Chapter 17.65, Golf Resort (MPR-GR Zone)
17.65.010 Purpose.
The MPR-GRRRC zone allows residential and recreational facilities, as well as
commercial amenities and services associated with the resort and surrounding community. It
also allows for the central resort and conference facilities.
17.65.020 Permitted Uses.
(1) Residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums,
townhouses, apartments, lofts, villas, time-share and other fractionally owned accommodations.
(2) Short-term visitor accommodations, constituting not less than 65% of the total residential
units authorized by Ordinance #01-0128-08, including, but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges,
and any residential uses allowed under subsection 1 of this section that are made available for
short-term rental. “Short-term rental” shall be construed to mean less than 30 days.
(23) Visitor oriented amenities, including, but not limited to
(a) conference and meeting facilities;
(b) restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, pubs, taverns and entertainment associated with such
uses; (c) on-site retail services and businesses typically found in destination resorts and
designed to
serve the convenience needs of users and employees of master planned resort; and
(d) recreation business and facilities;
(34) Cultural and educational informational facilities of all kinds including, but not limited to,
interpretative displays of local Native American ties to and uses of the area, art galleries, and
indoor or outdoor theaters;
(45) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities, including but not limited to
tennis courts, swimming pools, spa services, hiking trails, bicycle paths, ropes courses,
amphitheater, and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resort;
(6) Waste water treatment facilities, including treatment plants, capture, storage and
transmission facilities to serve a reuse/recycle program for on-site treatment and use/reuse of
waste water and stormwater;
(7) Public water supply and related facilities;
(58) Public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10.160;
(9) Utilities supporting the resort;
(10) Emergency services (fire, police, EMS);
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
29
(11) Medical services; and
(612) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the
Department of Community Development.
17.65.030 Height restrictions.
No buildings within the MPR-GR zone shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified
to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by IBC standards except with approval of the local Fire
District. Underground or imbedded parking shall not be included in any height calculations.
17.65.040 Bulk and setback requirements.
All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from Master Planned Resort boundary
lines and adjacent MPR zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 is 50 feet.
(1) There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-GR zone. All structures
shall be set back at least 20 feet from the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary lines and
adjacent MPR zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 right-of-way is 35
feet. Minimum setback from Black Point right-of-way is 20 feet.
(2) All buildings not attached or having common walls shall be separated by a minimum
distance of 10 feet, as measured from foundation to foundation.
17.65.050 Critical Areas
All provisions of existing County Code regarding critical areas and their buffers apply
except that wetland buffers once determined are to be placed in a permanent conservation
easement.
17.65.050 Critical Areas, Significant Tree Retention and Cultural Resources Protection
Areas
(1) Critical areas and their buffers within the MPR boundaries shall be identified, delineated
and permanently protected in accordance with JCC 18.22 and shall be designated on
the official map of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. A building setback of 10
feet shall apply to all designated buffer areas.
(2) Significant Tree Retention.
All trees measuring 10” diameter breast high (dbh) or greater on the date of binding site plan
approval shall be located and marked for retention, and measures taken to protect surrounding
soil and roots during site disturbance. Where there is no alternative to removing such trees,
additional trees, such as Douglas Fir or Sitka Spruce at least four years old or four feet in
height, shall be planted in buffer areas at a ratio of two trees planted for each removed. Where
feasible, removed trees and their root wads shall be made available for watershed restoration
projects.
(3) Kettles. A “kettle” is defined as a depression on the land surface left by an ice block after
glacial retreat. Black Point has three such geologic and culturally significant features
inside the MPR boundaries. Kettles are identified as a type of wetland difficult to
replace. The three kettle sites on Black Point inside the MPR boundaries shall be
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
30
preserved and protected to include buffers as deemed sufficient per agreement with the
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe.
(4) Special Environmental Protection Provisions.
Notwithstanding all other environmental requirements, the MPR approved plan must have
provisions for:
(a) Well-head Protection and Aquifer Recharge Area
Permeable soils on site mean potential contamination of the aquifer could occur from
improperly directed run-off, spills or other contamination of fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides and petroleum products, putting human health at risk as well as fish and
wildlife. An approved plan for directing untreated run-off away from the aquifer and
treating all on-site run-off with current biofiltration standards prior to any discharge to
the aquifer.
(b) An approved organic vegetation and site management plan shall be submitted to the
County as part of the overall Master Planned Resort application for review and
approval, or approval with conditions.
(c) All development and landscaping within the PHMPR area must be located ,
constructed, and maintained in such a manner as to provide full protection to the
aquifer and any on-site or neighboring wells that rely on that aquifer for potable
water.
(d) No golf course greens should be constructed over the aquifer recharge area. Site
grading and excavation shall be minimized, as demonstrated by a County reviewed
and approved grading plan pursuant to JCC 18.30.060 & 070.
(e) Land disturbing activities such as grading and filling shall be kept to a minimum and
natural contours shall be followed in locating and designing all development features
to protect the natural environmental uniqueness of the site.
(f) Regular independent water quality testing shall be conducted at specific monitoring
sites to be identified in the Resort Plan to test for saltwater intrusion and toxic
contamination in local wells that rely on the Black Point sole source aquifer, as well
as testing in the lower reaches of the two adjoining watersheds for toxic
contamination and low oxygen levels.
(g) All development and land disturbance shall protect/avoid all important
cultural/historic sites that are listed, or eligible to be listed, by State Historic
Preservation Officer or by a local Tribe with jurisdiction. Pursuant to JCC 18.30.160,
the County recognizes that the area of the MPR is within the ceded area of Tribes
that were parities to the Point No Point Treaty.
(h) The owner/developer or assignees must provide for all on-site recycling of material,
including paper, glass, cardboards, plastics, and composting of garden waste, food
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
31
waste. All compost should be reused on site. The owner/developer or assignees
must provide a written record that landscaping materials purchased and applied
onsite, including those applied as compost feedstocks, and pest controls are within
the parameters and use restrictions set forth by the National List of Allowed and
Prohibited Substances as published and periodically updated by USDA National
Organic Program.
(i) The applicant shall identify wildlife use areas within the site and provide for set-aside
and protection of core wildlife habitat areas and connecting corridors.
(j) In cooperation and consultation with local tribes, areas shall be set aside and
maintained for the occasional harvesting of medicinal plants and other plants
important to tribal culture.
(k) All development with the PHMPR must comply with the requirements for buffer
retention, wildlife protection, greenbelt retention and maintenance and establishment
of permanent protective easements for these resources, as well as the other specific
requirements of Jefferson County Ordinance, 01-0128-08, which was part of the
Board of County Commissioners Council approval for establishment of the Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort.
(l) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) green building rating system standards.
(m) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall use the International Dark Sky
Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards for the MPR in order to limit night-time light
pollution which may affect neighboring residential areas as well as wildlife.
(5) Public Access to Master Planned Resort Amenities.
All amenities and recreational resources of the development shall be open to all members of the
public, with the exception of those type of activities pertaining to guests and residents only
such as access to laundry rooms or internal recreation rooms, TV rooms, etc. Nothing in this
section shall prevent the operator of any recreational resource from establishing a fee or charge
for the public’s use of the recreational resource.
Chapter 17.70, Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR)
17.70.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide for a non-clearing permanently forested native
vegetation buffer between the resort development and natural vegetated buffer area between
the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zone shall extend landward
as measured 200 feet horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal as
measured in accordance with local and state code. The dimensions of the MPR-OSR zone do
not preclude applicable buffers and setbacks as required under this title or under Title 18
Jefferson County Code.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
32
include a buffer extending landward 50 feet as surveyed from the top of the shoreline bluff
bank, including a 10 foot building setback, along southern boundary of the MPR in accordance
with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
17.70.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses may be allowed in the buffer and open space areas in the MPR-OSR
zone after review and approval of appropriate critical area reports:
(1) Restoration of existing development intrusions (roads, campsites) to their natural
predevelopment state; and
(2) Passive recreation, including trails that do not reduce the forest canopy, increase
stormwater discharge, or bluff erosion.
(3) Educational and interpretive displays and signs may be installed if such installations
involve a minimum of disturbance to soils or vegetation.
Chapter 17.75, Marina - Maritime Village (MPR-MV)
17.75.010 Purpose.
The MPR-MV zone provides mixed use amenities and services associated with the
marina and maritime village portion of the PH MPRresort and surrounding community, and
provides support to the marina operations the central support to the marina operations.
17.75.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in the MPR-MV:
(1) Marina and overwater structures as approved through the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program and associated regulations Chapter 18.25 JCC;
(2) Residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums,
timeshare and fractionally owned accommodations of all kinds;
(3) The Marina and Maritime Village related upland mixed use, commercial and service
facilities, including open parking lots, restaurants and shops, as well as marine service
facilities, marina office, yacht club and recreation facilities serving the resort and the
Marina;
(4) All over-water buildings and docks shall be constructed so as not impede migrating fish
and to minimize shading.
(5) Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar
structures supporting marina and maritime village uses, fuel service and parking;
(6) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities, including but not limited to tennis
courts, swimming pools, marinas, hiking trails, bicycle paths, ropes courses, game
center and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resort;
(7) Utilities supporting the resort;
(8) Infrastructure and buildings, both above and below ground, for the utilities;
(9) Emergency services (fire, police, EMS);
(10) Public facilities, and services serving the MPR-MV zone;
(11) Medical services; and
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
33
(12) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of the zone and MPR as determined by
the Department of Community Development and consistent with 18.25 JCC.
17.75.030 Prohibited Uses.
Float planes and float plane docks are prohibited. Aerial access is limited to helicopters for
emergency medical purposes only.
17.75.030 Height restrictions.
No buildings within the MPR-MV zone shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified
to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by IBC standards except that one structure may
exceed 35 feet, but may not exceed 45 feet. Underground or imbedded parking shall not be
included in any height calculations.
17.75.040 Bulk and setback requirements.
There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the MPR-MV zone. Minimum
building setback from Highway 101 right-of-way shall be 35 feet. Minimum building setback
from Black Point Road right-of-way shall be 20 Allfeet. All new structures located within
shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with the setback requirements of the County’s Shoreline
Master Program as codified under JCC 18.25.
Chapter 17.80, Pleasant Harbor Resort Development
17.80.010 Resort development.
This section describes the “Master Plan” defined by 17.60.040 for facilities to be located
in the Pleasant Harbor MPR “Resort Plan” for facilities to be located in the resort MPR, sets out
a required environmental review process for any future resort development, and provides
processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the Resort Plan. These provisions apply to
all resort and associated development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
17.80.020 Development cap.
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of (intentionally left
blank to be determined by further consultation with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe) residential
units provided, however, short term visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65
percent of the total units. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of
56,608 square feet of resort commercial, retail, restaurant and conference space, not including
all internal open space.
17.80.020 Required Mitigation Measures During Operations.
The mitigation measures required in the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final
Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina
and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015
FSEIS); and the terms and conditions of the Ordinance 01-0128-08 and the mitigation measures
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
34
contained in the Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the
Developer are required for the PH-MPR. Listed for reference are those mitigation measures,
which include but are not limited to:
(1) Shoreline Mitigation: The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal will be put into a
permanent conservation easement from the ordinary high water mark to 200 feet
landward.
(2) Water Quality Mitigation:
(a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be required to perform water quality monitoring
and to supply that data from the state water quality sampling station and other
stations in Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to the
County.
(b) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall comply with a County-based comprehensive
water quality monitoring plan requiring at least monthly water collection and
testing developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management
program, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The
monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by the Pleasant
Harbor MPR that will include regular off-site sampling of pollution, discharge,
and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring regime.
(c) In the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, the County shall
consult with the resort, the local residents, and the State (both Washington State
Department of Health and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)
concerning the source of the change.
(d) All the Pleasant Harbor MPR permits shall require implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant
Harbor MPR.
(3) Marina Mitigation:
(a) All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated to the most
current edition of the Stormwater Manual of Western Washington before discharge.
(b) There shall be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina.
(c) Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times.
(d) Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the
marina.
(e) The Project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines.
(f) The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel at any time.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
35
(g) The marina shall develop and manage an active boater education program appropriate
to the marina setting to supplement the County program developed as part of the
shellfish protection district.
(h) New or significant expansions to existing fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on
marina floats, docks, piers, and storage lockers.
(i) No storage of oily rags, open paints, or other flammable or environmentally hazardous
materials except emergency equipment as approved in the Emergency Service MOU
shall be permitted on the docks.
(j) Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be limited to minor repairs when in the
water, which do not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor.
(k) Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier that prevents debris from entering
the marine waters.
(l) Notification and information (before harvesting shellfish) will be available at the
proposed.
(m) The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements appropriate under the
County Shellfish Protection Plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a
marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as
the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan.
(n) The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from State sources so long as
available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately
reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with the County
in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any
changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime Village.
(o) 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 full mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant
Harbor or the Maritime Village.
(4) Golf Course Mitigation
(a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall ensure that golf course operations comply with the best
practice standards of the King County golf course management guidelines, or their
substantial equivalent, including, but not limited to, American Golf Association standards.
(b) The golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive
management programs required by the County, as a result of the water quality
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
36
monitoring program required by JCC 17.080.020(2) and any changes caused by the
resort operations.
(c) 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,
(d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall implement as a best management practice for the
operation and maintenance of the golf course a requirement to maintain a log of
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the Pleasant Harbor MPR site, and this
information shall be made available to the public.
