HomeMy WebLinkAbout105From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
David W. Johnson <djohnson@cojefferson.wa.us>
Friday, November 06, 2015 4:05 PM
Hollinger, Kristy
David W. Joh nson (dwjoh nso n @co jefferso n.wa.u s)
Review of Draft Final SEIS
O_Fact Sheet and Table of Contents (2).doc; 3.10-Air Quality (2).docx; 3.1l-Employment
and Housing (3),doc; 3.12-Rural Character and Population (2).docx; 3.1S-Aesthetics
(2).docx; 3.16_Utilities (3).doc; 3.1-7_Public Services (3).doc; 3.18_BoCC Conditions.doc;
3.2_Water Resources (3).doc; 3.4_Fish & Wildlife (3).doc; 3.5_Shellfish (3).doc; 3.9
_Transportation (3).doc; Chapter 5 - Comment Letters and Responses_renumbered
letters.docx; 3.L_Earth (3).doc
Kristy,
Attached are those section I made comments, corrections or additions too. Everything else looked good. Talk to you on
Tuesday !
David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development
Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
360.379.4465
Mission; To preserve and enhance the quality of lfe in Jffirson County by promoting a vibrant economy,
sound communities and a healthy environment.
;l SaVe PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-moil unless obsolutely necessory
All e-mail may be considered subjed to the Pubhc Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor.
J*f{erson County O€pertmant ol Comrxunity Ofir,elopm?nt
SWUAHEWNffi
getter $uildhg Startt Here.
tlrtlriurtir"iledriosred,ilaf tr$a I ii$&:tlhr{d I ddlp&ldlm,os
1
Michelle Farfan
LEEO
NI}
FAGT SHEET
PROJECT TITLE
PROPOSED ACTIONS
SEIS Required
SEIS ALTERNATIVES
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Final
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. ln 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 Jefferson County BoCC conditioned approval of the
MPR Comprehensive Plan amendment to require project-
level environmental review of the MPR proposal. Further
conditions included programmatic environmental review of
the proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft
Development Agreement requirement to implement the
proposal. Accordingly, a Draft and Final Supplemental
Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS) were prepared
(under Chapter 43.21C RCW) to supplement the
programmatic Final EIS (FEIS) prepared for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment that approved the MPR,
adopted by the County in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. The
project would be vested to the code that is current at the
time of the Development Agreement signing (not the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment).
The environmental impacts of four alternatives are
analyzed in this SEIS, including three project-level
development alternatives - Alternative 1,_Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3 - and a No Action Alternative.
Alternative 1 - Alternative 1 would include a golf course,
890 residential units (including 52 units for staff housing),
49,772 sq. ft. of commercial area, and resort related
amenities on the 231-acre site. Approximately 33-acres of
natural area would be preserved, and 2.2 million cubic
yards of cut and fill would be required for golf course
grading.
Alternative 2 - Alternative 2 would include a golf course,
890 residential units (including 52 units for staff housing),
56,608 sq" ft. of commercial area, and resort related
amenities on the 231-acre site. Approximately 80-acres of
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 vtil Table of Contents
2007 Ets
natural area would be preserved, and 1 million cubic yards
of cut and fill would be required for golf course grading.
Alternative 3 - Alternative 3 is a Inewi 4!9,r-!4jye-,ry-IiSh --
has been added for consideration in this Final SEIS. lt is
similar to Alternative 2, except that the size of the golf
course is reduced to 12-holes, the amount of grading is
reduced, and more natural arca is preserved.
Approximately 8g-acres of natural area would be
preserved, and 990,000 cubic yards of cut and fill would be
required for golf course grading.
No Action Altemative - Under the No Action Alternative,
it is presumed (based on the Comprehensive Plan MPR
designation for the property and absence of site-specific
zoning), that the site would continue to develop as a
single-family residential area based on the underlying rural
residential zoning, as detailed in the 2007 ElS.
Draft EIS
A Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued by the Jefferson County,
Department of Community Development in September
2007. The DEIS was a programmatic EIS issued to
address non-project actions. The Proposed Aclion was the
adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment approving
a Master Planned Resort and associated approval of a
Development Agreement confirming mitigation phasing
and development regulation vesting rules required by the
County.
The 2007 DEIS Proposed Action for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment and Master Plan approval for a Master
Planned Resort consisted of a golf course resort, marina,
and Maritime Village with 890 residential units and 79,000
sq. ft. of commercial uses.
ln addition to the Proposed Action, two aclion alternatives
(lhe Binnon Subarea Plan Altemative and a Hybrid
Alternative) and a No Action AlternafiVe were evaluated in
the 2007 ElS. The two action alternatives were based on
the assumption that the balance of the property within the
Brinnon Subarea be included in the proposed MPR. The
No Action Alternative assumed the Master Plan proposal
was withdrawn or denied, and that the area would be
developed under the current zoning.
The DEIS was issued with a 45-day comment period
through October 24,2007. Public meetings were held in
Brinnon by a Planning Commission committee on
September 1 1th, 18th and 251h,2007.
Commentql [DWJ1I: New ud "Prefened" altemative?
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 ,x Table of Contents
MPR APPROVAL
LOCATION
PROPONENT'APPLICANT
LEAD AGENCY
I neseoNsrBlE oFFrcrAL
Final EIS
A FEIS was issued in November 2007. The FEIS was
based on the DEIS, with responses to comments added to
Chapter 3 (Probable Significant Adverse lmpact Review of
the Proposal), and the addition of a new chapter (Chapter
5), which included a summary of mitigation requirements,
technical comments, and a log of comments received on
the DEIS.
The MPR designation was approved for the Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Black Point property, subject to 30
conditions imposed by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01-
01 28-08.
The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson
County on the western shore of Hood Canal,
approximately 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 Marina and Golf Resort LLP
Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
@, lnterim Director and Acting
SEPA Responsible Official
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4463
a Unified Development Code amendment to add a
section on the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT David W. Johnson, Associate Planner
Department of Comm unity Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4465
PERMITS AND APPROVALS Jeffetson County - Non Project Approvals
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 x Table of Contenb
SEIS AUTHORS AND
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
Approval of a Development Agreement between
Jefferson County and the Applicant (originally the
Statesman Group).
Local or County Permits - Project Level Approvals
Preliminary/final plat or Binding Site Plan for roads,
utilities and other infrastructure.
Stormwater permit(s) for:
- Preliminary site grading, cut and fill;- New roads and impervious surfaces;- Construction and operation of the resort
properties; and- Critical Areas protection and modification.
Class lV conversion Forest practice permit for
predevelopment logging.
Shoreline permit for any development within 200 feet of
the shoreline (close beach access to south and
possible wetland mitigation for buffer work).
Building permits for construction.
Fuel containment and fire plan.
State Permits
Wastewater treatment and upland disposal (Class A
recycled wate0 facility permits from Washington State
Department of Ecology (WDOE).
Class A Water System approval by WDOE.
U.S. Hwy 101 right of way access permits for access to
U.S. Hwy 101 from Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT).
Well closure approval by WDOE.
Construction period air quality permits from air quality
authority.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permits for clearing from WDOE.
Water quality certification, wetlands, by WDOE.
Water System Plan Approval by WDOH.
SEIS Project Manager, Primary Author; Housing and
Employment, Rural Character and Population,
Aesthetics, Public Services and Consistency with
BoCC Conditions.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
!
a
a
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 x,Table of Contents
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707
Seattle, WA 98121
Earth
Craig A. Peck & Associates
1'l4O241th Avenue E.
Tacoma, WA 98446
Water Resources
Bender Consulting
19920 South Elger Bay Road
Camano lsland, 98282
Plants
GeoEngineers
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98402
Fish and Wildlife
GeoEngineers
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98402
Critical Areas
GeoEngineers
1'101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98402
Energy and Natural Resources
Hargis
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98101
Transportation
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
PO Box 65254
Seattle, WA 98155
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Failsafe Canada lnc.
4628 sth Street NE
Pleasant Harbor
_ 2015 xtt Table of Contents
Peer Review Consultant
ESA Adofson
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
Applicant Legal Representative
JT Cooke, Houlihan Law
3401 Evanston Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103
ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS
ENV]RONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS
LOCATION OF BACK-
GROUND INFORMATION
DATE OF DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ElS ISSUANCE
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2E7C3
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Consultants, lnc.
710 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bainbridge lsland, WA 981 10
Light and Glare
Michael Bornyk
Signature Lighting Manufacturers
Las Vegas, Nevada
Water and Sewer System
Craig A. Peck & Associates
1140240th Avenue E.
Tacoma, WA 98446
Consultares Engineering
PO Box 608
lssaquah, WA 98027
H R Esvelt Engineering
6450 N.E. Brigham Road
Bainbridge lsland, WA 981 10
Earnings Analysis
Wright Johnson, LLC
205 Worth Avenue, Suite 201
Palm Beach, FL 33480
PeTWAC 197-11-620, this SEIS supplements the Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Golf Resort DEIS of September 2007,
and the FEIS of November 2007. This SEIS together with
the DEIS and FEIS comprehensively addresses the
environmental impacts of the Proposed Aclion.
This document is available for review at the Jefferson
County Department of Community Development.
Background material and supporting documents are
available at the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port
Townsend, WA 98368. (360) 379-4450.
November 19,2014
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 xtu Table of Contents
DATE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL
EIS COMMENTS WERE DUE January 5, 2015
DATE OF DRAFT
SEIS OPEN HOUSE An Open House with subsequent Planning Commission
meeting was held on December 3, 2014, to provide
orientation, answer questions about the SEIS and the
SEIS process, and allow opportunities for public comment.
The Open House and Planning Commission meeting was
held at- the following times and location:
Date: December3,2014
Time: 2:00 PM to 4:30 PM - Open House
6:30 PM to 8:30 PM - Planning Commission Mtg.
Place: Brinnon Community Center, 306'144 Hwy 1 01 ,
Brinnon, WA 98320
DATE OF FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS ISSUANCE _2015
AVAILABILITY OF
THE FINAL SEIS Copies or Notices of Availability of the SEIS have been
distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals
noted on the Distribution List (Appendix A). Copies of the
SEIS are also available for review at the following
locations:
a Department of Community Development, 621
Sheridan St., PortTownsend
Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Ave., Port
Hadlock
Brinnon Fire Hall, 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon
a
a
The SEIS can be reviewed and downloaded on Jefferson
County's web site at:
htto://www.co. iefferson.wa. us/commdeveloomenVbrin non
mor.htm.