(5) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall collaborate at least
annually
with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) or its successor to calculate greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs) associated with the Pleasant Harbor MPR, and identify techniques to
mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods.
(6) Blending of Buildings, Light Mitigation, Greenbelts and Buffer Management:
(e) In keeping with an 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 they will blend into the terrain
and landscape with park-like green belts between buildings.
(f) Construction of buildings within the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundaries shall strive 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.
(g) All development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall use the International Dark Sky
Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor
MPR.
(h) The Pleasant Harbor MPR, at its expense, shall manage all conservation easements to
include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a
natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101.
17.80.030 Resort Plan and Development Agreement
The Resort Plan, shall consist of an approved binding site plan, including monitoring and
operational plans, and an approved Development Agreement for future development of
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
37
properties in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The process for approval of such agreements is
contained in 18.40.820 JCC
17.80.030 SEPA Compliance Required
(1) Substantial Compliance with Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statements Required.
(a) Potential environmental impacts from future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR
have been assessed and addressed in prior environmental documents. The prior
reviews were published in the following documents:
i. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf
Resort (September 5, 2007) (DFEIS);
ii. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement
(November 27, 2007) (FEIS);
iii. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina
and Golf Resort November 19, 2014 (DSEIS);
iv. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment
Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (FSEIS).
(b) The FEIS, DSEIS and FSEIS are referred to collectively as the “Prior EISs.”
Development shall substantially comply with the express mitigation measures imposed
pursuant to the Prior EISs.
(c) The Prior EISs shall constitute compliance to the fullest extent possible under SEPA, as
well as Condition 63(b) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all subsequent approvals or
permits to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR including, but not limited to, plats, short
plats, binding site plans, boundary line adjustments, development permits, grading
permits and building permits. No additional substantive SEPA mitigation measures are
required for approvals or permits that authorize development that is consistent with level
and range of development analyzed in the Prior EISs.
(d) Additional environmental analysis may be required for a new or modified proposal that
materially exceeds the level and range of development reviewed in the Prior EISs. For
any such new or modified proposal, relevant information from Prior EISs shall be used to
the fullest extent possible in future SEPA review. The scope of environmental review
shall be limited to considering how or whether the proposal differs from or exceeds the
scope of the Prior EISs and if so, whether such modification results in potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed in
the Prior EISs.
17.80.040 Permit process for resort development.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
38
(1) A project-level supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) analyzing
development of the Resort Plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new
resort development.
(2) Notice of development application and environmental review under SEPA shall be
provided to all persons or agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the land use procedures of
JCC Title 18.
(3) Actual building permit plans or construction drawings may not be required during the
SEPA review process, but submitted architectural drawings must contain and demonstrate
sufficient details, including a detailed site plan, showing approximate elevations, sections, and
floor plans are required, however, to ensure that the SEPA review process analyzes and
considers project-level details.
(4) The department of community development may impose mitigating conditions or issue a
denial of some or all of the Resort Plan based on the environmental review and using authority
provided pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Article X of
Chapter 18.40 JCC shall be applicable to the permit process for resort development.
(5) Following completion of the SEIS, building permits may be issued, following appropriate
plan review, for projects analyzed in the SEIS.
(6) Actual resort development may be undertaken in phases, but only following completion
of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process. A phasing
schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or may be developed at a later
date.
17.80.050 Environmental review for Resort Plan development.
(1) All project level applications will be presumed to meet the threshold for a SEPA
Determination of Significance except where the SEPA-responsible official determines that the
application results in only minor impacts. Existing environmental review documents may be
adopted under SEPA if those documents meet the SEPA and JCC requirements to adequately
address environmental impacts and mitigation as set forth in RCW 43.21C.034.
(2) The scope of an SEIS prepared under this section shall address environmental issues
identified in the Programmatic FEIS issued November 2007, together with such additional
requirements as a project specific application may raise. The scope shall not change the
standards of approval, however, as set forth in the applicable development agreement and
these development regulations.
(3) The utility element of any subsequent phase of SEPA review pertaining to the Pleasant
Harbor MPR shall provide information on all affected utility systems, including sewer and water
systems and the results of required monitoring. The effectiveness of such monitoring shall be
evaluated. Supplements or changes to the monitoring and reporting systems shall be
considered if necessary to ensure that water quality and water supply are adequately protected
and impacts to natural resources minimized. Requirements for water quality and quantity
monitoring as well as for run-off impacts shall be specified in the Developer Agreement and in
17.80.030.
(4) Any preliminary scope for future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be
consistent with the approved Resort Plan. Other elements, issues, and specific levels of detail
may be included based on information available at the time the Resort Plan development
application is submitted. Elements noted above may be combined in the SEPA analysis to
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
39
reduce duplication and narrow the focus on potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts.
17.80.060 Revisions to Resort Plan.
(1) Any proposed revision of size or scope to the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary or zone
changes within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and
related zoning action. Such changes are outside the scope of the revision processes described
below and in JCC 17.80.070 and 17.80.080. The County may approve an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan only if all requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A
RCW) are fulfilled.
(2) The County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent with
the Master Resort Plan. A revision to the existing MasterResort Plan shall be submitted to the
county for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the
MasterResort Plans set forth in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent
development proposals shall be consistent with the revised ResortMaster Plan and
development regulations.
(3) Proposed revisions to the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Development (DCD) and the DCD director will determine whether the proposal
constitutes a major or minor revision. Upon making a determination, the proposed revision shall
follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in JCC 17.80 060 and 17.80.070.
17.80.070 Minor revisions.
(1) Minor Revisions. The MasterResort Plans may require minor changes to facilities and
services in response to changing conditions or market demand. Minor revisions are those that
do
not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the MasterResort Plan and do not
have a significantly great impact on the environment than that addressed in previous
environmental documents. The following nonexclusive list of changes are examples of a minor
revision for purposes of this section:
(a) An increase in the overall gross commercial square footage of the Master Plan that
does not cumulatively exceed five (5) percent;
(d) Addition of uses that do not modify the recreational nature and intent of the resort.
(e) Minor shifting of the location or orientation of buildings;
(f) Minor shifting of the location or orientation of parking areas;
(g) Minor changes to landscaping;
(h) Minor shifting of the location, design or orientation of public facilities;
(i) Timing of approved development.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
40
A change to the Master Plan not specifically identified above may still qualify as a minor revision
under this section despite its failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions (a) through (h) of
this section if not specifically mentioned above if does not otherwise qualify as a major
revision.in effect. A change that satisfies the following criteria shall be deemed a minor revision
for purposes of this chapter:
(a) Involve no more than a five percent (5%) increase in the overall gross square footage of
the Resort Plan;
(b) Will have no additional impacts on the environment and/or facilities than that addressed
in the development plan;
(c) Do not alter the boundaries of the approved plan;
(d) Do not propose new uses or uses that modify the recreational nature and intent of the
resort.
(2) Minor Revision Approval Process. Applications for minor revisions shall be submitted to,
and reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) to
determine if the revisions are consistent with all of the approved provisions of the Resort Plan
the 2015 FSEIS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan the existing Master Plan, the 2007
FEIS, the 2015 FSEIS subsequent environmental impact statements, the Comprehensive Plan,
Ordinance 01-0128-08, and other pertinent documents. Those proposals that satisfy the
abovereferenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be administratively
approved
(as a Type II decision under the land use procedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Development
Code) by the director of the department of community development. Public notice of the
application, the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons or
agencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Development Code.
Those revisions that do not comply with the provisions contained within this section shall be
deemed a major revision, subject to the provisions outlined in JCC 17.80.080.
17.80.080 Major revisions.
Revisions to the Resort Plan that will result in a substantial change to the resort
including: changes in use, increase in the intensity of use, or in the size, scale, or density of
development; or changes which may have substantialadditional impacts on the environment
beyond those reviewed in previous environmental documents, are considered to be major
revisions and will require application for a revised MasterResort Plan.
(1) Application for a Major Revision to the MasterResort Plan. An application shall be
prepared describing the proposed revision in relation to the approved MasterResort Plan and
providing a framework for review, analysis and mitigation of the revised development activity
proposed. The MasterResort Plan revision proposal shall include the following information:
(a) A description of how the revised MasterResort Plan would further the goals and
policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan;
(b) A description of how the MasterResort Plan revision complements the existing
resort facilities of the Pleasant Harbor MPR;
(c) A description of the design and functional features of the Master Resort Plan
revision, setting out how the revision provides for unified development, integrated site
design and protection of natural amenities;
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
41
(d) A listing of proposed additional uses and/or proposed changes to density and
intensity of uses within the resort, and a discussion of how these changes meet the
needs of residents of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and patrons of the resort;
(e) A completed SEPA environmental checklist with description and analysis of the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision, including an analysis of
the cumulative impacts of both the proposed revision and the approved Master Resort
Plan, and their effects on surrounding properties and/or public facilities;
(f) A description of how the proposed MasterResort Plan revision is integrated with
the overall Pleasant Harbor MPR and any features, such as connections to trail systems,
natural systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the
character of the resort and the overall Pleasant Harbor MPR; (g) A description of the
intended phasing of development projects; (h) Maps, drawings, illustrations, or
other materials necessary to assist in understanding and visualizing the design and use
of the completed proposed development, its facilities and services, and the protection of
critical areas;
(i) A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and
their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not
limited to transportation, water, sewer and stormwater facilities; and a
demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development
are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for.
(j) A description of how the proposed major revision may affect the Memorandums
of Understanding (MOU’s) as identified in the Development Regulations or
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
(2) Major Revision Process. Major revisions shall be processed as a hearing examiner
decision (Type III), with a required public hearing prior to the decision. Public notice of the
application, the required public hearing, the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be
provided to all persons or agencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Chapter
18.40 Article III, Unified Development Code. Any proposed major revision also involving a
change to the boundaries of the MPR zone shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment (a
Type V county commissioners decision) prior to any decision on the MasterResort Plan
amendment. and review by the County Planning Commission and subsequent recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners who approve all Comprehensive Plan amendments.
(3) Decision Criteria. The hearing examiner may approve a major revision to the
MasterResort Plan, and the Board of County Commissioners may approve any associated
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, only if all the following criteria are met:
(a) The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan;
(b) No unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts would be
created by the proposed revision;
(c) The revision is consistent with all applicable development regulations, including
those established for critical areas;
(d) On-site and off-site infrastructure (including but not limited to water, sewer, storm
water and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and mitigated;
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
42
(e) The proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities, meets the
needs of residents and patrons, and provides for unified development, integrated site
design, and protection of natural amenities.
Chapter 17.85, Limitation of Permit Approval, Extinguishment and Severability
17.85.010 Limitation of permit approval.
(1) An MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the applicant fails to meet the
conditions in the approved phasing plan.
(a) A new development plan shall be required for any development on the subject
property.
(b) Specific development activities shall be subject to the standards of the approved
MPR and the regulations in effect at the time of development permit application.
17. 85.030 Severability
If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this title or amendment thereto, or its
application to any person or circumstance, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, the remainder or application to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected
Title 18
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 18.15
Land Use Districts
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.
(1) Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). The first only existing officially
designated master planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, which is designated in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.362 as an existing master planned resort and is subject to the
provisions of JCC Title 17. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is characterized by both
single-family and multifamily residential units with attendant recreational facilities including a
marina, resort and convention center. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow also includes a
large residential community. The entire resort is served by a village commercial center, which
accommodates uses limited to 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.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
43
(2) Pleasant Harbor MPR. Pleasant Harbor MPR 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.
The
Pleasant Harbor MPR is characterized by resort and recreation facilities and amenities south of
Black Point Road and a marina/Maritime Village 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 by 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.
18.15.115 Designation.
"Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive
Plan. The only existing officially designated master planned resorts in the county are is 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.
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.
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; provided, that short-
term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort
accommodation units.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
44
3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to 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.
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 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.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
45
(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.
(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).
(3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall
require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to a master
planned resort land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.45.040; provided,
that the subarea planning process authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea
Plans) and JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the
county. The Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the county
concurrent with the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for
approval of a master planned resort.
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a master
planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the
provisions of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
46
(5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-
level commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and
such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and
land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas
otherwise designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.
18.15.129 Application requirements and approval process.
New MPR applications shall be processed as Type V permits under this UDC, requiring
legislative approval by the board of county commissioners and the following:
(1) A draft of the master plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of JCC
18.15.126(1).
(2) A request for authorization of a development agreement, pursuant to the requirements of
JCC 18.15.126(2) and Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements).
(3) A request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment necessary
to meet the requirement of JCC 18.15.126(3) and 18.45.040. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
18.15.132 Decision-making authority.
(1) The planning commission, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040 and
18.45.080, shall hear and make recommendations on master plans and site-specific
applications for MPR land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
(2) The board of county commissioners, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC
18.40.040, 18.40.850(5) and 18.45.080, shall designate new master planned resort land use
districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the uses, densities, conditions
and standards authorized for site-specific MPRs in a development agreement, and approve
master plans.
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)).
(2) The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections
of this code and all other codes and policies of the county.
(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.
(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.
(5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory
onsite urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve
the
MPR.
Attachment 1: Development Regulations (staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission
recommended development regulations)
47
(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.
(7) All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
(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.
(9) The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the
character of the resort.
(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]
18.15.138 Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be
consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of
this UDC.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
48
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
General Provisions
1 17.60.030
Purpose and
Intent
17.60.030 The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor
MPR code is to set forth development regulations that comply
with and are consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan for future development within the
boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort.
17.60.030 The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor
MPR Code is to regulate land development uses that comply
with and are consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan for future development within the
boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The Pleasant
Harbor MPR provides a mixture of visitor-oriented transient
accommodations, secondary homes, recreation, and
supporting commercial facilities.
Staff modified first sentence so that purpose of code is made
clearer; i.e., from “set forth development regulations” to
“regulate land development uses.” Staff inserted a final
sentence that describes the purpose of the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort (PH-MPR).
2 New Section No language 17.60.040 Master Plan
For the purposes of this Article, the Master Plan for future
development of properties within the Pleasant Harbor MPR is
the regulations, along with the conditions and requirements of
Ordinance 01-0128-08 and Final Environmental Impact
Statements, maps, mitigation measures, phasing plans and
the Development Agreement between the County and the
Developer.
Staff recommends adding a section entitled “Master Plan”
which defines what is considered the Master Plan for the PH-
MPR. Language in the Planning Commission recommended
version refers to a “Resort Plan.” This section will replace
“Resort Plan” with Master Plan as shown. All future references
to Resort Plan in the PC version have been changed to Master
Plan in the staff recommended version.
3 Additional
Requirements
17.60.040 In addition to the requirements of this title, the
provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County
Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor
MPR. Applications for development within the MPR must be
submitted as provided for in JCC 18.35 Article V, Binding Site
Plans, and all subsequent development within the MPR area
will be subject to the approved binding site plan and as
specified in the terms and conditions of the Development
Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer.
Deleted Staff recommends deleting this section and replacing with
new/revised Requirements Section in Item 4, below,
4 17.60.060
Requirements
Replaces “Additional Requirements” Any land disturbing activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR
must comply with the development standards and
requirements of:
(1) Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code;
(2) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08;
(3) The mitigation measures required in the Pleasant Harbor
Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact
Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final
Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December
Staff recommends clearly stating that building, site
development and land use in PH-MPR be fully subject to
provisions of existing County code; that all the conditions of
Ordinance 01-0128-08 shall apply; that every mitigation
measure published in the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (FSEIS) will be part of permitting and
development applications and that all conditions contained in
the Development Agreement shall be complied with. Finally,
staff inserted the stipulation that if conflicts arise among
conditions that the more restrictive will apply. These are
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
49
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and
(4) The terms and conditions of the Development Agreement
entered into between Jefferson County and the
Developer.
Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and
other applicable code provisions, or other regulations, the
more restrictive shall apply.
“Requirements” and they are not “additional requirements.”
5 17.60.070
Resort Cap
and
Residential
Use
Restrictions
17.80.020 Development cap.
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a
development cap of (intentionally left blank to be determined
by further consultation with the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe)
residential units provided, however, short term visitor
accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65 percent
of the total units. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall
have a development cap of 56,608 square feet of resort
commercial, retail, restaurant and conference space, not
including all internal open space.
17.60.070 Resort Cap and Residential Use
Restrictions
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development
cap of 890 residential units provided, however, short term
visitor accommodation units shall constitute not less than 65
percent of the total units including, but not limited to hotels,
motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each
zone.. Short-term rental shall be construed to mean less than
30 days. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a
development cap of 56,608 square feet of resort commercial,
retail, restaurant, and conference space
Staff recommends moving this from a later section up to
General Provisions. Further, staff recommends that PC
recommended verbiage “intentionally left blank” item be
corrected to what is published in Ordinance 01-012-08 and in
the FSEIS to reflect existing, publicly-reviewed and adopted
verbiage.
6 Existing uses
and structures
17.60.070 Pre-existing uses and structures.
Existing legally-permitted, residential and non-
residential land uses and structures in all zones of the Master
Planned Resort are lawful uses and may be continued in a
manner consistent with state law, Titles 15 and 18 of the
Jefferson County Code and any other applicable regulations
or Ordinances.
17.60.080 Nonconforming Uses
Existing nonconforming uses in all zones of the MPR are
lawful uses and may be continued unless abandoned for a
continuous twelve-month period.
17.60.090 Nonconforming Structures
Existing nonconforming structures in all zones of the MPR are
lawful uses and may be continued and maintained. Existing
nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed by fire,
earthquake, explosion, wind, flood, or other calamity may be
completely restored or reconstructed if all of the following
criteria are met:
(1) The restoration and reconstruction shall not serve to
extend or increase the nonconformity of the original structure.
(2) The reconstruction or restoration shall, to the extent
reasonably possible, retain the same general architectural
style as the original destroyed structure, or an architectural
style that more closely reflects the character of the
Staff recommends revisions that are consistent with other
similar verbiage found elsewhere in code and that clearly spell
out provisions for existing uses and structures as they are to be
considered under new zoning and development standards.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
50
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
surrounding neighborhood.
(3) Permits shall be applied for within one year of the
damage. Restoration shall be substantially complete within
two years of permit issuance.
(4) Expansions or substantial modifications to rebuilt
nonconforming structures shall comply with current
regulations and codes, except that an existing nonconformity
regarding the amount of impervious surface on a site may be
maintained.
7 Exemptions 17.60.060 Exemptions The following structures and uses
shall be exempt from the regulations of this title, but are
subject to all other applicable local, state and federal
regulations including, but not limited to, the county building
ordinance, interim critical areas ordinance, the shoreline
management master program, and the State Environmental
Policy Act, Chapter 43.21c RCW (SEPA).
(1) Wires, cables, conduits, vaults, pipes, mains, valves,
tanks, or other similar equipment for the distribution to
consumers of telephone or other communications, electricity,
gas, or water or the collection of sewage, or surface or
subsurface water operated or maintained by a governmental
entity or a public or private utility or other county franchised
utilities including customary meter pedestals, telephone
pedestals, distribution transformers and temporary utility
facilities required during building construction, whether any
such facility is located underground, or above-ground; but
only when such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or
in an easement. This exemption shall not include above-
ground electrical substations, sewage pump stations or
treatment plants, or potable water storage tanks or facilities,
which shall require conditional use approval in any zone
where permitted;
(2) Underground utility equipment, mailboxes, bus
shelters, informational kiosks, public bicycle shelters, or
similar structure or device which is found by the director of
community development to be appropriately located in the
public interest;
(3) Minor construction activities, as defined by the IBC,
17.60.100 Exemptions Only minor construction activities, as
defined by the International Building Code (IBC), Section
106.2 and structures are exempt under Chapter 15.05 JCC,
as amended;
Staff believes that exemptions from code requirements should
be limited to that as proposed by staff. Exemptions as
proposed by the Planning Commission (PC) present conflicts
with other applicable development regulations found in
Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18 Unified Development
Code (UDC) (See Staff Comments in item 3 above). Finally,
staff believes that the PC-itemizing exceptions to exemptions is
confusing and potentially difficult to interpret.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
51
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
Section 106.2 and structures exempt under Chapter 15.05
JCC, as amended;
(4) Development consistent with the Marina Binding Site
Plan approved by the County prior to adoption of this chapter.
Zones
8 17.65 17.65 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Residential
Recreation and Commercial Zone (MPR-RRC)
17.65 Golf Resort (MPR-GR Zone) Staff recommends the proposed zone title Golf Resort for
simplicity.
9 17.65.010
Purpose
The MPR-RRC zone allows residential and recreational
facilities, as well as commercial amenities and services
associated with the resort and surrounding community. It
also allows for the central resort and conference facilities.
The MPR-GR zone provides residential and recreational
facilities, as well as commercial amenities and services
associated with the resort and surrounding community.
Staff returned earlier, more clear language associated with the
MPR-GR Zone
10
17.65.020
Permitted
Uses
(1) Residential uses including single-family and
multifamily structures, condominiums, townhouses,
apartments, lofts, villas, time-share and other fractionally
owned accommodations.
(1) Residential uses including single-family and
multifamily structures, condominiums, townhouses,
apartments, lofts, villas, time-share, and fractionally owned
accommodations.
No change.
(2) Short-term visitor accommodations, constituting not
less than 65% of the total residential units authorized by
Ordinance #01-0128-08, including, but not limited to hotels,
motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under
subsection 1 of this section that are made available for short-
term rental. “Short-term rental” shall be construed to mean
less than 30 days.
Deleted. Moved to Staff proposed 17.60.070 See comments under item 5, above
(3) Visitor oriented amenities, including, but not limited to
(a) conference and meeting facilities; (b) restaurants, cafes,
delicatessens, pubs, taverns and entertainment associated
with such uses; (c) on-site retail services and businesses
typically found in destination resorts and designed to serve
the convenience needs of users and employees of master
planned resort; and (d) recreation business and facilities;
(2) Visitor oriented amenities, including, but not limited to:
(a) conference and meeting facilities;
(b) restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, pubs, taverns, and
entertainment associated with such uses;
(c) on-site retail services and businesses typically found in
destination resorts and designed to serve the convenience
needs of users and employees of a master planned resort;
and,
(d) recreation business and facilities;
Staff recommends renumbering per comment above and
changing format to an itemized list for easier use and easier
referencing.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
52
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
(4) Cultural and educational facilities of all kinds
including, but not limited to, interpretative displays of local
Native American ties to and uses of the area, art galleries,
and indoor or outdoor theaters;
(3) Cultural and informational facilities including, but not
limited to, interpretative displays of local Native American ties
to and uses of the area, art galleries, and indoor or outdoor
theaters;
Staff recommends renumbering and replacing the word
“educational” with “informational” so that there is no conflict or
confusion with references to ‘education’ or ‘educational’
elsewhere in UDC or in Development Agreement (MOU with
schools).
(5) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational
facilities, including but not limited to tennis courts, swimming
pools, spa services, hiking trails, bicycle paths, ropes
courses, amphitheater, and other recreational uses consistent
with the nature of master planned resort;
(4) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational
facilities, including but not limited to golf courses (including
accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses,
practice facilities, and maintenance facilities), tennis courts,
swimming pools, spa services, hiking trails, bicycle paths,
rope courses, amphitheater, and other recreational uses
consistent with the nature of a master planned resort;
Staff recommends renumbering and recommends returning the
term golf courses to list of permitted uses to be consistent with
the proposed zone as well as with Ordinance 01-0128-08 and
the FSEIS.
(6) Waste water treatment facilities, including treatment
plants, capture, storage and transmission facilities to serve a
reuse/recycle program for on-site treatment and use/reuse of
waste water and stormwater;
(7) Public water supply and related facilities;
(8) Public facilities and services as defined in
JCC 18.10.160;
(9) Utilities supporting the resort;
(10) Emergency services (fire, police, EMS);
(11) Medical services; and
(12) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this
zone and MPR as determined by the Department of
Community Development.
(5) Public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10.
(6) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this
zone and an MPR as determined by the department of
community development
Staff recommends renumbering and removing PC
recommended items (6), (7), (9) through (11). Utility and other
life/safety provisions already are regulated by UDC Land Use
and Development Standards (18.15 and 18.30).
11 17.65.040 Bulk
and setback
requirements
All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from
Master Planned Resort boundary lines and adjacent MPR
zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 is 50
feet.
(1) There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the
MPR-GR zone. All structures shall be set back at least 20
feet from the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary lines and
adjacent MPR zones. Minimum building setback from State
Route 101 right-of-way is 50 feet. Minimum setback from
Black Point right-of-way is 20 feet.
(2) All buildings not attached or having common walls
shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, as
measured from foundation to foundation.
Staff revised PC recommended language for clarity, additional
specificity and alignment with project proposal as evaluated in
FSEIS.
12 17.65.050 Critical Areas, Significant Tree Retention and Cultural
Resources Protection Areas
(1) Critical areas and their buffers within the MPR
boundaries shall be identified, delineated and permanently
protected in accordance with JCC 18.22 and shall be
Deleted substantively and replaced with single statement:
All provisions of existing County Code regarding critical areas
and their buffers apply except that wetland buffers once
determined are to be placed in a permanent conservation
Staff recommends deletion of this section that was added in PC
version. As discussed in Item 3, “Requirements” section above,
there is a clear statement that building, site development and
land use in PH-MPR be fully subject to provisions of existing
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
53
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
designated on the official map of the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort. A building setback of 10 feet shall apply to
all designated buffer areas.
(2) Significant Tree Retention.
All trees measuring 10” diameter breast high (dbh) or greater
on the date of binding site plan approval shall be located and
marked for retention, and measures taken to protect
surrounding soil and roots during site disturbance. Where
there is no alternative to removing such trees, additional
trees, such as Douglas Fir or Sitka Spruce at least four years
old or four feet in height, shall be planted in buffer areas at a
ratio of two trees planted for each removed. Where feasible,
removed trees and their root wads shall be made available for
watershed restoration projects.
(3) Kettles.
A “kettle” is defined as a depression on the land surface left
by an ice block after glacial retreat. Black Point has three
such geologic and culturally significant features inside the
MPR boundaries. Kettles are identified as a type of wetland
difficult to replace. The three kettle sites on Black Point
inside the MPR boundaries shall be preserved and protected
to include buffers as deemed sufficient per agreement with
the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe.
(4) Special Environmental Protection Provisions.