Digital CDs can be purchased at the Depa(ment of
Community Development and the Open House for $4.00.
Hard copies can be ordered from SOS Printing, 2319
Washington St., Port Townsend.
Any questions regarding obtaining a copy or viewing the
SEIS should be directed to David Johnson at (360) 379-
4465 or dwiohnson@co.iefferson.wa. us.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 xtv Table of Contents
TABLE OF GONTENTS
VOLUME{-GHAPTERS{.6
Paqe
FACT SHEET .,..,..... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
CHAPTER 1 - SUMMARY
1.1 lntroduction.....1.2 SEIS Alternatives.
.........1-1
...........'..'.,.,.,. 1-21.3 Summary of Environmental lmpacts 1-31.4 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts ......... 1-16
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL and ALTERNATIVES
2.'l Background 2-1
2-22.2 Environmental Review Process..........2.3 Site Description
2.4 Objectives of the Proposal......................2.5 Description of the Proposal and Alternatives ......
.,,.,.,.,2-16
2.6 Separate Actions..
2-17
2-382.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring lmplementation of Proposal......2-38
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES
and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
,......................... 2€
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.1 1
3.',t2
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
..... 3.1 -1
.....3.2-1
.....3.3-1
Shorelines
Critical Areas...........
Energy and Natural Resources...................
Transportation
Air Quality
Housing and Employment.
Rurat C-haracter in,i poprr"iio;...: :...::.
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Light and Glare......
Aesthetics......
3.4-1
3.5-1
3.6-1
3.7-1
3.8-1
3.9-1
3.'10-1
3.1 1 -1
3.12-1
3.'13-1
..3.',t4-1
3.1 5- t
3.1 6-1Utilities.
Public Services
Relationship to Plans and Policies (BoCC Conditions) ........
..3.17-1
..3.18-1
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
201 5 xv Table of Contenb
CHAPTER4-KeyTopics
CHAPTER 5 - Comment Responses
CHAPTER 6 - Planning Commission Meeting Comment Responses
CHAPTER 7 - REFERENCES
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 xYt Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
't-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
3.2-1
3.9-1
3.9-2
3.9-3
3.1 0-1
3.10-2
3.10-3
3.10-4
3.',t't-'l
3.11-2
3.1 1 -3
3.1't-4
Table
3. 1 1-5
3.',t7-1
3.17-2
3.17-3
3.1 8-1
Paqe
Summary Matrix 't-3
2007 EIS and SEIS Alternatives Comparison ,,,,.2-20
SEIS Action Alternatives Comparison -Residential and Commercial........2-22
Action Alternatives Comparison.........2-29
Annual Recharge
Proposed Parking
to Aquifer under Alternatives 1 and 2....................
Capacity by Alternative
Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative..
Cumulative Peak Demand for Parking Stalls by Alternative
Scope'1 GHG Emission Sources.......
Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources.......
Scope 2 GHG Emission Sources..........
Alternative 2 - Estimated GHG Emissions.....................
Jefferson Coung Housing Characteristics, 201 0
Brinnon Housing Characteristics, 201 0.............
Jefferson County,
..3.10-4
..3.10-6
..3.9-10
3.2-12
,.3.9-9
3.9-10
3.10-6
3.10-7
3.11-2
3.',t1-2
3.1 't -3
3.1'1-3
3.11-6
3.17-2
3.17-9
Jefferson Coung
Non-Farm Employment,
And Washington State -
2013
Resident Labor Force And
Employment
Number of Employees per Job Sector............
Fire District #4 - Fire and EMS Calls 2008-2012
Brinnon School District En rollment: 2008-201 2......
Pleasant Harbor Estimated Student Generation -
Alternatives 1 & 2
BoCC Conditions ....3.19-2
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure
2-1
2-2
2-3
24
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
3.1-1
3.2-1
3.2-2
3.2-3
Paqe
2007 EIS Site Boundary 2-4
2-7
2-8
2-9
Regional Map .......
ndary
Kettles .2-12
.2-14
.2-',t8
.2-19
.2-37
3.14
3.2-5
3.2-6
3.2-14
.3.3-3
.3.4-6
3.12-3
Wetlands and Streams
Alternative 1 Site Plan.
Alternative 2 Site Plan .
Phasing Map
Grading Plan
Existing Drainage Basins....................
Soil lnfiltration.
Alternative 1 -Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort
Building and Comp|etion.....................3.2-10
Alternative 2 - Annual Cumulative Aquifer Recharge During Resort
Building and Comp1etion..................... .....3.2-1'l
Alternative 2 - Developed Drainage Basins............
3.2-4
3.2-5
3.3-1
3.4-1
3.12-1
3.'t 8-1
Forested Subareas
Wildlife Corridors
Aerial Photograph - Site and Site Vicinity
Zoning Map 3.1 8-1 5
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 xvil,Table of Contents
VOLUME 2 . APPENDIGES
A. Distribution ListB. SEIS Scoping Summary
C. Alternative 'l and Alternative 2 Data
D. WDFW Road Realignment MemoE. Earth Reportso 2008 Geotechnical Report. Grading and Drainage Engineering Report. SEIS Soil and Earth lmpacts and Mitigation
F. Water Resources Reports
Groundwater lmpact Addendum
Department of Ecology Hydrogeologic Memos
Groundwater Rig ht Application
Water Quality Draft Monitoring Plan
Golf Course BMP Plan
Neighborhood Water Program
G. Plants Reportsr Forestry Report. VegetationSupplementalAnalysis. Prescriptive Vegetation Management Plan
H. Habitat Management Planl. WDFW Tunicate Monitoring PlanJ. Wetland Mitigation ReportK. Energy and Natural Resources Reportse Electrical Load Memor Electrical Capacity Letter from Mason County PUDo Compliance with LEED StandardsL. Transportation lmpact Study
M. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report
N. An Economic Analysis of Earnings Pursuant to Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR)
O. Cultural Resources. Proposed Plan for Archaeological Monitoring and lnadvertent Discovery
Protocolr DAHP Response to Cultural Resources Plan. Skokomish Tribe Response to Cultural Resources PlanP. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards
Q. Utility Reportso General Water Plan - Executive Summaryo General Sewer Plan - Executive Summary
R. Draft Memorandum of Understanding's (MOU's)
MOU with Fire District #4
MOU with Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
MOU with School District #46
MOU with Jefferson Healthcare
MOU with Jefferson County RE: Housing
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
2015 xtx Table of Contenb
. MOU with Jefferson Transit Authority
S. BoCC Conditions. ProposedPublicAmenitieso Draft Brinnon MPR Zoning Code and Proposed Zoning Map
. Draft Development Agreement
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_ 2015 xx Table of Contents
3.lO Air Quality
This section of the SEIS describes existing air quality conditions on the site and in the site vicinity,
and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these conditions. This section is based
on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Repoft (May 2012), included in Appendix M.
3.{O.{ AflectedEnvlronment
2007 Ets
Air quality conditions were not evaluated in the 2007 EIS
sErs
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Chanqe
The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of warming and
cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental,
with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000
years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated
across the globe. Scientists have observed, however, an unprecedented increase in the rate of
warming in the past 150 years. This recent warming has coincided with the lndustrial Revolution,
which resulted in widespread deforestation to accommodate development and agriculture, and
an increase in the use of fossil fuels, which has released substantial amounts of GHG emissions
into the atmosphere.
GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by both natural
processes and human activities and trap heat in the atmosphere. The accumulation of GHG in
the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. While research has shown that the earth's
climate has natural warming and cooling cycles, evidence indicates that human activity has
elevated the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally- occurring
concentrations resulting in more heat being held within the atmosphere. The lntergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of scientists from 130 governments, has
concluded that it is "very likely" - a probability listed at more than 90 percent - that human activities
and fossil fuels explain most of the warming over the past 50 years."1
ln2OO7,IPCC predicled that under current human GHG emission trends, the following results
could be realized within the next 100 years (the 5th Assessment Report by IPCC is scheduled to
be issued in2014):2
Global temperature increases between 1 .1 - 6.4 degrees Celsius;
Potential sea level rise between 18 to 59 centimeters or 7 to 22 inches;
Reduc{ion in snow cover and sea ice;
Potential for more intense and frequent heat waves, tropical cycles and heavy
precipitation; and,
1 IPCC, Fourth Assessment Reoort. February 2,2007.2 IPCC, Summary for Policvmakers, April 30, 2007.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.10-1
3.10
Air Quality
. lmpacts to biodiversity, drinking water and food supplies.
The Climate lmpacts Group (ClG) - a Washington-state based interdisciplinary research group
that collaborates with federal, state, local, tribal, and private agencies; organizations; and,
businesses - studies impacts of natural climate variability and global climate change on the
Pacific Northwest. ln 2009, CIG issued lhe Washington Climate Change lmpacts Assessmenf,
which included climate change scenarios for Washington State and used those scenarios to
assess the potential future impacts of climate change. Key findings for climate change impacts
included:
Average temperature would increase by 2'F by the 2020s, 3.2" F by the 2040s, and 5.3'
F by the 2080s.
The April 'l snowpack is projected to decrease by 28 percent across the state by the
2020s, 40 percent by the 2040s, and 59 percent by the 2080s.
Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs.
Requlatorv Context
Unifed Sfafes Envi ron mental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act and
has established air quality standards for common pollutants.
On September 22, 2009, EPA released final regulations that require 29 categories of facilities to
report their GHG emissions annually, starting in 201'l . Facilities covered by these regulations
include oil refineries, pulp and paper manufacturing, landfills, and a variety of other manufacturing
and industrial sources of emissions. lndividual development projects, such as the Pleasant
Harbor project, are not subject to these regulations.
Westem Region al Clim ate Action I n itiative
On February 26,2007, the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Washington signed the Western Climate lnitiative (WCl) to develop regional strategies to address
climate change. WCI is identifying, evaluating, and implementing collective and cooperative ways
to reduce GHGs in the region. Subsequent to this original agreement, the Governors of Utah and
Montana, as well as the Premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba joined the lnitiative. The WCI
objectives include: setting an overall regional reduc{ion goal for GHG emissions; developing a
design to achieve the goal; and, participating in The Climate Registry, a multi-state registry to
enable tracking, management and crediting for entities that reduce their GHG emissions.
On September 23,2008, the WCI released their final design recommendations for a regional cap-
and{rade program. This program would cover GHG emissions from electricity generation,
industrial and commercial fossil fuel combustion, industrial process emissions, gas and diesel
consumption for transportation, and residential fuel use. The first phase of the program, which
will regulate electricity emissions and some industrial emission sources, began on January 1,
2012. The program is anticipated to be fully implemented by 2015 and will cover nearly 90 percent
of the GHG emissions in WCI states and provinces.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplementa,l EIS
a
a
a
3.10
Air Quality_2015 3.10-2
State of Washington
ln February ol 2007, Executive Order No. 07-02 was signed by the Governor establishing goals
for Washington regarding reductions in climate pollution, increases in jobs, and reductions in
expenditures on imported fuel.3 This Executive Order established Washington's goals for
reducing GHG emissions as follows: to reach 1990 levels by 2020,25 percent below 1990 levels
by 2035, and 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This order was intended to address climate
change, grow the clean energy economy, and move Washington toward energy independence.
ln 2007, the Washington legislature passed SB 6001, which among other things adopted the
Executive Order No. 07-02 goals into statute.
ln 2008, the Washington Legislature built upon SB 6001 by passing E2SHB 2815, the
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill. While SB 6001 set targets to reduce emissions, the E2SHB
2815 made those firm requirements and directed the state to submit a comprehensive GHG
reduction plan to the Legislature by December 1, 2008. As part of the plan, Ecology was
mandated to develop a system for reporting and monitoring GHG emissions within the state and
a design for a regional multi-sector, market-based system to reduce statewide GHG emissions.
In 2008,1 Ecology issued a memorandum stating that climate change and GHG emissions should
be included in all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analyses and committed to providing
further clarification and analysis tools.
ln 2009, Executive Order 09-05 was signed ordering Washington state actions to reduce climate-
changing GHG emissions, to increase transportation and fuel-conservation options for
Washington residents, and protect the state's water supplies and coastal areas. The Executive
Order directs state agencies to: develop a regional emissions reduction program; develop
emission reduclion strategies and industry emissions benchmarks to make sure 2020 reduction
targets are met; work on low-carbon fuel standards or alternative requirements to reduce carbon
emissions from the transportation sector; address rising sea levels and the risks to water supplies;
and, increase transit options, such as buses, light rail, and ride-share programs, and, give
Washington residents more choices for reducing the effec{ of transportation emissions.
On June 1,2010, Ecology issued draft guidelines entitled, Guidance on Climate Change and
SEPA. These draft guidelines included: guidance regarding the types of GHG emissions that
should be calculated; a discussion of how to determine if emissions surpass a threshold of
"significance"; and, a description of different types of mitigation measures. Guidance was also
provided regarding the requirement to discuss the ability of a proposal to adapt to climate changes
as a result of global warming. ln 20'11, Ecology narrowed the focus of the draft guidelines and in
its place developed internal guidance for Ecology staff to use when Ecology is the lead agency or
an agency with jurisdiction in Guidance for Ecology lncluding Greenhouse Gas Emlssions rn
SEPA Reviews and SEPA GHG Calculation lool. Ecology began using this guidance document
in June 201'1.
On-site GHG Emissions
Existing GHG emissions on the Pleasant Harbor site are limited due to the existing primarily
vegetated and forested condition of the site. GHG emissions are currently associated with the
3 http://www.govemor.wa.gov/execorders/eo_07-O2.pdf
a Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Re\riew of Proposals, April 30, 2008.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.10-3
3.10
Air Quality
existing single family residences and real estate office on the Maritime Village portion of the site
(consisting primarily of GHG emissions associated with heating, power and vehicle operation).
The rest of the site is not in current use.
3.10-2 lmpacts
2007 Ers
As noted previously, air quality conditions and impacts (including GHG emissions) were not
evaluated in the 2007 ElS.
sErs
This section focuses on the probable GHG emissions impacts that could result with development
of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 or 2. New development under either
Alternative lt or / W_oqU tgetql_e ? gSlt AqEg ggrlrqdly rylt_h 99q'rn9i9jal, rgSiq9!!iC!,
recreational, and open space uses, along with associated increases in population and
employment on the site. New development on the site would create related increases in energy
demand and usage, as well as increases in GHG emissions. Development of the Pleasant Harbor
siteundereitherAlternativeI or2lwouldoccur:gt?qyClly9y9f t_hgeppfglt!1{_ely]Q-ygCf Dqi-ldqu!
of the site, and associated demands for energy and GHG emissions would also increase
incrementally over that time period. See Section 3.8, Energy and Natural Resources, for more
information on energy use.
Alternative 2
A GHG emissions report was completed for this project which evaluated three scopes of
emissions sources. Construction and operational emissions sources are accounted for under
each scope. Scope 1 emissions are defined as direct emissions from sources that are owned or
controlled by the project. These can include emissions from fossil fuels burned onsite, emissions
from owned or leased vehicles and other direct sources. Specific Scope 1 GHG emissions
sources analyzed for the Pleasant Harbor project are described below in Table 3.10-1.
Table 3.10-1
SCOPE l GHG EMISSION SOURCES
Commented [DWJ3I: Not fmiliarwirh this teminology. Can
we defme?
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.104
3.10
Commented [DWJ1!: Jusr 1 ed 2? Nor 3?
Comnrented [DWJ2I: sme
CONSTRUCTIO/V SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Mobile Power Generation Combustion Power to run construction tools and equipment, and to
provide providinq heatinq and liqhtinq
Land Use Change - Deforestation Clearing and grading activities resulting in a one-time
barbon loss eveni.
Land Use Change - Below Grade Carbon
Loss
Removal of below grade (root to shoot) organic carbon
stocks.
Air Quality
Table 3.10-1 continued
Scope 1 GHG Emission Sources
Source.' Preaserl Harbor ,taina and Golf Resort: G/sorrrrouse Gar E rriss ion RaporL May 201 2. See
It.
Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 1 sources are estimated at 5,483.62
tCO2e for construction sources and 1,096.80 tCO2e for operational sources.s With mitigation, it
is estimated that GHG emissions could be reduced to approximately 4,743.10 tCO2e for
construction and to 931.48 tCO2e for operational sources, representing a reduction of
approximately 14% and 15%, respectively. A variety of potential measures are available that
could reduce scope 1 types of emissions including: the use of grid electricity, the preservation of
riparian and buffer areas, best practices in construction, LEED construction standards,
transplanting usable trees, selective reforestation, biosequestration, aerobic wastewater
treatment, biosolid centrffuge, hybrid turf equipment, fertigation, nitrogen fertilizer reductions,
organic fertilizer use, low GWP coolants and propellants, and emissions offsets. See Appendix
M for additional details on emissions sources and potential GHG mitigation strategies.
Scope 2 emissions include indirect GHG emissions resulting from the generation of electricity,
heat, or steam generated off site, but purchased by the project (i.e. energy use). Table 3.10-2,
below, describes construction and operational sources of Scope 2 emissions.
5 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
Air Quality
Land Use Change - Soil Organic Carbon
Loss
organic carbon release)
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Emissions ftom movement and stockpiling of topsoil for use
throughout the site (onetime tillage event resulting in soil
Wastewater Methane (on-site)Methane created from orqanic constituents breakdown
Combined Power Combustion Plant that would provide the 100% electrical redundancy
required for the wastewater treatment plan.
Backup Power Combustion Power to maintain critical base load electrical requirements
of the site durinq power outaqes.
Vehicle Fleet Combustion Bus and rental car vehicle emissions
Golf Course Maintenance Combustion Equipment used for golf course operations, consisting of
small horsepower off road diesel and gasoline combustion
engines for material hauling, mowing, topdressing, edging,
spraying and turf repair.
Non-Combustion Fugitive Emissions Traditional refrigerants used in coolers, chillers, fteezers, air
conditions units and propellants used for fire suppression
Fertilizer Application The unwanted chemical reaction that turns a portion of
beneficial surface applied nitrogen fertilizer into the GHG,
nitrous oxide.
Campfi relFireplace Combustion There are no plans for wood or gas burning fire or campfires
- however, campfires could be created occasionally for
soecial or ceremonial events.
_2015 3.10-5
CONSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
OPERATIONAT SOURCES
M.
Table 3.10-2
SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSION SOURCES
Pleasant Harbor Marine and Golf Resort Gr€o,liouse Ges Emlsslon ReporT. lrey
Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 2 sour@s are estimated at 172.93
tCO2e for construction sources and 8,146.25 tCO2e for operational sources.o With mitigation,
GHG emissions could be reduced to 146.99 tCO2e for construction sources and 4,352.94 for
operational sources tCO2e, representing a reduc{ion of approximately 15o/o and 460/o,
respectively. Strategies to reduce Scope 2 emissions during construction could include best
construction practices and the purchase of renewable energy. Strategies to reduce emissions
during operations could include the use of geothermal heating and cooling, dark sky exterior
lighting, low flow plumbing fixtures and renewable energy purchases. See Appendix M for
additional details on emissions sources and potential GHG mitigation strategies.
Scope 3 emissions include indirect GHG emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled
by the project, but related to activities such as vendor supply chains, delivery services, outsourced
activities, and employee travel and commuting time. Table 3.10-3, below, describes construction
and operational sources of Scope 3 types of GHG emissions.
Table 3.10-3
SCOPE 3 GHG EMISSION SOURCES
6 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
Purchased Electricity Approximately 440MWh of grid
each construction.
rchased Electricity Purchased electricity iom the electrical grid would be one
of the largest non-combustion operational emissions
source. Peak electricity demand is estimated to reach
Heavy Equipment Battery/Onsite Mining
Combustions
Fossil fuel use for heavy and medium duty equipment used
to clear, grade and move usable materials around the site,
and on-site mining of sand, gravel and stockpiling of
materials used in later construction phases.
Material Hauling Trip Emissions Emissions generated from heavy duty diesel trucks hauling
materials for construction activities/supplies.
Vehicle Trip Emissions Vehicular emissions from staff, construction workers, etc.,
travelling to and from the site.
Organic Waste (Wood)Transportation of wood waste offsite (associated with
clearing unimproved, forested areas of the site).
Electricity T&D Losses Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can
ranqe from Oo/o lo 15o/o
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Vehicular Emissions Vehicular emissions from individuals traveling to and from
the site including staff, product & material shipping,
contractor and visitor trips.
Landfill Waste Emissions related to solid waste pickuD for the site.