Notwithstanding all other environmental requirements, the
MPR approved plan must have provisions for:
(a) Well-head Protection and Aquifer Recharge Area
Permeable soils on site mean potential
contamination of the aquifer could occur from
improperly directed run-off, spills or other
contamination of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides
and petroleum products, putting human health at
risk as well as fish and wildlife. An approved plan
for directing untreated run-off away from the
aquifer and treating all on-site run-off with current
biofiltration standards prior to any discharge to the
aquifer.
(b) An approved organic vegetation and site
management plan shall be submitted to the
County as part of the overall Master Planned
Resort application for review and approval, or
approval with conditions.
easement.
County code and that all the conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-
08 shall apply. Staff recommends a short statement that
distinguishes wetland critical area buffer requirements that
differ slightly from existing County code and that are required
under Ordinance 01-0128-08 namely, that wetland buffers once
determined must be placed in a permanent conservation
easement. Staff created a section under “Resort development”
which lists the required mitigation measures published in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)
and Ordinance 01-0128-08. Already proposed by staff is the
stipulation that if conflicts arise among conditions that the more
restrictive will apply. Finally, staff recommends against creating
new or novel regulatory standards for the PH-MPR (e.g.,
Kettles; single tribes over other tribes, etc.) which present legal
issues with federal, state and local laws. The PC version
introduces duplication of existing development standards and/or
codifies new novel standards that may not be not legally
defensible or defendable.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
54
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
(c) All development and landscaping within the
PHMPR area must be located , constructed, and
maintained in such a manner as to provide full
protection to the aquifer and any on-site or
neighboring wells that rely on that aquifer for
potable water.
(d) No golf course greens should be constructed over
the aquifer recharge area. Site grading and
excavation shall be minimized, as demonstrated
by a County reviewed and approved grading plan
pursuant to JCC 18.30.060 & 070.
(e) Land disturbing activities such as grading and
filling shall be kept to a minimum and natural
contours shall be followed in locating and
designing all development features to protect the
natural environmental uniqueness of the site.
(f) Regular independent water quality testing shall be
conducted at specific monitoring sites to be
identified in the Resort Plan to test for saltwater
intrusion and toxic contamination in local wells that
rely on the Black Point sole source aquifer, as well
as testing in the lower reaches of the two adjoining
watersheds for toxic contamination and low oxygen
levels.
(g) All development and land disturbance shall
protect/avoid all important cultural/historic sites that
are listed, or eligible to be listed, by State Historic
Preservation Officer or by a local Tribe with
jurisdiction. Pursuant to JCC 18.30.160, the County
recognizes that the area of the MPR is within the
ceded area of Tribes that were parities to the Point
No Point Treaty.
(h) The owner/developer or assignees must provide
for all on-site recycling of material, including
paper, glass, cardboards, plastics, and
composting of garden waste, food waste. All
compost should be reused on site. The
owner/developer or assignees must provide a
written record that landscaping materials
purchased and applied onsite, including those
applied as compost feedstocks, and pest controls
are within the parameters and use restrictions set
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
55
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
forth by the National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances as published and periodically updated
by USDA National Organic Program.
(i) The applicant shall identify wildlife use areas within
the site and provide for set-aside and protection of
core wildlife habitat areas and connecting
corridors.
(j) In cooperation and consultation with local tribes,
areas shall be set aside and maintained for the
occasional harvesting of medicinal plants and other
plants important to tribal culture.
(k) All development with the PHMPR must comply
with the requirements for buffer retention, wildlife
protection, greenbelt retention and maintenance
and establishment of permanent protective
easements for these resources, as well as the
other specific requirements of Jefferson County
Ordinance, 01-0128-08, which was part of the
Board of County Commissioners Council approval
for establishment of the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort.
(l) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall
use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) green building rating
system standards.
(m) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall
use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA)
Zone E-1 standards for the MPR in order to limit
night-time light pollution which may affect
neighboring residential areas as well as wildlife.
(5) Public Access to Master Planned Resort Amenities.
All amenities and recreational resources of the development
shall be open to all members of the public, with the
exception of those type of activities pertaining to guests and
residents only such as access to laundry rooms or internal
recreation rooms, TV rooms, etc. Nothing in this section shall
prevent the operator of any recreational resource from
establishing a fee or charge for the public’s use of the
recreational resource.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
56
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
13 17.70 Open
Space
Reserve
(MPR-OSR)
17.70.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide for a
natural vegetated buffer area between the resort activities
and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zone shall
include a buffer extending landward 50 feet as surveyed from
the top of the shoreline bluff bank, including a 10 foot building
setback, along southern boundary of the MPR in accordance
with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.
17.70.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses may be allowed in the buffer and
open space areas in the MPR-OSR zone after review and
approval of appropriate critical area reports:
(1) Restoration of existing development intrusions (roads,
campsites) to their natural pre-development state; and
(2) Passive recreation, including trails that do not reduce
the forest canopy, increase stormwater discharge, or bluff
erosion.
(3) Educational and interpretive displays and signs may be
installed if such installations involve a minimum of
disturbance to soils or vegetation.
Purpose
The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide a non-
clearing permanently forested native vegetation buffer
between the resort development and the waters of Hood
Canal. The MPR-OSR zone shall extend landward as
measured 200 feet horizontally from the ordinary high water
mark of Hood Canal as measured in accordance with local
and state code. The dimensions of the MPR-OSR zone do
not preclude applicable buffers and setbacks as required
under this title or under Title 18 Jefferson County Code.
Staff recognizes that, in accordance with conditions of
Ordinance 01-0128-08, the entirety of the MPR-OSR zone is
required to be within a conservation easement, which runs with
the land in perpetuity. Staff revised and strengthened the
“Purpose” statement to convey clearly that the OSR is to
remain permanently forested and that no clearing is permitted.
Staff added language that acknowledges the zone boundary as
being subject to other standards existing in code (e.g.,
geologically hazardous areas). Staff recommends removing
“permitted uses” as item number (1) would be subject to a
conditional use permit and items (2) and (3) already are
regulated in existing code (Chapter 18.15 JCC Land Use and
Chapter 18.30 JCC Development Standards). PC version
introduces duplication of existing development standards and/or
codifies new novel standards that may not be not legally
defensible or defendable.
14 17.75 Marina-
Maritime
Village Zone
17.75.020 Permitted Uses
(1) Through (6)
(7) Utilities supporting the resort;
(8) Infrastructure and buildings, both above and below
ground, for the utilities;
(9) Emergency services (fire, police, EMS);
(10) Public facilities, and services serving the MPR-MV
zone;
(11) Medical services; and
17.75.040 Bulk and setback requirements.
There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the
MPR-MV zone. All new structures located within shoreline
jurisdiction shall comply with the setback requirements of the
County’s Shoreline Master Program as codified under JCC
18.25
17.75.020 Permitted Uses
no change for items (1) through (6)
Delete items (7) through (11)
17.75.050 Bulk and setback requirements.
(1) There are no yard or setback provisions internal to the
MPR-MV zone. Minimum building setback from Highway 101
right-of-way shall be 50 feet. Minimum building setback from
Black Point Road right-of-way shall be 20 feet. All new
structures located within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply
with the setback requirements of the County’s Shoreline
Master Program as codified under. Chapter 18.25 JCC.
(2) All buildings not attached or having common walls
shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, as
Staff recommends removing PC recommended items after Item
(6), as noted. Utility and other life/safety provisions already are
regulated in existing code (Chapter 18.15 JCC Land Use and
Chapter 18.30 JCC Development Standards) PC version
introduces duplication of existing development standards and/or
codifies new novel standards that may not be not legally
defensible or defendable.
Staff recommends revised setback requirements as noted and
consistent with Golf Resort Zone (MPR-GR) discussed above.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
57
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
measured from foundation to foundation
15 Marina-
Maritime
Village Zone
(no language) 17.75.030 Prohibited Uses.
Floatplanes and floatplane docks are prohibited. Aerial
access is limited to helicopters for emergency medical
purposes only.
Staff recommends an additional standard to prohibit
Floatplanes, as noted, for the MPR-MV Zone, responding to
comments from US Navy and agreed to by Property
Owner/Developer.
Pleasant Harbor Resort Development
16 17.80 Pleasant
Harbor Resort
Development
17.80.010 Resort development.
This section describes the “Resort Plan” for facilities
to be located in the resort MPR, sets out a required
environmental review process for any future resort
development, and provides processes for reviewing major or
minor revisions to the Resort Plan. These provisions apply to
all resort and associated development within the Pleasant
Harbor MPR
17.80.010 Resort development.
This section describes the “Master Plan” defined by
17.60.040 for facilities to be located in the Pleasant Harbor
MPR, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor
revisions to the Master Plan. These provisions apply to all
resort and associated development within the Pleasant
Harbor MPR
Staff recommends revising “Resort Plan” to “Master Plan.” The
Master Plan is established and defined in General Provisions
section as discussed item 3 above. The required
environmental review process already exists in Chapter 18.45
JCC and SEPA. PC version introduces duplication of existing
requirements in the JCC or state law that may not be not legally
defensible or defendable.
17 No language 17.80.020 Required Mitigation Measures During
Operations. The mitigation measures required in the
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment
Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental
Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015
FSEIS); and the terms and conditions of the Ordinance 01-
0128-08 and the mitigation measures contained in the
Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson
County and the Developer are required for the PH-MPR.
Listed for reference are those mitigation measures, which
include but are not limited to:
(1) Shoreline Mitigation: The southern shoreline abutting
Hood Canal will be put into a permanent conservation
easement from the ordinary high water mark to 200
feet landward.
(2) Water Quality Mitigation:
(a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be required to
perform water quality monitoring and to supply
that data from the state water quality sampling
station and other stations in Pleasant Harbor
Staff locates here all mitigation measures found as conditions in
Ordinance 01-0128-08 or as contained in the published FSEIS.
These mitigation measures address shoreline, water quality,
marina and golf course aspects of the PH-MPR and provide the
protection required by SEPA and the Ordinance.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
58
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
and submit a summary water quality report to
the County.
(b) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall comply with a
County-based comprehensive water quality
monitoring plan requiring at least monthly
water collection and testing developed and
approved in concert with an adaptive
management program, utilizing best available
science and appropriate state agencies. The
monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly
reserve, paid for by the Pleasant Harbor MPR
that will include regular off-site sampling of
pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant
loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring
regime.
(c) In the event that water quality shows any sign
of deterioration, the County shall consult with
the resort, the local residents, and the State
(both Washington State Department of Health
and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife) concerning the source of the change.
(d) All the Pleasant Harbor MPR permits shall
require implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures to alleviate any water
quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor
MPR.
(3) Marina Mitigation:
(a) All stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be
captured and treated to the most current edition of the
Stormwater Manual of Western Washington before
discharge.
(b) There shall be no discharge of sewage or
contaminated bilge waters at the marina.
(c) Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational
at all times.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
59
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
(d) Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within
the controlled access areas of the marina.
(e) The Project permits shall incorporate shellfish
protection district guidelines.
(f) The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel
at any time.
(g) The marina shall develop and manage an active
boater education program appropriate to the marina
setting to supplement the County program developed
as part of the shellfish protection district.
(h) New or significant expansions to existing fuel storage
or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats, docks,
piers, and storage lockers.
(i) No storage of oily rags, open paints, or other
flammable or environmentally hazardous materials
except emergency equipment as approved in the
Emergency Service MOU shall be permitted on the
docks.
(j) Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be
limited to minor repairs when in the water, which do
not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor.
(k) Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier
that prevents debris from entering the marine waters.
(l) Notification and information (before harvesting
shellfish) will be available at the proposed.
(m) The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation
requirements appropriate under the County Shellfish
Protection Plan, and shall integrate a boater education
program into a marina public education plan, which
shall be implemented and maintained for so long as
the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
60
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
management plan.
(n) The marina operations shall collect water quality data
(from State sources so long as available or from
approved testing plan should the state sources move
or not accurately reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions),
and shall be required to participate with the County in
an adaptive management program to eliminate,
minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from
the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime
Village.
(o) 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 full mitigate any changes
arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor
or the Maritime Village.
(4) Golf Course Mitigation
(a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall ensure that golf
course operations comply with the best practice
standards of the King County golf course
management guidelines, or their substantial
equivalent, including, but not limited to, American Golf
Association standards.
(b) The golf course and resort facilities will be required to
participate in any adaptive management programs
required by the County, as a result of the water quality
monitoring program required by JCC 17.080.020(2)
and any changes caused by the resort operations.
(c) 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,
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
61
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
(d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall implement as a best
management practice for the operation and
maintenance of the golf course a requirement to
maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides
used on the Pleasant Harbor MPR site, and this
information shall be made available to the public.
(5) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: The Pleasant Harbor
MPR shall collaborate at least annually with the Climate
Action Committee (CAC) or its successor to calculate
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the
Pleasant Harbor MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate
such emissions through sequestration and/or other
acceptable methods.
(6) Blending of Buildings, Light Mitigation, Greenbelts and
Buffer Management:
(e) In keeping with an 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 they will blend into the
terrain and landscape with park-like green belts
between buildings.
(f) Construction of buildings within the Pleasant Harbor
MPR boundaries shall strive 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.
(g) All development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall
use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone
E-1 standards within the boundaries of the Pleasant
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
62
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
Harbor MPR.
(h) The Pleasant Harbor MPR, at its expense, shall
manage all conservation easements to include
removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees,
and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of
the development from U.S. Hwy 101.