_ 2015 3.10-6 Air Quality
CANSTRUCTION SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
OPERATIONAI SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
CONSIRUCflON SOURCES SOURCE DESCRIPTION
OPERATIONAT SOURCES
Organic Waste Emissions related to organic waste created from
landscaDino and oolf course maintenance.
Electricity T&D Losses Electrical grid transmission and distribution line losses can
ranoe from Oo/o lo 15oh.
Source,'
M.
Total greenhouse gas emissions that could result from Scope 3 sources are estimated at 9,673.66
tCO2e for construction sources and 26,459.72 tCO2e for operational sour@s.7 With mitigation,
Scope 3 GHG emissions could be reduced to 9,130.52 tCO2e for construction sources and
16,589.1 8 for operational sources tCO2e, representing a reduction of approximately 6% and 37o/o,
respectively. Strategies to reduce Scope 3 emissions during construction could include using raw
material from the site (including wood chips, live redistributed trees, gravel and sand) to avoid
transporting such materials to the site, providing a work camp for construction workers on the site,
providing catering and rideshare for construc{ion workers, and using locally sourced materials.
Strategies that to reduce emissions during resort operations (some of which are part of the
proposal) will include: the provision of on-site staff housing to reduce trips from commuting,
locating amenities required for daily living located on the site, bus and rental car availability, intra-
resort transportation via eleclric powered golf cars and shuttle services, internal walking paths,
public transit, video conferencing technology, bike rentals, rideshare program and incentives for
offsite staff, organic waste diversion, recycling and composting. See Appendix M for additional
details on emissions sources and potential GHG mitigation strategies.
Table 3.104 below, summarizes estimated GHG emissions underAlternative 2 (the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Report only addresses Alternative 2). As demonstrated, the largest source of
emissions is anticipated to occur from Scope 3, operational sources; that is, emissions related to
transportation (vehicle trips to and from the site by staff, visitors, contractors and shipping).
However, this emissions source also has great potential for mitigation with the provision of onsite
staff housing, the availability of amenities onsite, and the use of busses to reduce trips.
Table 3.104
ALTERNATIVE 2 - ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS
Pleasanl Hatbor illarina and Golf Resort' Grcerrrrouse Gas
2012. Saa Appendtx M.
7 tCO2e = metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenf,,l EIS2015 3.10-7
3.10
Air Quality
Scope 1 Construction Emissions 5.483.62 -740.53
Scope 1 Operational Emissions '1,096.80 -165.32
Scope 2 Construction Emissions 172.93 -25.94
Scope 2 Operational Emissions 8.146.25 -3,793.31
Scope 3 Construction Emissions 9.673.65 -543.14
ScoDe 3 ODerational Emissions 26.459.72 -9,870.54
Emlsslon Source Estimated GHG
Emissions {tCO2e)
Estimated GHG
Emissions
Reductions with
Mitioation
TOTAL 5,t.o32-98 -15.138-78
Mitioation
35,894.20 rC02e
Alternative I
Due to the greater amount of excavation and grading associated with the golf course design under
Alternative 1, GHG emissions would be greater than those accounted for under Alternative 2.
Grading and excavation would result in somewhat higher construction emissions under Scope 1,
2 and 3 sources. Operational emissions could be expected to be similar to those described for
Alternative 2.
W
No Action Alternative
Under $ .r,,ff, it is presumed that the site would continue to
residential area based on the u nderlying rural residential zoning with
Potential impacts regarding greenhouse gas
as compared to the higher intensity development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3.{O4 Mltisatlon Measures
2007 Ets
As noted previously, air quality impacts were not evaluated in the 2007 ElS. No air quality
mitigation measures were proposed in the 2007 ElS.
develop as a single-family
30 single family residences
emissions would be limited,
BoGG Gonditions
The following air quality mitigation measures identified by the_ J_efferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1,2W.
Mitiqation Measures Completed
63(cc) Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC)
to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.10
Air Quality
a
_ 2015 3.10-8
to
(999'W0 cubic y6nds under camp&lpd td;tr''ndtfion yar-ds vt! r
a6rB$,::tr*dsr Altea,r*ative::$ v. S0
woutl;,,tfisref* ;:::to
thr{n tfiose accountrd for under Altemative 2. opqi.affonal emiCsions could also
be
TS aecur
conditions,
sEls
techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable
methods.
o A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report has been completed to fulfill this condition
(see Appendix M). This report only applies to Alternative 2.
A variety of mitigation measures are available to reduce energy use, increase sustainable
building design and reduce GHG emissions. Certain characteristics of the project as
proposed under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would help to reduce GHG emissions including:
the use of grid eleclricity; preservation of riparian and buffer areas; transplanting usable
trees; selective reforestation; offsite trip reduction from a mixed-use contained resort with
staff housing, onsite amenities, buses, and onsite electric transportation; energy star
appliances; low flow plumbing fixtures; provision of an onsite camp for construction
workers; onsite catering and rideshares; recycling; composting and organic waste
diversion; best construction practices; LEED construction standards; dark sky exterior
lighting; and implementation of the Golf Course Best Management Practices Plan.
The following other possible mitigation measures could be implemented with development of the
Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 ot 3 to further address potential GHG-related
impacts.
a
Additional air quality mitigation measures which could be implemented include the following:
Renewable energy purchases
Using locally sourced materials
Emissions offsets
Waste heat recovery
3.'lO4 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative I 2, or 3 would result in
increased energy usage and increased levels of GHG emissions, similar to any large development
project. However, frvith tne implementation of the mitigation measures listed abovt,_ ng glgf lficqlt
unavoidable adverse energy and GHG-related impacts would be anticipated.
a
a
a
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.10-9
3.10
All of the above?Commented fitst bullet?
Air Quality
3.11 HOUSING and EMPLOYMENT
This section characterizes the existing and projected housing and employment conditions on
and in the vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site. An analysis of potential impacts to these
categories is also provided. Primary sour@s of information for this section include the 2010 US
Census, the Washington Security Employment Department: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
American Communig Survey (ACS), and the An Economic Analysis of Eamings rcpoft
(Appendix N).
3.11-l AflectedEnvironment
2007 Ets
Housinq
The 2007 EIS noted that according to the 2000 Census there were 107 permanent residents on
Black Point, representing approximately 57 full time dwelling units. The Brinnon Subarea Plan
area of Jefferson County has a mixture of affordable, moderate income and estate-type housing
and properties. Limited rental housing was observed to be available, as half the properties are
seasonal or vacation residences that are not typically part of the rental market, and 80% of the
remaining units are owner occupied.
Emplovment
Existing employment conditions on the site were not addressed in the 2007 ElS.
sEts
Housinq
Slte
Currently, within the site area there are two single family residences located at the north
boundary of the generally forested area to the north of Black Point Road: Pleasant Harbor
House, and a Bed & Breakfast. No other permanent housing uses are located on the site.
Additional information concerning housing in Brinnon and Jefferson County is provided below.
Camping uses on the Black Point camping ground were discontinued in 2007.
Site Vicinity
According to the 2010 US Census, there were approximately 17,767 total housing units in
Jefferson County. The majority of this housing (over 5,000 units) is located in Port Townsend,
the largest City in the County and the County seat. ln terms of occupied versus vacant housing
units, Jefferson County has relatively high vacancy rate of approximately 21 percent out of
17,767 lolal housing units, as shown by Table 3.11-1, below.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
November 2014 3.11-1
3.11
Housing and Employment
Table 3.11-1
JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O
Source.'
Protilas Summary Flle,
As shown by Table 3.1'l -2, there are 't ,060 unils in Brinnon (a Census Designated Place). The
majority of the housing within the community is for seasonal, recreational or occasional use
(approximately 55 percent).
Table 3.11-2
BRINNON HOUSING GHARACTERISTICS, 2O1O
Summary File. Csrf,rus Desigrreted Place Summary.
Emplovment
Slfe
Cunently, there are eleven full and part-time employees based on the site, primarily to serve the
marina and for maintenance and security for the Black Point Campground.
Site Vicinity
There were approximately 7,700 non-farm jobs in Jefferson County in January 2013, including
5,610 in the private sector, and 2,090 in government (see Table 3.11-3).1 According to the U.S.
1 Washington Slate Employment Security Department, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch.
Pleasant Haftor Final Supplemental EIS
November 2011 3.11-2
3.11
Housing and Employment
Total Housinq Units 1,060
OccuDied Housinq Units 419
Vacant Housing Units 641
Vacant Housing Units for Rent 11
Vacant Housing Units Rented, not
Occupied
1
Vacant Housins Units, for Sale Only 22
Housing Units, Sold, notVacant
Occupied
1
Vacant Housing Unib for Seasonal,
Recreational or Occasional Use
578
Vacant Housinq Units. Other 28
Homeowner Vacancy Rate 5.7
Rental Vacancy Rate '15.5
Owner Occupied Housing Units 360
Renter-Occupied Housing Units EO
Brinnon
ment 090
Census Bureau, the median household income in Jefferson County from 2007 to 201 1 was
estimated at $46,887, compared to $58,890 for Washington State.2
Table 3.11-3
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NON.FARM EMPLOYMENT, 2013
of
LaDor Slatisrics.
The Brinnon area median income is estimated to be slightly lower than the County's as a whole,
at $42,679.3
According to recent employment statistics, Jefferson County has a higher unemployment rate as
compared to the state of Washington as a whole, with 10.9 percent unemployment in January
2013, as compared to the state's rate of 8.5 percent. See Table 3.11-4 for details.
Table 3.114
JEFFERSON COUNTY ANO WASHINGTON STATE. RESIOENT LABOR FORCE AND
EMPLOYMENT
Source: Washinglon
3.11-2 lmpacts
2007 Ers
Housinq
The 2007 EIS noted that because most of the construction crews were expected to live out of
the area, the Applicant proposed to upgrade the existing RV facilities on a temporary basis
(approved for 60 units) to provide temporary housing for construction workers.
The Proposed Action under the 2007 EIS included 890 total residential units, with 739 in the
Golf Course Resort area and '151 in the Marina/Maritime Village Area (total of 890 units). The
creation of new permanent and seasonal jobs was noted to impose an added demand for
affordable housing locally. To offset this demand, the applicant proposed 52 units of staff
housing onsite (of the 890 total units). Much of the staff employment for the resort was
anticipated to be seasonal or part time. Providing affordable units as part of the proposal
2 U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts.
3 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Eam,ngs, October 2014. Appendix N.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenfr,l EIS
November 2014 3.11-3
3.11
Location Labor
Forre
Peltons
Empbyed
Pottons
Un6mployod
Unemploymem
Rate
Washington State, Januarv 2013 3.447.640 3.154.840 292,800 8.5o/o
Jefferson County, January 2013 11 ,780 10,500 1,280 10.9o/o
Housing and Employmant
addressed both the increased demand represented by the proposal and provided the
infrastruclure to support the higher densities necessary to address affordability.
Emplovment
The 2007 EIS noted that during construction, approximately 80 to 125 people would be
employed onsite periodically through the five-year construclion period. lt was expected that
much of the work force would be from Jefferson County, though certain specialized skills may
require workers from outside the immediate region. Upon completion, the Pleasant Harbor
Resort was estimated to create 40 permanent new jobs and 50 seasonal positions, with these
jobs representing a 30% direct increase in local employment. lt was also anticipated that
seasonal employees would typically be students with the advantage to local students.
SEIS
ln comparison to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the total number of residential units proposed
under SEIS Alternatives 1,2 and 3 remains the same at 890 units, including 52 units for staff
housing.However, to meet the BoCC conditions of of the MPR, the majority of this
housing l€7gi%)would be for short-term visitors and 3335%be for residents.
Regarding employment, subsequent to publication of the 2007 a jobs report has been
prepared and the number of permanent and seasonal positions associated with construction
and operation of the resort has been revised up, as detailed below under the Employment
seclion.
Alternatives 1. 2 and 3
ln general, employment and housing impacts would be relatively similar underAlternatives 1, 2
and 3; all alternatives would indude 890 residential units, and would provide comparable levels
of retail/commercial space (49,772 sq. ft. under Alternative '1 and 56,680 sq. ft. under
Alternatives 2 and 3). Approval of the Proposed Actions would create the capacity for a range
of resort-related, restaurant, retail, grounds keeping and security jobs onsite and additional
employment and housing potential in the Brinnon subarea of Jefferson County. Actual impacts
from the added employment and housing capacity from the proposed development would be
generated incrementally as the site developed over the full buildout period. The discussion of
employment and housing impacts, below, applies to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
Housinq
Temporary (Construction Phase) Housing Conditions
Construction of the P/easant Harbor Golf Resoft would occur incrementally over time in
response to market conditions; for purposes of environmental review it is assumed to take place
over an approximately 1 o-year timeframe. lt is estimated that up to 1 ,750 positions would be
directly and indirectly associated with construction of the facility over the full build-out of the
resort.l As noted in the 2007 ElS, the Applicant proposes to upgrade the existing RV facilities
on the site on a temporary basis (presently approved for 60 units) to provide some temporary
housing for construction workers.
4 WrightJohnson.2014. Appendix N.
CommcnEl [DWrl]: Don't knw how dris happmed, but *re
nunbes re 65/35, not 67/33. You'll wmt to ch<k the otire
doomot ed tuake 6ose chmges.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EISNovember2Ol4 3.114
3.11
Housing and Employment
Long-Term Housing Conditions
Under Alternatives 'l , 2 and 3, 890 residential units would be provided on the site. Of the total,
278 units (3335%) would be for permanent residents, while 560 units (67€5%) would be for
short- term use (i.e. time-shares, vacation rentals, etc.). The addition of 890 residential units in
the Brinnon subarea would represent an approximately 84 percent increase to the existing
housing stock of '1,060 housing units. However, as noted above, the majority of new housing
(560 units) would be for short-term use. Considering permanent housing only, the proposed
278 new permanent
stock
lndircct Housing Conditions
Operation of the proposed Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort could result in 225 new permanent
employees at the site. Although staff housing would be provided on the site, employees on the
site could result in some additional demand for housing in the area.
Emolovment
Construction Employment
Site preparation and construction of the Pleasant Harbor project would involve: demolition of
certain existing buildings; removal of some existing vegetation; grading; construction of new site
infrastructure including driveways and utilities; and, construction of a number of new buildings.
This work would result in new temporary construction employment opportunities during the
approximately 1o-year buildout period. As noted above, based on analysis conducted
subsequent to 2007, it is now estimated that the construclion project could directly and indireclly
employ up to approximately 1,750 workers in total. The actual number of construction jobs at
any given time would vary depending on the nature and crnstruction phase of the
once construction
project.
of the
Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort was complete.
Based on analysis completed in 20'14, it is estimated that approximalely 342 of the 1,750 total
construction jobs (19.5 percent) would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of the
Brinnon area average median income ($34,143).s
Operational Employment
Construction jobs would be temporary and would be
Based on
land uses
conducted to 2007, development of new employment-generating
could result in approximately 225 dired. and indirect jobs
a
a
a
a
Actual amount of added employment from the proposed development would be generated
5 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Eamings, May 2014. Appendix N.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
November 2011 3.11-5
3.11
Housing and Employment
Phase 2:
3:
289 jobs
342 jobs
720 jobs
Phase
Phase
incrementally as the site develops over the full buildout period. Table 3.11-5, below, details the
types of jobs and total number of employees that could be in each
N for more information
Additional, temporary seasonal employment could also occur during the summer months.
Based on analysis completed in 2014, it is estimated that approximalely 223 of the 225 total
jobs (99 percent) of the operational jobs would earn an average wage of 80 percent or less of
the Brinnon area average median income (934,143).6
Table 3.11-S
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES PER JOB SECTOR
Source:
The new employment opportunities onsite could contribute to lowering the Jefferson County's
unemployment rate (8.2o/o in November 2013), depending on a number of factors. Such could
include where individuals reside at the time of hire (i.e. within the County or outside the County)
and whether individuals are unemployed at the time of hire.
I n di rect Em ployme nt I mp acts
6 Wright Johnson. An Economic Analysis of Eamings, May 2014. Appendix N.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
November 2014 3.11-G
3.11
or Emolovees
Phase
Food Services 13
Marina 11
TTA (fun center)31
Suites
Villaoe (
Phase
Suites 44
Food Services 21
Weddino Chaoel 1
21
6
3
Recreation 11
Waste Water 2
Phase
37
Food Services 5
Wasle Water 4
Phase 4
Waste \ater
225
Housing and Employment
During construction of the Pleasant Harbor Resort it is possible that some nearby businesses
(restaurants, retail, services, etc.) could experience an increase in business during ongoing
construction phases. Permanent employees of the Resort would be anticipated to contribute to
the overall economic activity of the area, including the potential to increase activity at area retail
and restaurant businesses. As well, additional residents in various communities surrounding
the site could result in increased spending in retail and service categories at local businesses.
No Action Alternative
Under W, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. Limited additional employment
could be added to the site as allowed under the Planned Rural Residential Development
(PRRD) process Housing stock could
increase by approximately 30 new residences.
3.1 {-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 Ers
The following mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to Alternatives 1 and
2.
Mitiqation Measures to be lmolemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction
Because there is a limited rental housing market, it is proposed that the out-of{own
construction crews may use the existing onsite 60-unit RV facility. This facilig would be
temporary and must be in place prior to commen@ment of construction of the
infrastruclure for the project. (Additional temporary housing could also include the B&B
and Kaufinan Home, see 53.5.9.)
The creation of new permanent and seasonal jobs for resort staff will impose an added
demand for affordable local housing, and to offset that demand, 52 units of new multi-
family apartments are proposed to be built onsite.
a
a
BoGG Gonditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1, 2 m
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemenf,,l AS
Novembet 2011 3.11-7
3.11
Housing and Employment
as to 1 and
no o@ur
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction
63 (e) Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in
East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and
employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and
competitive in terms of pricing.
63 (aa) ln fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the
housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at
the very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of
65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2).
63 (dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups
to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students.
Mitigation Measures Completed
63 (g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be
created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon
area average median income (AMl). The developer shall provide affordable housing
(e.9., no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly
proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
AMl. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in
lieu fee, or onsite housing development.
o A study on the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of the MPR was
completed: An Economic Analysis of Eamings Pursuant to Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners' Condition 639 for the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort (Appendix N). lt is estimated that approximately 19.5 percent of
construclion jobs and 99 percent of operational jobs that would be created by the
Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80% or less of the Brinnon area AMl. The
availability of affordable employee housing for positions earning less than 80o/o ol
the AMI shall be addressed in the Housing MOU.
sErs
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions, no
additional mitigation measures for housing and employment would be necessary.
3.114 SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmnacts
With implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts to employment or housing would be anticipated.
a
!
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
November 2011 3.11-8
3.11
Housing and Employment
3.12 RURAL GHARACTER and POPULATION
This section of the SEIS describes existing rural character and population characteristics on the
site and in the site vicinity, and evaluates how each of the alternatives would affecl these
characteristics.
3.12-1 Affected Environment
2007 Ers
Population
The 2007 EIS noted that according to the 2000 Census, there were 107 permanent residents on
Black Point within 57 full time dwelling units, suggesting that the remaining 101 residential lots
were for seasonal or recreational use.
Rural Character
The 2007 EIS describes the rural character of Hood Canal and notes that it includes a mixture of
open spaces and more densely packed residential and tourist areas, including both public and
private facilities. The Maritime Village and golf resort area were noted to occupy areas that have
historically been tourist oriented, particularly during the summer.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
2015 3.12-1
3.12
Rural Character and Population
ln accordance with the provisions of the GMA, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goal
LNG 18.0 states that "Rural character is defined by local rural lifestyle, opportunity to live and
work in rural areas, local rural visual landscapes, resource productivity, environmental quality,
and significant areas of open space." Subsequent Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies
make it clear that significant amounts of open space and continued environmental quality are key
components of preserving local rural character. Rural character is also to be preserved by not
allowing the conversion of rural lands into suburban or urban densities or into uses inappropriate
for a rural setting. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the rural setting also includes
development for tourist and recreational facilities and provides the allowance of planned resorts,
urban uses in otheruvise rural settings. The Brinnon Subarea Plan confirmed that the Black Point
Pleasant Harbor is an area of significant amenity and could accommodate a planned resort as
part of the overall rural area development.
The 2007 EIS also noted that zoning around the site is residential in the form of 5-, '10-, and 20-
acre minimum lot sizes for future subdivision. With few exceptions, allowed uses in these
residential zones are housing and those activities that can be conducted within a residential lot,
such as home occupations or those rural scale activities serving the local or tourist population.