18 Pleasant
Harbor Resort
Development
17.80.030 Resort Plan and Development Agreement
The Resort Plan shall consist of an approved binding
site plan, including monitoring and operational plans, and an
approved Development Agreement for future development of
properties in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The process for
approval of such agreements is contained in 18.40.820 JCC
17.80.040 Permit process for resort development.
(1) A project-level supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS) analyzing development of the Resort Plan
is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new
resort development.
(2) Notice of development application and environmental
review under SEPA shall be provided to all persons or
agencies entitled to notice pursuant to the land use
procedures of JCC Title 18.
(3) Actual building permit plans or construction drawings
may not be required during the SEPA review process, but
submitted architectural drawings must contain and
demonstrate sufficient details, including a detailed site plan,
showing approximate elevations, sections, and floor plans are
required, however, to ensure that the SEPA review process
analyzes and considers project-level details.
(4) The department of community development may
impose mitigating conditions or issue a denial of some or all
of the Resort Plan based on the environmental review and
17.80.030 SEPA Compliance Required
(1) Substantial Compliance with Environmental Impact
Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statements Required.
(a) Potential environmental impacts from future
development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR have been
assessed and addressed in prior environmental
documents. The prior reviews were published in the
following documents:
i. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
(September 5, 2007) (DFEIS);
ii. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final
Environment Impact Statement (November 27,
2007) (FEIS);
iii. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and
Golf Resort November 19, 2014 (DSEIS);
iv. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final
Supplemental Environment Impact Statement
Staff recommends striking the verbiage from the PC version
regarding “resort plan” as most of what is described here is part
of the Development Agreement, discussed under a separate
staff report. Staff also recommends deleting PC language
regarding State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) thresholds.
The PC provisions attempt to repeat current state law, but are
potentially inconsistent. The applicability of SEPA applies to all
land use actions and does not require reproduction here. Staff
notes that the PC version is borrowed from earlier verbiage
adopted for Port Ludlow MPR. SEPA rules as published in state
law recognize that existing environmental documents for a
given project and property will and are required to guide all land
use, environmental and site development decisions. For the
PH-MPR, there are a draft and final EIS and draft and final
SEIS, which recognize all the provisions that are reproduced
here. Any modification, revision or change to what was
analyzed in the EIS and SEIS for PH-MPR property and site
development will, in accordance with state law, require
additional analysis under SEPA, i.e., a SEPA addendum or
supplement. Reproducing state legal requirements is not
value-added and introduces potential confusion for future
planning staff, citizen interpretations or by future contractors
/developers.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
63
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
using authority provided pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Article X of Chapter 18.40
JCC shall be applicable to the permit process for resort
development.
(5) Following completion of the SEIS, building permits
may be issued, following appropriate plan review, for projects
analyzed in the SEIS.
(6) Actual resort development may be undertaken in
phases, but only following completion of review and approval
of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process. A
phasing schedule may be proposed as part of the
environmental review or may be developed at a later date.
December 9, 2015 (FSEIS).
(b) The FEIS, DSEIS and FSEIS are referred to
collectively as the “Prior EISs.” Development shall
substantially comply with the express mitigation
measures imposed pursuant to the Prior EISs.
(c) The Prior EISs shall constitute compliance to the
fullest extent possible under SEPA, as well as
Condition 63(b) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all
subsequent approvals or permits to develop the
Pleasant Harbor MPR including, but not limited to,
plats, short plats, binding site plans, boundary line
adjustments, development permits, grading permits
and building permits. No additional substantive SEPA
mitigation measures are required for approvals or
permits that authorize development that is consistent
with level and range of development analyzed in the
Prior EISs.
(d) Additional environmental analysis may be required for
a new or modified proposal that materially exceeds
the level and range of development reviewed in the
Prior EISs. For any such new or modified proposal,
relevant information from Prior EISs shall be used to
the fullest extent possible in future SEPA review. The
scope of environmental review shall be limited to
considering how or whether the proposal differs from
or exceeds the scope of the Prior EISs and if so,
whether such modification results in potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts that have
not been adequately addressed in the Prior EISs.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
64
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
19 17.80.050 Environmental review for Resort Plan
development.
(1) All project level applications will be presumed to meet
the threshold for a SEPA Determination of Significance
except where the SEPA-responsible official determines that
the application results in only minor impacts. Existing
environmental review documents may be adopted under
SEPA if those documents meet the SEPA and JCC
requirements to adequately address environmental impacts
and mitigation as set forth in RCW 43.21C.034.
(2) The scope of an SEIS prepared under this section
shall address environmental issues identified in the
Programmatic FEIS issued November 2007, together with
such additional requirements as a project specific application
may raise. The scope shall not change the standards of
approval, however, as set forth in the applicable development
agreement and these development regulations.
(3) The utility element of any subsequent phase of SEPA
review pertaining to the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall provide
information on all affected utility systems, including sewer and
water systems and the results of required monitoring. The
effectiveness of such monitoring shall be evaluated.
Supplements or changes to the monitoring and reporting
systems shall be considered if necessary to ensure that water
quality and water supply are adequately protected and
impacts to natural resources minimized. Requirements for
water quality and quantity monitoring as well as for run-off
impacts shall be specified in the Developer Agreement and in
17.80.030.
(4) Any preliminary scope for future development within
the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be consistent with the
approved Resort Plan. Other elements, issues, and specific
levels of detail may be included based on information
available at the time the Resort Plan development application
is submitted. Elements noted above may be combined in the
SEPA analysis to reduce duplication and narrow the focus on
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts.
Deleted See comment to Item 18 above.
Attachment 2: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Recommended Development Regulations with Staff Recommended Revisions
65
Discussion
Item
Number
Code Section
(final code
numbering not
included as
sequence may
change upon
adoption)
Planning Commission Recommended Version Staff Recommended Version Discussion
Revisions to Master Plan
20 17.80.060 and
070 Revision
to Master Plan
(replaces
Resort Plan)
Uses term “Resort Plan.” Replaces with “Master Plan” whenever “Resort Plan” is used No other changes recommended by staff.
Limitation of Permit Approval, Extinguishment and Severability
18 17.85 New
section,
proposed
No language 17.85.010 Limitation of permit approval.
An MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void
if the applicant fails to meet the conditions and time
schedules specified in the approved phasing plan. A new
development plan shall be required for any development on
the subject property. Specific development activities shall be
subject to the standards of the approved MPR and the
regulations in effect at the time of development permit
application.
17.85.020 Severability
If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this title or
amendment thereto, or its application to any person or
circumstance, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, the remainder or application to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected
Staff recommends inserting this language into this PH-MPR
code to protect against a failure to develop the PH-MPR as
required by the development regulations and the development
agreement.
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation
66
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street; Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450
Planning Commission Recommendation for MLA08-00188
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
UDC Text Amendment
For
Title 17 Article II
Development Regulations
&
Title 18 Code Amendments
Recommendation with Findings and Conclusions
To: Board of County Commissioners, Chair Kathleen Kler
Department of Community Development, Director Patty Charnas
Interested Parties of Jefferson County
From: Jefferson County Planning Commission
Date: July 11, 2016
Attached: Proposed text
The Planning Commission is pleased to submit our UDC Text Amendment recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners for review. The Planning Commission has worked diligently to review and
deliberate the application for an amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Title 17 Article II –
Development Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, and relevant code
amendments to Title 18 regarding master planned resorts.
On June 15, 2016, the Planning Commission made a motion to accept and forward to the Board of
County Commissioners (BoCC) the attached version of Title 17 Article II, the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort development regulations, with minor amendments to Title 18 of the Unified Development
Code. The motion carried by a vote of six (6) in favor, one (1) opposed, and one (1) abstained.
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation
67
On June 29, 2016, the Planning Commission developed findings of fact and conclusions based upon
growth management indicators as required under JCC 18.45 and other general guidance on required
findings, and therefore do hereby declare the following findings and conclusions in support of our
recommendation:
A. Required findings as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18.45.080(1)(b)(i-iii):
1. Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan?
The circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have
substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. For
example, since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan a site specific Comprehensive Plan
amendment to re-designate the subject property from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort
zoning (MLA06-00087) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 14,
2008. The site has remained unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground
stopped in September of 2007.
2. Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no
longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, as
well as the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the
site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort.
3. Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on this finding, and therefore, wish to be
silent on this point.
B. Additional required findings as per Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 18.45.080(1)(c)(i-viii):
1. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or
slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize?
Growth is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population projections which are
less than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates.
2. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation
68
The level of services provided by the County can be maintained at 2004 levels due to the
decrease in demand based on population projections.
3. Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and
need?
There is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA – in fact, there
is a surplus.
4. Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid?
There is no evidence that the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan were based are
no longer valid. The Goals and Policies under the Land Use and Rural element of the
Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resort development are still valid. The assumptions
under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential
to Master Planned Resort are also still valid.
5. Are there changes in the county-wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the
Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
There is no evidence that County-wide attitudes regarding amendments to the Unified
Development Code (UDC) to address development of a Master Planned Resort, or that the goals
and policies regarding Master Planned Resorts as a land use have changed. The proposed
amendment to the UDC is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements.
6. Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan?
With the adoption of the site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment (MLA06-00087) to re-
designate the project site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning, new language
specific to the Pleasant Harbor MPR will need to be included in the upcoming Comprehensive
Plan periodic update. No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the adoption of
the proposed development regulations is required.
7. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, the
County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations.
C. The Record
In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission finds:
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation
69
1. In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the
Jefferson County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with
respect to this proposal?
The record contains an application for a UDC Text Amendment, Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) with associated project descriptions, maps, technical
reports, findings, conclusions and mitigation measures, appendices, public and regulatory agency
comments and response to comments. Also records of public meetings and hearings, background
on Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan approval, as well as a record of the current and on-going
negotiations between the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, the Developer and Jefferson County
based upon the April 18, 2016 government to government meeting.
2. Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
Yes, assertions in the record can be confirmed by information from other sources.
3. Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
Yes, this UDC Text Amendment recommendation is based on the record.
4. Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on a finding and/or conclusion on whether
or not the decision satisfies legal criteria, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point.
5. Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
Yes, this UDC Text Amendment recommendation is specific to the application to amend the UDC
Title 17 Article II Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations (MLA08-
00188).
D. Additional Findings and Conclusions
The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on whether or not there were additional findings of
fact or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point.
E. Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
We recognize that our recommendation will be reviewed and considered by the Board of County
Commissioners, who will, based upon these findings and conclusions, determine whether or not a change
to the Planning Commission recommendation is necessary (JCC 18.45.090(4).
On June 29, 2016, The Jefferson County Planning Commission made a motion to instruct Staff to prepare
the Planning Commission’s final recommendation, submit that recommendation with associated findings
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation
70
and conclusions to the Planning Commission Chair for signature, and then forward said recommendation
to the BoCC for consideration. The motion carried by vote of three (3) in favor, one (1) against, and one
(1) abstained.
__________________________________________ ____________________
Cynthia Koan, Planning Commission Chair Date
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
71
Attachment 4.
July 6, 2016
Board of County
Commissioners
Jefferson County
Courthouse 1820
Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Kathleen Kler, BOCC Chair; Phil Johnson; and David Sullivan;
The Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC) has spent the last six months reviewing the
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) project with the goal of making a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the Development Regulations
(code) that will govern future development of this Comprehensive Plan designated MRP site at
Black Point near Brinnon, Washington.
As you know, it is not without significant concerns that we send these recommendations
forward to you. We will attempt here to lay out what we learned in our six month study and
review, what the regulations before you represent, and what we believe still needs to be done.
We also want to lay out how we believe this process should have gone and should go from
here forward. This learning curve has been steep and mostly “self-taught” without much
support from a Department of Community Development (DCD) that has been without a full-time
DCD Director for nearly a year and without a DCD Manager for over a year and a half. This is
our attempt to convey to you the depth of what we have learned and now understand as a
result of our study.
What is the action?
From the very beginning of our review we sought clarification of the “Proposed Action” which
triggered the current SEPA review. Here is what is stated in the SFEIS:
“PROPOSED ACTIONS: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Draft Supplemental EIS
Jefferson County is considering the adoption of amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the
Jefferson County Code to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for the Master
Planned Resort (MPR) approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by
Ordinance No. 01- 0128-08, adopted January 28, 2008. In addition, the County is
considering the text of a proposed Development Agreement, as required by the
Comprehensive Plan, to guide the development, phasing, and standards for the
proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR).”
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
72
The purpose of the EIS, therefore, should have been to examine alternative language for the
development regulations, NOT alternatives to a specific development proposal and its
accouterments. This point remains a significant point of confusion for all parties involved.
In our review we held a public hearing in Brinnon on January 6th, closely following release of
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), where we heard from a
divided public. Vocal proponents and opponents filled the Brinnon Elementary School Gym
and stood in line to speak, both for and against this development. At that hearing it was very
clear that the public was unaware of the proposed action, approval of MPR development
regulations, and understandably believed the hearing was addressing approval of the
Statesman Development proposal specifically, not proposed regulations. The FSEIS
certainly contributed to that confusion.
Since then we have been educating ourselves on the history and current state of this proposal
by reviewing the FSEIS and its accompanying letters and other documents, as well as fifteen
years of public and tribal comment on development of this site.
What we have learned about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) site:
The site designated as the Pleasant Harbor MPR takes up approximately one third of a
peninsula on Hood Canal known as Black Point. Black Point sits directly adjacent the
Duckabush River estuary and just south of the Dosewallips River estuary, two important
salmon and steelhead rivers, on a stretch of beach rich in shellfish and other marine life and
on the south end of Hood Canal, a body of water with one entrance and one in which little
exchange of water from the Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Ocean
can occur. What goes into this body of water primarily stays in this body of water.
The Black Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR is a particularly and specifically sensitive site for the
following reasons:
a. The site is located on, and in close proximity to, the Hood Canal, a sixty-mile long fjord
with limited tidal exchange.
b. The site includes unusually large kettles, geological formations formed by retreating
glaciers.
c. The site is located between the Dosewallips and the Duckabush rivers, two major
salmon habitats.
d. The site is surrounded by significant shellfish habitat with a harvest of 140,000 lbs.
yearly.
e. The site’s critical role in aquifer recharge.
f. The site includes a small freshwater aquifer surrounded by salt water, making it
particularly vulnerable to saltwater intrusion.
g. The additional traffic that will contribute to significant runoff impacts from increased
traffic on WA-101.
h. The likelihood that wastewater, even after advanced treatment, will still include
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
73
significant pesticides, herbicides, and an overabundance of nutrients, as well as
human hormones and other medications is high. These contaminants, if introduced
into the aquifer, even after treatment, can pollute wells and seep out into tidal
beaches that rely on fresh water from the aquifer mixed with salt water for healthy
marine habitat. Excess nutrients are a major contributing factor in toxic algae blooms
and low oxygen events in the Hood Canal.
Black Point between two estuariesHood Canal
What we have learned about this MPR process:
The approval of the Brinnon/Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort (MPR) will be largest single
land use decision made by the Jefferson County BOCC since enactment of the Growth
Management Act (GMA) in 1990.
Two primary documents await approval: 1) the Development Regulations or “code” that will be
incorporated into the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and 2) the Development Agreement
between the county and a specific developer.
In our study we have discovered the following:
No study specifically addressing shellfish impact and tribal harvest rights was found to
be included in any EIS.
Other important environmental concerns raised in comments in the Draft
Supplemental EIS were not addressed, or were addressed only superficially, in
the Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS).
Jefferson County, as an agent of the State, is a party to the Point No Point Treaty of 1855.
Black Point is within the usual and accustomed grounds included in the Point No Point
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
74
Treaty of 1855, (the ceded area) which entitles treaty tribes certain named and
established rights to hunting, fishing, gathering and the right to carry on cultural and
spiritual practices. The Tribes have standing as natural resource co- managers.
Comments submitted repeatedly at different points in the process by the Port
Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) were not addressed in the FSEIS.
PGST comments to the Draft SEIS were not included in the Final SEIS.
An anthropology report, addressing the cultural significance of the kettles, was not
found to be included in any Environmental Impact Statement.
Government to government consultation with the PGST took place only in the last several
months, when the PGST insisted upon it.
The Planning Commission was informed by staff (David Wayne Johnson) late in the
process that draft regulations put before the Jefferson County Planning Commission
(JCPC) had in fact been drafted by Statesman Group and written to accommodate the
company’s specific development proposal. Those draft regulations included language
naming a specific developer (Statesman) addressed the specifics of Statesman’s yet-
to-be-approved development and included references to a development agreement that
has yet to be developed/approved.
DCD recommended enacting development regulations and a developer agreement in a
single action, an impossibility if the developer agreement is to reflect the direction of
the adopted regulations. The PC was told that if Statesman withdrew, the regulations
would also be withdrawn.
Requirements included in the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ordinance
01-0128-08 that the tribes be consulted, as well as other requirements such as the
preservation of at least one kettle, were not included in the proposed regulations.
Where the process appears to be out of sequence:
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70a.360 (4)(a) states:
“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;”
In keeping with the above language, Chapter 3 (Land Use and Rural Development) of the
current (Revised by ORD#01-0105-09) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) Goals and
Policies, LNP (Land Use Policy) 24.12 states:
“LNP 24.12 The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review
and designation of master planned resorts that include, at a minimum, compliance
with these policies.”
The BOCC adopted Ordinance 01-0128-08 allowing the CP MPR designation on Black Point
references both RCW 36.70A.360 and our own Jefferson County Goals and Policies (24.1-
24.13) following completion of the original FEIS. However, we find no evidence that general
regulations have been adopted (not specific to any particular MPR) “to guide the review and
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
75
designation of master planned resorts”, which are required both by the RCW and by our own
CP LNP 24.12.
As proposed by Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD), the
development regulations and the development agreement were to be submitted together in a
single action to the BOCC. The Planning Commission was asked to review and recommend
adoption of Development Regulations by the BOCC that incorporate and reference a
Development Agreement that has not yet been put before the Planning Commission.
In the absence of such regulatory directives as is required (See RCW and LNP references
above), we find the draft regulations specific to this site and Statesman’s specific development
proposal now before the PC out of sync with WA State code and Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan policy.
That policy/code, when enacted, should clearly spell out a sequence for creating and
approving the comprehensive plan designation of a new MPR, when and how regulations
governing that MPR should be drafted and adopted, what action prompts SEPA Review, how
applications for specific MPR development proposals are to be reviewed and approved, and
how the development agreement should relate in timing and in fact to the regulations
governing the MPR site and the application for the specific MPR development.
We believe this step is required before any further review of this MPR can take place. This
general MPR Policy should include the steps required to create development regulations for
any MPR in Jefferson County and for each MPR designated area.
MRSC recommendations for MPRs in small rural counties:
According to Master Planned Resorts “Washington Style,” MRSC of WA State (2003): “A large
and complex MPR development can add substantially to the workload of county staff,
particularly in a small rural county.
Significant staff time and often specialized expertise from outside the county may be required
during the development review process, construction and follow-up monitoring stages.” A
sample agreement for such services is included in that guidance document. Again, this is
pertinent guidance that the Planning Commission had to discover and research on our own.
Why members of the Planning Commission took on a draft edit:
On April 18th a Government to Government meeting between the BOCC and the Jamestown
S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) took place at the Jefferson County Courthouse in BOCC chambers.
The result of that meeting was an agreement between the BOCC and the PGST that technical
staff employed by the PGST, Jefferson County DCD, and Statesman Group would hold further
meetings to work out the technical and environmental requirements of this site and this
development. As far as the Planning Commission is currently aware, these technical meetings
have not taken place, and no agreement has been reached.
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
76
In anticipation of that Government to Government meeting and again afterward, the Planning
Commission repeatedly asked that the regulations be taken back to DCD staff so that
deficiencies in the draft regulations could be addressed, references to the specific developer
removed, and time allowed for the government-to-government negotiations with the PGST to
conclude, with the results incorporated into a future draft, before the Planning Commission
spent any more time on the development regulation recommendation process. These requests
were denied and the BOCC instead gave the PC a deadline of June 20th, 2016 (later extended
by the BOCC to July 11th, 2016), by which date a recommendation from the PC for
development regulations would be made to the BOCC or else the BOCC would consider the
PC to have no recommendation.
Feeling that it was important to pass our learning onto the BOCC in some form, some PC
members stepped in to revise the proposed regulations themselves. The PC’s revised
regulations removed references to a specific developer inappropriate at the regulatory level,
included regulations that address the development review process and requirements of this
particularly sensitive site, and clarified that legislative action on the development regulations
needs to proceed the review and approval of any related development agreement so that the
agreement can be written to comply with those enacted regulations. It is the position of the PC
that this, work should have been done at staff level or by a consultant to this MPR process
before the proposal was brought before the Planning Commission in the first place. Also, PC
members attempted to include appropriate references to the 30 Conditions included in
Ordinance #01-0128-08 which were not included in the draft regulations the PC was given to
review.
Using the PC Draft, the entire Planning Commission spent approximately eight hours during
the course of two public meetings going line by line over the development regulations to
find what we could, as a majority, send forward to you.
Each member of our planning commission has had different questions about this process and
about the proposed development, but as a whole we worked hard to find a way to make
recommendations that allow the development to move forward while necessarily protecting
this particularly sensitive site, the aquifer for the Black Point area the MPR would draw from,
the area’s role as a critical aquifer recharge area, surrounding shellfish beds fed by that
aquifer, neighboring estuaries and salmon habitat, its unique geology and cultural history, and
its location on Hood Canal.
We believe in the case of this particularly environmentally sensitive location, the county has a
legal right, and in fact a legal and ethical imperative, to go beyond the mitigation measures
that are proposed in the FSEIS in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Critical Areas Ordinance, the UDC and state and federal requirements for the protection of the
environment. In fact, there is valid concern that adequate mitigation of significant
environmental impacts may not even be possible given the scale of the proposed development
and the sensitivity of the site and surrounding area.
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
77
How we think this process should go:
We believe a clearer, fairer, and more defensible sequencing for this and all future MPRs the
BOCC considers would be to:
1. Clarify and expand the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Jefferson County Code for
designating and considering any and all new MPRs to include a clear and specific
order for MPR designation, creation, and adoption of regulations as a clear and
distinct action subject to SEPA Non-project Review.
2. Adopt development regulations (county code) for this specific MPR that would clearly
articulate the process for, and reqirements of, any proposed development application
within this MPR, only after full public review and consultation with any tribal
governments with jurisdiction. Such regulations should be based on the 30 specific
conditions outlined in the BOCC ordinance, the general policies of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the specific policies pertaining to MPRs, and
the Brinnon Subarea Plan.
3. Once a MPR development application receives approval, then and only then should a
development agreement be drafted that would meet the requirements of the adopted
regulations and clarify the agreement between the county and the developer. Only
after adoption of the developer agreement would a developer have vested rights.
In this way, were the current developer to choose not to proceed with this project, a future party
would be able to proceed with a development proposal on this site knowing what that process
would entail and what the requirements would be, for the protection of the county and
transparency for all applicants as well as other interested parties, including other agencies or
tribes with jurisdiction, the surrounding community, and the general public.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, MPRs, and this proposal:
Even though our Comprehensive Plan allows for Master Planned Resorts, they must still be
consistent with the overall vision, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other
applicable regulations. The Planning Commission finds this development, as currently
proposed, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s MPR designations or with the
Brinnon Subarea Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan states:
“The economic reasons for siting of a master planned resort, however, must also be
carefully balanced against the potential for significant adverse environmental effects
from such a development. Any proposal must be carefully planned and regulated to
prevent any type of sprawl development outside of the master planned development that
would destroy the scenic and often environmentally sensitive setting. The Comprehensive
Plan identifies policies in LNG 24.0 that help guide development of any new MPR
designation. The goal and policies focus on protecting the rural character and natural
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
78
environment of areas potentially impacted by development of an MPR, ensuring
adequate provision of public facilities and services, and preventing the spread of low
density sprawl.”
and
Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of lifestyles
that make up the intrinsic character of this community.
Support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by
recognizing existing local businesses, making prudent and appropriate infrastructure
investments, and encouraging new business start-ups and recruitment which are
compatible with and complementary to the community.
Protect and conserve the local natural resource base, balancing both habitat and
economic values.
Reinforce and enhance the historic sense of "place" or "community" around traditional
population centers.
Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in
favor of infill and the strengthening of local communities.
The Brinnon Subarea Plan states:
P1.1 Encourage the proposal of a Master Planned Resort for Black Point to foster
economic development in Brinnon consistent with the vision illustrated in this Subarea
Plan.
P1.2 Ensure that the project review procedures and public involvement processes in
place for designation of an MPR at Black Point are implemented in a manner that
results in a project that meets the need for local economic development while protecting
the natural environment and rural character of surrounding properties.
P1.3 The Black Point MPR project review and approval process should reflect the
diversity of interests and potential property owners who may be included in such an
overall project at Black Point.
From: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-16 Revised by ORD#01-0105-09
The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC careful consideration of the
following:
The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golf course and mega-resort over a
critical aquifer recharge area;
Keeping all three kettles intact in recognition that they are important cultural sites and
significant geological formations;
A thorough independent review of the hydrologic function and relationship between surface
water, groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this particular aquifer as both a sole-
source (or near sole-source) aquifer for the residents of Black Point and the significant
aquifer recharge area, potential for contamination by pollutants in runoff or any other
contributions to the aquifer from treated sources;
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
79
The planning commission’s finding that the proposed 890 housing units was three times
the density of Port Townsend, some of us believe a density of no more than 300 units
could be more appropriate to the site, pending technical review;
Building height allowances to be consistent with existing Jefferson County Code;
The need for a detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all
stormwater runoff generated onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite.
Proposed mitigation for stormwater pollution impacts generated off-site and related to
increased traffic on Hwy 101 and arterial roads that is caused by the development.
Address the elimination of contaminants before they enter runoff and
groundwater, while utilizing a comprehensive monitoring and feedback plan as
an important last line of defense.
A clear and defensible plan for what happens if/when monitoring reveals problems. (e.g.
can the site be shut down or scaled back, etc.);
Coordination/consultation with affected tribes;
Meet or exceed 30 BOCC conditions;
Feasibility of doing off-site treatment of black/gray water as well as runoff in place of
the planned rapid injection system approach, which could result in inadequately
treated stormwater/blackwater entering and polluting a finite, sensitive aquifer that
discharges to adjacent shellfish beds as well as salmon/steelhead habitat in adjacent
river estuaries.