Regarding density, the EIS noted that while the existing rural residential zoning is low density with
large lots, there are pockets of residential development on and near Black Point that are more
suburban in nature due to former platting regulations. Hood Canal residential development north
and south of the site has residential densities that average 3.5 units per acre, northeast of Black
Point, around Rhododendron Lane, residential density is approximately four units per acre, and
adjacent to the southwest portion of the site there is a small subdivision with a seven-unit per acre
density.
sErs
Population
The Pleasant Harbor site is located within Brinnon, which is a Census Designated Place in
Jefferson County. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Jefferson County is estimated
aI29,872. The County has experienced strong population growth since 2000. Over this 10 year
period, Jefferson County's population increased by approximately 17 percent from 25,593 to
29,872. This is greater than Washington State's overall population increase of 14.09 percent for
this same period.r
According to the 2010 Census, the population of Brinnon is 797, which represents a relatively flat
population rate as compared to the year 2000, when the population was 803.
Rural Character
The existing rural character conditions on and in the vicinity of the site have remained generally
similar since issuance of the 2007 ElS. That is, the Brinnon Subarea Planning Area is generally
characterized by low density residential development with a remote, rural character. The
predominant land uses include forest resource lands and rural residential lands. There is also a
small concentration of retail and commercial services in Brinnon, approximately 1.5 miles north
of the site. The aerial photograph presented in Figure 3.12-1 indicates the general character of
development density in the area.
3.12-2 lmpacts
2007 EIS
Population
The 2007 EIS indicated that during construction, an estimated 80 to 125 people would be
employed onsite periodically through the five-year construc{ion period, and that much of this work
force would be found within the County. The 2007 EIS was based on the assumption that
development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent residential units to the
community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development's winter (or permanent population)
was projected to be 200 to 300 people. During the peak summer season (June-September), a
resort population of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated, when the resort was anticipated to
operate at 85o/o occupancy. During the mid-season, (April, May and October), 50% resort
occupancy was anticipated, and during the low season (November, December, January,
February, March) 30% resort occupancy was expected.
Rural Character
The 2007 EIS noted that a key element of any allowed urban use in rural areas such as master
planned resorts is that the resort and its facilities not allow the extension of urban or non rural
uses outside the resort area. As such, local guidelines require: 'All necessary supportive and
accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the
1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistrict Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
2015 3.12-2
3.12
Rural Character and Population
Pteasant Harbo, Flnat Supplenen
_2015 3.12-3 Rural Characbr and Population
Figure 3.12-1
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.12-4
3.12
Rural Character and Population
boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR" (JCC
1 8.1 5.1 26(s)).
The 2007 EIS noted that overall gross density for the proposal of 890 residential units on 256
acres would be approximately 3.5 units per acre. This density was noted to be less than but not
dissimilar to some of the existing densities in the immediate area. The primary difference was
observed to be that the residences proposed for the resort would be clustered into a number of
townhouses or attached structures, rather than single family homes on individual lots. The EIS
stated that rural character would be retained under the Proposed Action by scaling the size of
residential structures consistent with local construction (less than 35 feet in height); clustering the
more intense development internal to the project site and at the marina where dense activity
already occurs and a suburban shoreline designation suggests higher levels of anticipated activity
on the shoreline; locating the hotel and Maritime Village topographically so the buildings are set
into the hill and do not project above the average tree height; retaining the buffer on the shoreline;
locating the bulk of the housing away from local roads and out of site from U.S. Hwy 1 01 except
the node at Black Point Road; retaining a tree buffer along U.S. Hwy 101 adjacent to the marina;
and devoting more than half of the site to open space (including the golf course), wetlands, buffers
and natural areas all of which would reduce the visual impact of the resort on the surrounding
community and help retain the overall rural character of southern Jefferson County.
sErs
ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, while all Alternatives include a golf course and the same total
number of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, however the distribution of the units
are more consolidated under the SEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of clearing and
impervious area. The layout of the golf course in Alternative 2 is also revised to reduce the amount
of cut and fill necessary, preserve more natural vegetation, and more closely follow the existing
topography. And the golf couee is reduced to 9-holes under Alternative 3 to reduce clearing and
prcselve more ndural area on the site. Additionally, to meet the BoCC conditions of approval of
the MPR, the majority of the housing (67€9%) would be for short-term visitors, while 3335% would
be for permanent residents. ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, more housing for permanent
residents is specified for Alternative 1, 2 and 3.
The 2007 EIS Proposed Action included a golf course and approximately 79,000 square feet of
commercial uses. Under AlternativeS 2 and 3, the overall square footage of commercial uses has
been reduced to 56,608 sq. ft. and under Alternative 1 the overall square footage of commercial
uses is less than 50,000 sq. ft. Redevelopment for maintenancc, repair and renovation in the
Marina Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building footprints, or
as allowed under a separate existing Binding Site Plan permit. Therefore, the site acreage for the
SEIS has been reducrd to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the 2007 ElS, with the
elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.
Alternatives 1. 2 and 3
ln general, rural character and population impacts would be similar under either Alternatives 1, 2
and 3; all alternatives would develop the same number of residential units (890), and would
provide comparable levels of recreational amenities (18 hole golf course under Alternatives 1 and
2, and t hole golf course under Alternative 3.) and retail/commercial space (49,772 sq. ft. under
Alternative 1 and 56,608 sq. ft. under Alternative 2 and 3). The discussion of rural character and
population impacts, below, applies to either Alternative 1 2 or 3.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.12-5
3.12
Rural Character and Population
Construction Population
Construction of the P/easant Harbor Resoft is anticipated to occur over an approximately 1 0-year
timeframe. During this period, construction employment is anticipated to generate up to
approximately total 1,750 positions. This number of jobs, divided by the 1O-year build out period
could result in roughly 1 75 jobs on the site per year. Depending on the selected contractor and
any prevailing union practices, a portion of these positions may be filled by resident workers.
Because of the short-term nature of construction employment, it is not anticipated that families or
other household members would accompany temporary construclion workers to the area.
Additionally, because construciion would be temporary, no permanent residents are anticipated
to migrate to the area.
Operation al Population
Under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, additional permanent residents and temporary visitors would be
added to the Pleasant Harbor site. As described in Section 3.'11, Housing and Employment,
890 residential units would be provided on the site with 278 units (331!%) for permanent
residents, and 560 units (6765%) for short term use (i.e. time-shares, vacation rentals, etc.). lt is
assumed that two persons per household would reside in the 278 units for the permanent
population, resulting in a permanent population ot $SQ. f ity trivg (q2) !i!!t! 9f glqff hor,rq14g woqld
also be provided. This housing can also be considered as permanent housing and it is expected
that up to four people could reside in each unit year round, resulting in a permanent staff
population of 208; thus, a total of 764 permanent residents would be expected on the site. The
remaining 560 units are anticipated to accommodate temporary visitors to the site, with varying
numbers of people occupying each unit, depending on the number of bedrooms, and the season
of occupancy.
Assuming an additional 764 individuals moved to Brinnon to reside in the Pleasant Harbor Resort
on a permanent basis, this would result in a population increase of approximately 95 percent (from
797 to I ,561). Of the 764 permanent residents, 208 are assumed to be resort employees living in
the 52 units of worker housing. lt is assumed that a number of these employees would be drawn
from the local community, although exact numbes cannot be predided. Regarding the anticipated
demographics, the permanent resort units are intended to be marketed to retirees seeking an
active community with a variety of recreational opportunities and amenities. The additional
population in this area could increase general activity levels, as well as add to the population base
utilizing basic public serviees (see Section 3.14, Public Services, for additional information).
The remaining 560 units for short term/vacation use are assumed to have an average occupancy
of 2.2 persons per units - resulting in a transient population of up to 1,232 persons, depending
on the season. lt should be noted that the resort would be expected to operate at a fuller
occupancy in the summer (85%), as was estimated for the 2007 ElS.
Rural Character
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 would allow for the transformation of the Pleasant
Harbor site from a primarily vacant, former campground that is a largely vegetated and forested
area to a new MPR development that would provide opportunities for a range of residential and
recreational land uses and activities. The changes to the site are anticipated to occur gradually
over the approximately 10-year buildout period.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
2015 3.12-6
3.12
Rural Character and Population
Commcnted [DwlU: Chsk - conflictswith number on page
3.11-3
ln general, the relationship of the Pleasant Harbor MPR development under either Alternative 1,
2 or 3 to surrounding uses would primarily be a function of the intensity of the new uses (such as
the types of uses, density of the development, and levels of activity associated with the
development), the intensity of surrounding uses, the proximity of new uses to surrounding uses,
and the provision of buffers between new uses and surrounding uses.
The Pleasant Harbor resort under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would increase the density of
development, and establish residential units, vacation units, and commercial and resort related
recreational amenities on the site. Overall, gross density for the proposed 890 residential units
on 231 acres is 3.85 residential units per acre (similar to the 3.5 dwelling units per acre in the
2007 EIS). These would be in multi-unit structures, as opposed to single family structures.
Activity levels (i.e. noise, traffic, etc. associated with new activity) on the site would increase as a
result of development under either Alternative 1,2 or 3 due to the increase in density and
associated on-site population (residents and employees) and short{erm visitors. Development
on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in new residents living on the site and new residents and
employees traveling to and from the site each day. As noted above, the proposed residential
uses are anticipated to house approximately 556 permanent residents and resort operations are
anticipated to employ approximately p2S people, up to 208 of whom could live onsite in the 52-
units of staff housing; resulting in a total of 764 permanent residents on the site. ln addition, the
resort would also accommodate visitors for day trips and overnight stays (in 560 units). I
The increase in site population, site visitors and employees would result in increased activity
levels, including pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic travelling to and from the Pleasant Harbor
site and within the site. Vehicle access to the site would be provided primarily by Black Point
Road and U.S. Hwy 101. Activity levels and vehicle traffic noise on these roadways (as well as
along other new internal roadways) would be anticipated to increase with development under
either Alternative 1, 2 or 3. lt is also possille (if an easement can be negotiated) that resort
residents could have the option of renting resort-provided electrical carts to travel between the
Golf Course/Resort and the Maritime Village and other internal trips, which could also utilize the
private frontage road paralleling U.S. Hwy 101 (Marina Access Drive). The use of shuttles and
electrical carts would also serve to reduce the overall amount of vehicle trips (see Section 3.9,
Transportation, and Appendix L for details on traffic). lf an easement cannot be n€oliated to
construd the Marina Access Drive, then regular shuttle service would be provided befirveen the
Golf Course/Resort and the marina.
ln general, the type, character, and pattern of land uses on the site would change substantially
from a primarily vegetated/forested site with minimal existing uses (real estate office and two
single family homes) to a denser, resort development. The rural character of surrounding land
uses are intended to be preserved in a number of ways, including limiting the visibility of the resort
from ofbite viewers; preserving natural area and open space; limiting the heights of buildings;
and, clustering the more intense development internal to the site.
Limited visibility of the site to offsite viewers would in part occur naturally as a result of the site's
location on a peninsula (Black Point), and the site's topography. Limiting views are also a feature
of the MPR design with the preservation of vegetative buffers along certain site borders to screen
the development from view (see Section 3.15, Aesthetics, for further details).
As with the 2007 ElS, more intense development would be clustered internal to the site to limit
impacts to views and perception of increased density from offsite land uses. Buildings would be
low-rise, ranging from one to four stories under Alternative 1, and one to five stories under
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
@mmcnbd [DU2]: Check for consistocy with aumbere on
page 3.11{
3.12
Rural Character and Population_2015 3.12-7
Alternatives Z ffis. the tallest buildings would be Golf Course Terraces and Conference
Center/Spa (four and five stories), which would be located in the north/central portion of the Golf
Course, and would be generally not be anticipated to be visible to offsite viewers except from
properties at higher elevations to the northwest (see Figures 2-7 and 2-8 in Chapter 2 for
reference). The remainder of the residential buildings would be one to two stories in height. ln
general, the Maritime Village would be the most visible portion of the site due to its proximity to
Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. The largest building within the Maritime Village (Maritime
Village Building) would be three stories in height. However, this structure would be built into the
existing topography, with two stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories
visible internal to the site.
Approximately 33 acres of natural arca (14 percEnt of the total 23'l acre site) would be preserved
under Alternative 1 80 acres of the total 231 acl.e would be under
Alternative 2,
Alternative 3
area with the course and trails 123 acres would be pervious
under Alternative 2,The preservation of
natural area together with open space on the site would further serve to limit offsite impacts to
rural character.
Indirect lmpacts
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1,2 eiAwould contribute
to the cumulative residential and employment growth, and intensification of land uses in Jefferson
County and the Brinnon community. An increase in on-site resident, visitor and employment
population would also contribute to a cumulative increase in vehicular traffic on surrounding roads.
The increase in population, visitors and employment could also result in an increased demand for
goods and services. While it is likely that a majority of this demand would be fulfilled by
commercial/retail uses on the Pleasant Harbor site, a portion of this demand could also be fulfilled
by surrounding businesses in the vicinity of the site.
To the extent that area property owners perceive an opportunity for development based, in part,
on new employees, visitors and residents associated with the Pleasant Harbor site, some new
development in the area could be indirectly generated. Any development in the area generated
indirectly by development of the Pleasant Harbor site would likely occur incrementally over time
and would likely be llmited due to the measures proposed to maintain the resort as a self-
contained community (with amenities and commercial/retail onsite). Any new development in the
site vicinity would also be controlled by existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan regulations,
which would preserve the local rural character of the surrounding area. As a result, significant
indirecVcumulative impacts would not be anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Under Alternative 1, another acres of the total site area would be in pervious
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.12-8
3.12
Rural Charachr and Population
no occur
and population conditions, which are generally characlerized by low
would rernain relatively
would be as described in the 2007 Fin
$El$ Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, with a
Under Seaar,ia,,,E, it is presumed that the site would continue to asa
residential area based on the rural residential zoning with a
Potential impacts to
al ElS.
permanent population increase of approximately 15-20
people.
3.12-3 Mitisation Measures
2007 Ets
The following mitigation measures from the 2007 EIS are also incorporated in other relevant
seclions of this SEIS, as applicable.
Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction
a The key to the provision is that the Master Planned Resort not lead to suburban or urban
level development in the surrounding area and that result is achieved through several
techniques:
- The retention of rural area zoning on the lands outside of the Master Planned Resort.
The additional public services shall serve the urban levels of intensity within the Master
Plan area, the RVC level services in the RVC area, and the rural development in the
surrounding area, and allow extension of urban level sewer utilities only in the event
of a health hazard. The purpose of the regulatory restriction is to prevent a
fundamental change in the overall development patterns planned for the area.
lncreasing the quality or quantity of services in such area as a result of the
development is one of the economic benefits.
A water facility may serve both urban and rural uses as a water system is preferable
to individual exempt wells. The water system shall not be used to serve uses in the
rural area in excess of that allowed by County codes for rural area development.
The number of proposed residential units shall be no greater than 890 units, including
both the resort residences and staff/affordable housing.
The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site
perimeters as is practical with golf course layout, between fairways, and the upper
portion of the development.
The proposal shall ensure retention of selected stands of significant trees along the
bluff of the golf course to reduce the visibility of the site from the south.
The proposal shall provide landscaping between US HWY 101 and the new access
road proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village.
Pleasant Hatbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.12
Rural Character and Population_2015 3.12-9
With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the
Maritime Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from
higher grade elevations.
The overall project approval shall address light and glare to reduce the projection of
evening lights off the golf course and marina properties. (Reduction does not mean
lights cannot be seen, but that through shielding and proper placement and orientation,
the offsite impacts are minimized).
BoGG Gonditions
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction
63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S.
Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation
easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot
riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature
trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers.
Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as
natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to
include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a
natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101 .
o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina
Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building
footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan
permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the
shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy
101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime
Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the
new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline
buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the
Applicant.
sEts
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and BoCC conditions, no
additional rural character or population mitigation measures would be necessary.
3.124 SisnificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts
With the implementation of the proposed site design features and identified mitigation measures,
no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to rural character or population are anticipated.
a
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.12-10
3.12
Rural Character and Population
3.{5 AESTHETIGS
This section of the SEIS characterizes the existing and future aesthetic conditions on and in the
vicinity of the Pleasant Harbor site.
3.{ 5-{ Affected Environment
2007 Ets
The 2007 EIS discussed aesthetic character in Section 3.8, Rural character and Population, and
noted that aesthetics refers to the visual components of rural character: rural landscape and open
space. The local rural landscape was observed to have a predominance of natural open spaces
over the built environment, although the RV campground was marginally visible from the south
as one travels north on U.S. Hwy 101 and from portions of the subdivisions at the mouth of the
Duckabush River, to the wesUsouthwest of the site.
sErs
The existing aesthetic character of the project site has generally remained as described in the
2007 Ets.
Views to the Site
Views of the Pleasant Harborsite are primarily available from area roadways, including U.S. Hwy
101 and portions of Black Point Road. Views of the site along U.S. Hwy 101 mainly include
existing forested areas and vegetation on the site. Views of the site from these roadways are
generally limited to areas immediately adjacent to the roadways due to the presence of existing
trees and vegetation, as well as topographic conditions on the Pleasant Harbor site. At the
intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, a small real estate office, unpaved surface
parking and an unpaved vehicle turn-around area are visible. Views of the southern portion of the
site are also possible to boaters on Hood Canal.
3.15-2 lmpacts
2007 Ets
The 2007 EIS acknowledged that the proposal would add complexity and intensity to the Black
Point area, including visual elements, densities and land uses. The onsite visual landscape was
anticipated to change, but a significant amount of the proposal was to be in some form of open
space. The golf course itself would be open space and the areas between the fainrays would
be preserved, planted and maintained with native trees and understory. Forested open spaces
were to be dedicated along the bluff of the Black Point Peninsula and wetland areas were to be
preserved and enhanced as necessary. The EIS stated that portions of the subdivisions at the
mouth of the Duckabush River had the greatest potential for visual impact to the rural landscape.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.15-1
3.15
Aesthefics
sEts
As described in Chapter 2, two possible site alternatives are evaluated in this SEIS. This analysis
describes how the alternatives could affect the existing visual character associated with the site.
While Alternatives 1,2 include a golf course and the same total number of residential units
as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the distribution of the units are more consolidated under the
SEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of impervious area. As well, the existing Pleasant
Harbor Marina is no longer part of the project site; structures within the Marina would be renovated
or replaced, as a separate action within the existing Binding Site Plan permit.
Alternative 1
Development of the Pleasant Harbor Resod would extensively change the aesthetic character of
the Black Point campground portion of the site from a largely undeveloped, vegetated area with
camping sites and a network of roads, to a developed resort area containing 52 buildings with
828 units of multifamily housing, a golf course, surface and underground parking, and resort
oriented commercial space and recreational amenities. Significant clearing of vegetation,
demolition of existing structures, and grading would be required in areas of the Black Point
campground not designated as sensitive or protected. Landscaping would include re-vegetating
disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be
cleared. Approximately 33 acres of natural area (14 percent of the total232 acre site) would be
preserved under Alternative 1 .
The Black Point campground area of the site is presently characterized by several relatively flat
terraces, interspersed with steep slopes and a series of kettles or depressions, which are currently
a significant natural visual feature of the site. Under Alternative 1 , the visual character of the site
topography would be altered to create large, gentle graded sloping areas to accommodate the
golf course design. As well, Kettle B would be reconfigured by mass grading to collect and retain
site runoff. Total site grading under Alternative 1 would be approximately 2.2 million cubic yards
(the same as the 2007 EIS), compared to approximately 1 million cubic yards under Alternative
2.
Buildings within the Golf Resort area would range from one to four stories in height and would be
in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled roof
elements. The main building at the Golf Resort would be the Golf Terrace and Conference
Center/Spa; at four stories in height (48 feet), this would be the tallest building within the
development.
The southern portion of the Black Point Campground area (along Hood Canal) is a steep bluff
(100+ feet high) and contains a narrow beach fronting the shellfish beaches on the Duckabush
River delta with a small path leading from the top of the bluff to the beach. No development is
located in proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. Under Alternative 1, a riparian buffer would be
preserved along the south/southwest bluff of the peninsula. This buffer would permanently preserve
the 2OO-foot-wide shoreline environment and a steep slope setback (up to an additional 35 feet wide
in places) in a conservation easement to be administered by one or more local Tribes. The existing
aesthetic character of this area of the site would, therefore, remain as under existing conditions. The
setback would also serve to provide a visual screen between the resort development and Hood Canal
to the south.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.15-2
3.15
Aesthefics
The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural area
containing mature vegetation and several single-family structures (Harbor House and the Bed
and Breakfast), to a more densely developed site with a larger building, massing, and scale and
surface parking lots. New residential units and commercial space would be located in three new
buildings, while two existing buildings would be retained (Bed & Breakfast and Harbor House).