Local hires and contracts prioritized (in the MPR Washington Style guide as well as
one of 30 BOCC conditions) with a clear process of prioritizing, fostering, and
maintaining local business relationships and labor pools;
Working with the existing geography, land contours and natural beauty, minimize
land disturbance, and design in accordance with other principles and policies of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Despite the PC’s agreement on many revisions, some of us do not believe that the regulations
we put forth to you in our majority recommendations go far enough and do not represent a
clear and appropriate succession of events leading up to the PC review of the proposed
regulations. In the interest of completing the technical process agreed upon in the April 18th
government to government meeting between Jefferson County and the Port Gamble
S’Klallam Tribe between PGST, the developer, and county staff, and in the interest of making
sure what happens next is as clearly sequenced and defensible as possible, we put forward
the following:
We advise that a moratorium on development approval at the Black Point/Pleasant
Harbor MPR site be put into place until clear regulations be adopted pursuant to, and
consistent with, RCW 36.70a.360 Master Planned Resorts and our own CP LNP
24.12.
We advise that the proposed development regulations currently under consideration be
withdrawn, new MPR tiered policy/code be created and adopted that specifies how new
MPRs are to be proposed and reviewed.
Following that, we further propose that specific regulations for the Black Point/Pleasant
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
80
Harbor MPR be proposed, reviewed and adopted in full consultation with tribal
governments who have treaty rights as a result of the Point No Point treaty of 1855.
We find that it would not be within the best interests of the county to adopt the proposed
unclear regulations at this time. We believe the regulations should undergo a further
refinement and review, which is beyond the scope of this Planning Commission, the
timeline given the planning commission, and the current resource constraints of the
DCD. We recommend an outside consultant, chosen by the county and paid for by the
developer, further review the MPR regulations to address all environmental and
regulatory concerns.
In the absence of these steps, we feel that the draft regulations put forward herein are
premature.
We find that the process and distinct steps for adopting an MPR is extraordinarily complex and
needs to be clarified in in our Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Jefferson County
Code for the future so that all parties – staff, applicant, and the public – can anticipate and
follow the process. Similarly, Comprehensive Plan policies and guidelines for golf courses
should be reviewed and updated and the question of where, how, and/or if new golf courses
should be allowed should be addressed.
Despite all of the aforementioned concerns, we do believe that an appropriately planned and
scaled low-impact development MPR at Black Point, designed to maximize preservation of
existing natural features and cultural resources, and affording ample public access, could offer
an extraordinary opportunity to create a recreational development with unique features and
qualities, one that highlights and enhances the natural beauty and character of Brinnon and
the Pleasant Harbor MPR site for the enjoyment of all and the full environmental health of this
pristine location. As one planning commissioner quipped, “This could be and should be the
cleanest resort in the world!” The citizens of Jefferson County and the State of Washington
deserve that.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Koan, Chair
Jefferson County Planning Commission
cc: Philip Morley, Patty Charnas, Planning Commission Desk
Letter approved at 7/6/2016 PC public meeting:
In Favor:
Cynthia Koan, Chair (District 1)
Lorna Smith, Co-chair (District 2)
Mark Jochems (District 2)
Tom Giske (District 3)
Opposed:
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Letter of July 6, 2016 to the Board of County Commissioners
81
Richard Hull (District 3)
Kevin Coker (District 1)
Abstaining:
Mike Nilssen (District 3)
Absent:
Gary Felder (District 1)
Matt Sircely (District 2)
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
82
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
1 (page 1) From the very beginning of our review, we sought
clarification of the “Proposed Action” which triggered the
current SEPA review. Here is what is stated in the SFEIS:
“PROPOSED ACTIONS: Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort Draft Supplemental EIS
Jefferson County is considering the adoption of
amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County
Code to provide a zoning ordinance and zoning map for the
Master Planned Resort (MPR) approved by the Board of
County Commissioners (BoCC) by Ordinance No. 01-
0128-08, adopted January 28, 2008. In addition, the
County is considering the text of a proposed Development
Agreement, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, to
guide the development, phasing, and standards for the
proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR).”
The purpose of the EIS, therefore, should have been to
examine alternative language for the development
regulations, NOT alternatives to a specific development
proposal and its accouterments. This point remains a
significant point of confusion for all parties involved.
The Planning Commission (PC) quote from the 2015 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) should be
considered in the context of the entire history of the consideration of a master planned resort (MPR) for Blackpoint in Brinnon,
WA and in the context of the 2015 FSEIS as a whole.
First, consider the historical context. There is a sixteen-year history of Brinnon planning. Two previous environmental impact
statements (EIS) considered a MPR for Blackpoint: (1) An EIS for the 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan; and, (2) A programmatic
EIS in 2007 for the Pleasant Harbor MPR (2007 FEIS). After the 2007 FEIS was issued, an MPR designation was approved
for the area subject to thirty conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08. 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.4
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.”5 The
Thurston County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
Second, consider the entire context of the FSEIS. Jefferson County, as Lead Agency, issued a Draft Supplemental EIS
(DSEIS) on November 19, 2014 with a 45-day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. The 2015 FSEIS was issued
on December 9, 2015. While the FSEIS does contain the statement as written, in the same section, the FSEIS further states
that:
The Jefferson County BoCC conditioned approval of the MPR Comprehensive Plan amendment to require
project-level environmental review of the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft development
agreement requirement to implement the proposal. Accordingly, a Draft and Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS)
were prepared to supplement the programmatic Final EIS prepared for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
that approved the MPR, adopted by Ordinance 01-0128-08….The environmental impacts of four alternatives
are analyzed… including three project-level development alternatives.
The FEIS issued in November 2007 included a summary of mitigation requirements on programmatic or a non-project basis.
Detailed environmental analysis during the non-project stage, lessens the review needed during project review. The project
review then focuses on those environmental issues not adequately addressed during the non-project stage. SEPA review for
non-project actions requires agencies to consider the “big picture” by:
Conducting comprehensive analysis
Addressing cumulative impacts
Considering possible alternatives
Outlining successful mitigation measures
4 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *20 (2008)
5 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and Pleasant Harbor, Intervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at *26 (2008).
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
83
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
When a non-project action involves a comprehensive plan or similar proposal governing future project development, the
probable environmental impacts that would be allowed for the future development need to be considered. For example,
environmental analysis of a zone designation should analyze the likely impacts of the development allowed within that zone.
The more specific the analysis is in the non-project phase; the less environmental review is likely to be needed at the project
permit-application stage.
See: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/Guide-for-lead-agencies/Non-
project-proposals. The 2007 FEIS involved a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and evaluated probable
environmental impacts that would be allowed for the future development. In contrast, the FSEIS considers a specific project,
namely the Pleasant Harbor MPR, within the context of the MPR zone adopted by Ordinance 01-0128-08.
The PC letter is expressing confusion about the history and requirements of the 2007 FEIS and FSEIS and about how the
development regulations and development agreement proceed from these substantive documents. Confusion is
understandable because these are complex subjects with a complex history and because the PC did much of its work on its
own, without the benefit of involvement by Director of the Department of Community Development (DCD), a planning
manager or a civil deputy prosecuting attorney, as all these positions were vacant. After the PC Letter was written, all these
positions were filled, and DCD has been able to review the PC Letter and the PC proposed development regulations with the
involvement of a director and a civil deputy prosecuting attorney.
The PC letter states the PC’s belief that “purpose of the EIS, therefore, should have been to examine alternative language for
the development regulations, NOT alternatives to a specific development proposal and its accouterments (sic).” However, the
purpose of the FSEIS was to provide follow-on analysis project-level to the programmatic analysis done in the 2007 FEIS.
The FSEIS adequately fulfills the purposes of a project-level EIS.
Because of careful review by the DCD director and the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the PC-recommended
development regulations are being brought before the BoCC, with staff-recommended revisions. The staff recommended
version eliminates some PC recommended language that does not comply with state or local law and revises some of the PC
recommended language for clarity and ease of implementation.
2 (page 2) The Black Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR is a particularly and
specifically sensitive site for the following reasons: (a. though
h.)
The environmental sensitivity listed in a. through f. related to the proposed MPR is fully analyzed in the 2007 FEIS, 2014
DSEIS and 2015 FSEIS. Staff further makes special note that the proposed MPR location was intensely developed as a
private campground/resort known as the 1,000 Trails Campground prior to the MPR being contemplated. The 1,000 Trails
Campground had an extensive road structure, over 500 paved campsites, at least 12 septic systems and numerous restroom
and playground facilities. The proposed redevelopment of the campground into a MPR will comply with all published
mitigation requirements.
3 (page 3) No study specifically addressing shellfish impact and tribal
harvest rights was found to be included in any EIS.
FSEIS Section 3.5 fully analyzed water quality and environmental impacts and published mitigation measures for the shellfish
areas. The shellfish harvest rights of non-tribal and tribal members are outside the scope of the FSEIS. Jefferson County
acknowledges tribal treaty rights flow from the Point No Point Treaty (and perhaps other treaties). Jefferson County also
acknowledges that affected tribes themselves do not agree on the scope of the rights of individual tribes, with the Skokomish
Tribe claiming the area is within its area of primacy among local tribes. Tribal treaty rights were not specifically addressed
because those rights exist separate from this development process and must be observed as a matter of federal law by the
Developer, if applicable. Jefferson County has no legal authority to abrogate or enforce treaty rights, which are a creature of
federal law.
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
84
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
4 (page 3) Other important environmental concerns raised in comments
in the Draft Supplemental EIS were not addressed, or were
addressed only superficially, in the Final Supplemental EIS
(FSEIS).
The 2007 FEIS, analyzed, addressed, and published mitigation measures addressing all relevant environmental conditions
consistent with and as required by state law, the breadth of which was defined in official scoping processes and in the various
special studies and reports. These findings were included as the basis for the 30 conditions in Ordinance 01-0128-08, which
itself required further mitigation measures. Staff believes that all the 30 conditions listed in Ordinance 01-0128-08 have been
addressed. Staff believes all important environmental concerns raised in comments in the 2014 DSEIS were adequately
addressed in the 2015 FSEIS and the requirements in the 30 conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
5 (page 3) Jefferson County, as an agent of the State, is a party to the
Point No Point Treaty of 1855.
The State of Washington did not exist when the Point No Point Treaty of 1855 (Point No Point Treaty) was signed by Isaac I.
Stevens, governor, and superintendent of Indian affairs for the said Territory, on the part of the United States. Neither the
State of Washington nor Jefferson County was a signatory to the Point No Point Treaty. However, to the extent the Point No
Point Treaty applies, Jefferson County cannot legislate inconsistently with it, as it would conflict with the supremacy clause of
the United States Constitution. See Attorney General Opinion AGO 1963 No. 32. The County recognizes the rights under
tribal treaties and has included a section specific to tribal treaty rights in the proposed development agreement.
6 (page 3) Black Point is within the usual and accustomed grounds
included in the Point No Point Treaty of 1855, (the ceded
area) which entitles treaty tribes certain named and
established rights to hunting, fishing, gathering and the right
to carry on cultural and spiritual practices.
Jefferson County recognizes the tribal treaty rights of all tribal members with usual and accustomed rights within Jefferson
County. Nothing in the PH-MPR environmental documents, draft development regulations or draft development agreement
supersedes, vanquishes, or diminishes those rights. However, staff notes that the Point No Point Treaty did not address
cultural and spiritual practices, except perhaps as the treaty reserved fishing, hunting, and gathering rights.
7 (page 3) Comments submitted repeatedly at different points in the
process by the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) were not
addressed in the FSEIS.
PGST comments to the Draft SEIS were not included in the
Final SEIS.
After timely noticing, the FSEIS was published on December 15, 2015. PGST comments on the FSEIS were transmitted to
the County on March 15, 2016, after the FSEIS was completed. Therefore, it was impossible to consider those comments in
the FSEIS.
8 (page 3) An anthropology report, addressing the cultural significance of
the kettles, was not found to be included in any Environmental
Impact Statement.
A cultural resources report and cultural resources management plan were prepared for and considered adequate for the PH-
MPR. There is no record of an anthropology report being required or produced. The affected tribes disagree on whether the
kettles should be preserved in their current state.
9 (page 3) The Planning Commission was informed by staff (David
Wayne Johnson) late in the process that draft regulations put
before the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC)
had in fact been drafted by Statesman Group and written to
accommodate the company’s specific development proposal.
Those draft regulations included language naming a specific
developer (Statesman) addressed the specifics of
Statesman’s yet-to-be-approved development and included
references to a development agreement that has yet to be
developed/approved.
This comment is correct but implies impropriety where none exists. There is nothing untoward about the developer proposing
development regulations. What is important is that the development regulations that are adopted are appropriate and
consistent with state and local law. The PC worked to improve the draft regulations published in the FSEIS and staff provides
revisions so that the PC-recommended development regulations are both appropriate and consistent with state and local law.
As of this writing, the PC–recommended development regulations are being brought before the BoCC, with staff-
recommended revisions. The staff recommended revisions retains some PC recommended language and revises some of the
PC recommended language for clarity and ease of implementation. There is no reference to a specific developer in the draft
development regulations and the draft development agreement references “Developer” without using specific names. Staff
believes the staff-recommended development regulations are both appropriate and consistent with state and local law.
10 (page 3) Requirements included in the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) Ordinance 01-0128-08 that the
tribes be consulted, as well as other requirements such as the
preservation of at least one kettle, were not included in the
proposed regulations
Many of the 30 conditions ordained in 01-012-08 are best included in the Development Agreement. Tribes have been
consulted throughout the planning and public comment periods, all of which has been documented as part of the official
record. The preservation of at least one kettle (Condition j) is achieved in the preferred Alternative published in the FSEIS
consistent with the requirement of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
85
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
11 (pages 3-4) [RCW 36.70a.360(4)(a) is quoted; Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Policy (LNP) 24.12. and LNP 24.1-24.13 are mentioned,
then the letter states:]
The BOCC adopted Ordinance 01-0128-08 allowing the CP
MPR designation on Black Point references both RCW
36.70A.360 and our own Jefferson County Goals and Policies
(24.1-24.13) following completion of the original FEIS.
However, we find no evidence that general regulations have
been adopted (not specific to any particular MPR) “to guide
the review and designation of master planned resorts”, which
are required both by the RCW and by our own CP LNP 24.12.
Provisions in Chapter 18.15 JCC fully comply with RCW 36.70a.360(4)(a) and LNP 24.1-24.13. Chapter 18.15 JCC
specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts and includes restrictions that preclude new
urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR. JCC 18.15.128 specifically states: “New urban or suburban
development and land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise
designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.” General regulations for MPRs that are not specific
to any particular MPR are contained in JCC 18.15.025 and 18.15.115-138. Staff also notes that general regulations that apply
to all uses are contained in Chapter 18.15 JCC, including for example JCC 18.15.060 and JCC 18.15.085.
12 (page 4) That policy/code, when enacted, should clearly spell out a
sequence for creating and approving the comprehensive plan
designation of a new MPR, when and how regulations
governing that MPR should be drafted and adopted, what
action prompts SEPA Review, how applications for specific
MPR development proposals are to be reviewed and
approved, and how the development agreement should relate
in timing and in fact to the regulations governing the MPR
site and the application for the specific MPR development
The comprehensive plan designation for an MPR at Blackpoint was approved in 2008 in Ordinance 01-0128-08. Ordinance
01-0128-08 survived an unsuccessful legal challenge ended in 2011.
See also response to item 11, above. Chapter 18.15 JCC clearly spells out the sequence for creating and approving a MPR.
That combined with the County’s compliance with state rules implementing SEPA (also incorporated in JCC) provide for the
necessary order to identify, designate, regulate and adopt a development agreement for any MPR.
13 (page4) On April 18th a Government to Government meeting between
the BOCC and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) took
place at the Jefferson County Courthouse in BOCC
Chambers. The result of that meeting was an agreement
between the BOCC and the PGST that technical staff
employed by the PGST, Jefferson County DCD, and
Statesman Group would hold further meetings to work out the
technical and environmental requirements of this site and this
development. As far as the Planning Commission is currently
aware, these technical meetings have not taken place, and
no agreement has been reached.
To the extent this comment suggests a belief by the PC that an agreement that involved the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
(PGST) (or any other tribe with treaty rights at Blackpoint) as a party was required by Ordinance 01-0128-08, staff strongly
disagrees. The agreement being discussed was a development agreement between the developer and Jefferson County
only. To be sure, Ordinance 01-0128-08, requires certain plans be appended to the development agreement and that those
selected plans be developed with tribal consultation. To that end, technical meetings between the PGST, the Point No Point
Treaty Council, the Skokomish Tribe, Statesman, and the County took place after the PC letter was sent. Those meetings
provided clarity on issues, many of which reside in the Development Agreement and that are not the subject of the
development regulations discussed in this letter.
14 (page 5) Feeling that it was important to pass our learning onto the
BOCC in some form, some PC members stepped in to revise
the proposed regulations themselves. The PC’s revised
regulations removed references to a specific developer
inappropriate at the regulatory level, included regulations that
address the development review process and requirements
of this particularly sensitive site, and clarified that legislative
action on the development regulations needs to proceed the
review and approval of any related development agreement
The thought process utilized by the PC and its intent to address numerous items without technical guidance or feedback is
noted and is appreciated, particularly in the vacuum created during the time the positions of DCD Director and Chief Civil
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney were unfilled. The development regulations recommended by the PC are being brought forward
to the BoCC for consideration and adoption. Staff have suggested revisions, many of which relocate standards to the more-
specific development agreement. Staff has suggested additions and deletions and have explained those revisions in a matrix
in this document.
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
86
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
so that the agreement can be written to comply with those
enacted regulations.
15 (page 5) …we worked hard to find a way to make recommendations
that allow the development to move forward while
necessarily protecting this particularly sensitive site, the
aquifer for the Black Point area the MPR would draw from,
the area’s role as a critical aquifer recharge area,
surrounding shellfish beds fed by that aquifer, neighboring
estuaries and salmon habitat, its unique geology and
cultural history, and its location on Hood Canal.
The efforts of the PC are appreciated and are significant. Staff makes special note of that in this staff report. Staff further
makes special note that the proposed MPR location was intensely developed as a private campground/resort prior to the PH-
MPR being contemplated. Staff believes the mitigation measures and conditions spelled out in the FEIS, FSEIS, Ordinance
01-0128-08 , the development regulations that the PC is recommended along with staff proposed revisions, coupled with all of
the established criteria and development standards contained in existing code (including those for site development,
stormwater, shoreline management, critical areas, etc. all of which thoroughly apply to all Jefferson County including the
Pleasant Harbor MPR) meet and exceed the requirements of protecting the concerns listed in item 15.
16 (page 5) We believe in the case of this particularly environmentally
sensitive location, the county has a legal right, and in fact a
legal and ethical imperative, to go beyond the mitigation
measures that are proposed in the FSEIS in order to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Critical Areas
Ordinance, the UDC and state and federal requirements for
the protection of the environment
Staff makes special note of that in this staff report. Staff further makes special note that the proposed MPR location was
intensely developed as a private campground/resort prior to the PH-MPR being contemplated. Staff believes the mitigation
measures and conditions spelled out in the FEIS, FSEIS, Ordinance 01-0128-08 , the development regulations that the PC is
recommended along with staff proposed revisions, coupled with all of the established criteria and development standards
contained in existing code (including those for site development, stormwater, shoreline management, critical areas, etc. all of
which thoroughly apply to all Jefferson County including the Pleasant Harbor MPR) meet and exceed the requirements of
protecting the concerns listed in item 16.
17 (page 5) In fact, there is valid concern that adequate mitigation of
significant environmental impacts may not even be possible
given the scale of the proposed development and the
sensitivity of the site and surrounding area.
Staff makes special note of that in this staff report. Staff further makes special note that the proposed MPR location was
intensely developed as a private campground/resort prior to the PH-MPR being contemplated. Staff believes the mitigation
measures and conditions spelled out in the FEIS, FSEIS, Ordinance 01-0128-08 , the development regulations that the PC is
recommended along with staff proposed revisions, coupled with all of the established criteria and development standards
contained in existing code (including those for site development, stormwater, shoreline management, critical areas, etc. all of
which thoroughly apply to all Jefferson County including the Pleasant Harbor MPR) meet and exceed the requirements of
protecting the concerns listed in item 17.
18 (page 5) Clarify and expand the Comprehensive Plan Policies and
Jefferson County Code for designating and considering any
and all new MPRs to include a clear and specific order for
MPR designation, creation, and adoption of regulations as
a clear and distinct action subject to SEPA Non-project
Review
Chapter 18.15 JCC, adopted in 2006, clearly spells out the sequence for creating and approving a MPR. That combined with
the County’s compliance with state rules implementing SEPA (also incorporated in JCC) provide for the necessary order to
identify, designate, regulate and adopt a development agreement for any MPR. This code is compliant with the Growth
Management Act, County Comprehensive Plan and consistent with Jefferson County Code.
19 (page 5) Adopt development regulations (county code) for this
specific MPR that would clearly articulate the process for,
and requirements of, any proposed development application
within this MPR, only after full public review and
consultation with any tribal governments with jurisdiction.
Such regulations should be based on the 30 specific
conditions outlined in the BOCC ordinance, the general
policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, as
well as the specific policies pertaining to MPRs, and the
Brinnon Subarea Plan
The requirements for identifying and designating a MPR are contained within existing code at Chapter 18.15 JCC. Staff
believes these requirements were followed in Ordinance 01-0128-08. Staff believes that the proposed development
regulations, as modified by staff, are consistent Ordinance 01-0128-08, and state and local law.
20 (page 5) Once a MPR development application receives
approval, then and only then should a development
agreement be drafted that would meet the
requirements of the adopted regulations and clarify the
agreement between the county and the developer.
The requirements for identifying and designating a MPR are contained within existing code at Chapter 18.15 JCC. Staff
believes these requirements were followed in Ordinance 01-0128-08. Staff believes that the proposed development
regulations, as modified by staff, are consistent Ordinance 01-0128-08, and state and local law.
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
87
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
Only after adoption of the developer agreement would
a developer have vested rights
21 (page 7) The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC careful
consideration of the following:
The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golf
course and mega-resort over a critical aquifer
recharge area;
Keeping all three kettles intact in recognition that they
are important cultural sites and significant geological
formations;
A thorough independent review of the hydrologic
function and relationship between surface water,
groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this
particular aquifer as both a sole-source (or near sole-
source) aquifer for the residents of Black Point and the
significant aquifer recharge area, potential for
contamination by pollutants in runoff or any other
contributions to the aquifer from treated sources;
Staff makes special note that the proposed MPR location was intensely developed as a private campground/resort prior to
MPR being contemplated. Staff believes the mitigation measures and conditions spelled out in the FEIS, FSEIS, Ordinance
01-0128-08 and development standards contained in existing code meet and exceed the requirements identified in item 21.
As of this writing, there has been no designation of eligibility for inclusion or further study of any Traditional Cultural Property
as described in rules of the US Dept. of the Interior National Park Service guidelines.
Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires the preservation of possibly one kettle (emphasis added), which is part of the FSEIS and
Development Agreement.
Black Point or any of the land area included in the PH-MPR has not been designated a sole source aquifer per the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act, as implemented by the Washington Department of Health.
22 (page 7) The planning commission’s finding that the proposed
890 housing units was three times the density of Port
Townsend, some of us believe a density of no more
than 300 units could be more appropriate to the site,
pending technical review;
Building height allowances to be consistent with existing
Jefferson County Code;
The need for a detailed stormwater management plan
that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff
generated onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite.
Proposed mitigation for stormwater pollution
impacts generated off-site and related to increased
traffic on Hwy 101 and arterial roads that is caused
by the development.
Address the elimination of contaminants
before they enter runoff and groundwater,
while utilizing a comprehensive monitoring
and feedback plan as an important last line of
defense.
A clear and defensible plan for what happens if/when
monitoring reveals problems. (e.g. can the site be
shut down or scaled back, etc.);
Staff appreciates and takes note of the PC concerns and recommendations listed here. Staff believes that all the issues
concerning water supplies, groundwater, a detailed stormwater management plan (including a zero-runoff standard),
monitoring requirements and action plans for when monitoring shows exceedances are either part of existing development
standards and codes, part of the staff-proposed development regulations and/or in the drafted development agreement.
Issues listed here and elsewhere in the PC letter that are currently regulated under federal, state, and local laws, ordinances,
policies, and programs are sufficiently and adequately addressed which will result in the careful planning and implementation
of the PH-MPR.
Items that are not currently regulated under federal, state and local law [such as sole-source aquifer (discussed earlier),
remnants of trace pharmaceuticals or other chemical compounds (noted earlier) or designation of the area as a Traditional
Cultural Property under the National Register of Historic Places (also noted earlier)] are not the purview of Jefferson County
government and therefore cannot be required nor achieved without outside action that is not part of this MPR process.
23 (page 7) Coordination/consultation with affected tribes;
Meet or exceed 30 BOCC conditions;
Feasibility of doing off-site treatment of black/gray water
as well as runoff in place of the planned rapid injection
system approach, which could result in inadequately
treated stormwater/blackwater entering and polluting a
Tribes have been consulted throughout the planning and public comment periods, all of which has been documented as part
of the official record. Technical meetings between the PGST, the Point No Point Treaty Council, the Skokomish Tribe,
Statesman, and the County took place after the PC letter was sent.
Staff believes the development regulations and the draft development agreement meet or exceed the 30 BoCC conditions in
Attachment 5: Matrix Discussing Planning Commission Letter to the Board
88
Item (page location)
Selected Comment Statement Staff Analysis and Response
finite, sensitive aquifer that discharges to adjacent
shellfish beds as well as salmon/steelhead habitat in
adjacent river estuaries
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Staff believes the no runoff design, coupled with the proposed sentinel wells provide sufficient protection for the shellfish
beds.
24 (page 7) Local hires and contracts prioritized (in the MPR
Washington Style guide as well as one of 30 BOCC
conditions) with a clear process of prioritizing,
fostering, and maintaining local business
relationships and labor pools;
Working with the existing geography, land
contours and natural beauty, minimize land
disturbance, and design in accordance with other
principles and policies of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
Local hiring and contracts are part of the draft development agreement as ordained by Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Land disturbance and additions of impervious surface is being limited by the phasing plan as part of the development
agreement.
25 (page 7) Following that, we further propose that specific
regulations for the Black Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR be
proposed, reviewed and adopted in full consultation with
tribal governments who have treaty rights as a result of
the Point No Point treaty of 1855
Tribes have been consulted throughout the planning and public comment periods, all of which has been documented as part
of the official record. Technical meetings between the PGST, the Point No Point Treaty Council, the Skokomish Tribe,
Statesman, and the County took place after the PC letter was sent. Documentation of consultations, correspondence and
meetings with affected tribes has been complied for public viewing.