The largest structure within the Maritime Village (Maritime Village Building) would be three stories
in height. The structure would be built into the existing topography, with two stories visible from
U.S. Hwy 101 to the west and three stories visible internalto the site. The proposed architectural
concept for the buildings within the Maritime Village area is a Cape Cod waterfront style
incorporating some stone and cedar accents.
ln general, portions of the redeveloped resort (primarily the Maritime Village area and the Maritime
Village building) would be visible from certain locations along Black Point Road, and to motorists
on U.S. Hwy 101. This is one of two major changes that would occur. The other principal visual
change would occur at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, where surface
parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would replace current views of a real estate
office, unpaved surface parking and a vehicle turn-around area. Parking lot landscaping would be
provided in compliance County Code requirements (JCC 18.30.130[6]), which would help to
soften to the visual impact at this location.
Alternative 2
ln terms of total development, the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resorf under Alternative 2 is
similar to Alternative 1 as both alternatives include a golf course and the same total number of
residential units (890). However, aesthetic impacts would be reduced under Alternative 2
because the golf course layout requires less cut and fill (1 million cubic yards), preserves more
natural vegetation, and more closely follows the existing topography. As well, to reduce the built
area within the Golf Resort underAlternative 2, the total number of residential buildings is reduced
to 36, as compared to 54 buildings under Alternative 1. The landscaping proposal under
Alternative 2 includes re-vegetation of disturbed areas using healthy trees and shrubs harvested
from areas of the site that would be regraded, but the amount of disturbed areas would be
significantly reduced as compared to Alternative '1. Approximately 80 acres of natural area (33
percent of the total site acreage) would be preserved.
Buildings within the Golf Resort area would range from one to five stories in height and would be
in the style of a rustic mountain resort with stone detailing, cedar accents, and high gabled roof
elements. The main building at the Golf Resort would be the Golf Terrace and Conference
Center/Spa; at five stories in height (70 feet), this would be the tallest building within the
development (this is one story taller than the building under Alternative 1).
As with Alternative 1, a riparian buffer would be preserved along the south/southwest bluff of the
peninsula and the existing aesthetic character of this area of the site would remain as under existing
conditions.
Under Alternative 2, Kettle B would not be significantly reconfigured by mass grading as would
occur under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have a total water volume of 60
million gallons, whereas under Alternative 2, Kettle B would have double that capacity at 123
million gallons.
The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural area
containing mature vegetation and several single family homes, to a more densely developed site
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.15-3
3.15
Aesthetics
with a larger building massing and scale and surface parking lots, generally as described for
Alternative 1. New residential units and commercial space would be concentrated in the new
Maritime Village building. The two smaller residential buildings proposed under Alternative 1
would not be included under Alternative 2. The two existing buildings would be retained (Bed &
Breakfast and Harbor House).
The principal visual changes would occur with the visibility of portions of the Maritime Village area,
and atthe intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, as described forAlternative 1,
where surface parking for marina slip owners and Resort visitors would replace views of the real
estate office, unpaved surface parking and a vehicle turn-around.
Alternative 3
The Alternative 3 site plan was modified from Alternative 2 to reduce the size of the golf course
from 18 holes to t holes, with associated putting green practice area. The number of residential
units, the amount of commercial space and parking and the number, configuration and heights of
all buildings would remain the same as Alternative 2, and aesthetic impacts with respect to the
built environment would be similar.
The landscaping proposal under Alternative 3 includes re-vegetation of disturbed areas using
healthy trees and shrubs harvested from areas of the site that would be regraded, but the amount
of disturbed areas would be further reduced as compared to Alternative 2. Approximately 100
acres of natural area (43 percent of the total site acreage) would be preserved compared to
approximately 31 acres under Alternative 1 and approximately 80 acres under Altemative 2.
Although more of the site would be left in a natural area, this would primarily be concentrated
interna! to the site, and views to the site would generally remain similarto Altematire 2. I
As with Altematives 1 and 2, a riparian buffer would be preserved along the south/southwest bluff of
the peninsula and the existing aesthetic character of this area of the site would remain as under
existing conditions.
The aesthetic character of the Maritime Village portion of the site would change from a rural area
containing mature vegetation and several single family homes, to a more densely developed site
with a larger building massing and scale and surface parking lots, generally as described for
Alternatives 1 and 2.
The principal visual changes would occur with the visibility of portions of the Maritime Village area,
and at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101, generally as described for
Alternative 2.
Summary
Although the visual character and views of the Pleasant Harbor site would extensively change
under Alternatives 1,2 tffi, whether these changes would be perceived as a negative impact
would depend on the individual viewer. For example, some viewers could perceive the change in
character of the site from a generally forested/vegetated former campground area to a mixed-use
development as a negative impact, while others could perceive this change as a positive
condition. On an overall basis, positive or negative perceptions of the aesthetic character and
views of the site would likely be defined by the quality and consistency of building design,
landscaping, and open space areas.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.154
3.15
Aesthetics
No Action Alternative
Under
residential area
it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
based on the underlying rural
be rmffi consistent withresidential zoning . The aesthetic character of the site would
the surrounding area
3.{ 5-3 Mitigation Measures
2007 Ets
The following aesthetic mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIS are applicable to
Alternatives 1, 2 Wffi.
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction
The proposal shall maintain natural open spaces along the shoreline bluffs along site
perimeters as is practicalwith golf course layout, between fainruays, and the upper portion
of the development.
The proposal shall ensure retention of selected stands of significant trees along the bluff
of the golf course to reduce the visibility of the site from the south.
The proposal shall provide landscaping between U.S. Hwy 101 and the new access road
proposed on the upland side of the Maritime Village.
With the exception of the Condo-tel/conference center, with terrace lofts and the Maritime
Village, all structures shall be kept to a maximum of two stories in height from higher grade
elevations.o Note that the Maritime Village building would be 3-stories, but it would be built into
the existing topography so that only two stories visible would be visible from U.S.
Hwy 101 to the west (the higher grade elevation) and three stories visible internal
to the site.
BoGG Gonditions
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction
63 (s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Hwy
101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation
easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot
riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature
a
a
o
a
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.15-5
3.15
Aesthetics
Scenario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and
conditions and views to the site would remain
to SEI$ Alternatives 1 2 and
trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers.
Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as
natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to
include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a
natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101 .
o Note that redevelopment for maintenance, repair and renovation in the Marina
Center (marina upland) area is now limited to occur within existing building
footprints or where shown, under a separate existing Binding Site Plan
permit. Also, the SEIS Alternatives relocate the Maritime Village from within the
shoreline buffer to north of the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy
101. Therefore, the strip of mature trees between U.S. Hwy 101 and the Maritime
Village noted in this condition do not exist under the SEIS Alternatives due to the
new proposed location of the Maritime Village outside of the shoreline
buffer. Appropriate conservation easements still need to be recorded by the
Applicant.
a 63 (u) !n keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as
they currently exist in order to provide for "the 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." ln keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9, the site plan for the
MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent
possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas."
Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman
shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs.
o Note that the code citation in this condition should be for Master Planned Resorts
(JCC 18.25), and not the SMP.
63 (v) ln 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 that they will blend into the
terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings.
o The landscape plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native
vegetation planting islands in the parking area and along the U.S. Hwy 101 and
Black Point Road rights-of-way while providing adequate visual access from the
highway needed for the retail/commercial structure. The building will be placed
near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take advantage of
the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after
removing invasive plant species. The building architecture will share similar
features to those at the marina and within the golf resort.
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigations and the BoCC conditions, no additional
aesthetic mitigation measures would be necessary.
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.15-6
3.15
Aesthetics
3.{54 $isnificant UnavoidableAdverse lmpacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternatives 1,2 X would change the
aesthetic character of the site from its existing, primarily vegetated/forested condition to a new
featu a olf residentia commercial and S USES
However, with
implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic
impacts would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.15-7
3.15
Aesthefics
Changes to
character of the would occur over the full buildout
3.{6 UTILITIES
This section of the SEIS describes the existing status of utilities that are provided to the
Pleasant Harbor site, and evaluates the impacts of added demand on such services/utilities
from development of the site under the EIS alternatives. Utilities evaluated in this section
include water, sewer, telecommunications and solid waste. Stormwater management is
discussed and analyzed in Section 3.2, Water Resources, and electricity is address in Section
3.8, Energy and Natural Resources. The discussion is based on the P/easant Harbor General
Water Plan (2014) and Pleasant Harbor General Sewer Plan (2014) prepared by Consultares
Engineering (see Appendix Q for Executive Summaries of these reports).
3.16-{ AflectedEnvlronment
2007 Ers
Section 3.3, Water Resour@s, of the 2007 EIS noted that the offsite Black Point subdivisions
were served by a public water system and onsite sewage disposal systems on individual lots
(septic tanks and drainfields). lt was also noted that Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op serves the
Black Point area, and has significant water rights. No additional description of existing, onsite
sewer or water, conditions was provided. Telecommunications and solid waste were not
addressed in the 2007 ElS.
sEts
Water
The private water system infrastructure within the Pleasant Harbor site area presently includes
supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. ln the past approximately seven years,
the resort has not operated and maintenance of the aged water system has abated. However,
existing wells on and adjacent to the site remain.
Water Suoply - 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 serye areas outside the
site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula.
a
a Water Storaqe - One storage tank currently serves the site: a highly deteriorated wood
stave tank on top of the hill in the southeast quadrant of the Black Point campground. A
metal storage tank outside of the site boundary located in the marina upland area serves
the marina area.
Water Distribution - A water distribution system is present within the Black Point
campground to provide water directly to campsites in the north central area, the lodge
building, restroom building, pool, storage building area and park entrance buildings.
This existing system is highly deteriorated and is not currently fully funclional. A limited
extent water distribution system is located within the marina upland area immediately
northwest of the site boundary.
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-1
3.16
Utilities
Sanitarv Sewer
The site presently has no existing centralized wastewater collection or treatmenUdisposal
infrastructure. Outside the SEIS area, an existing wastewater collection, treatment and
discharge system is a large onsite septic system (LOSS) currently owned, operated and
maintained by the applicant. The current facilities consists of gravity sewer collection systems,
septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor
House has a pump tank and grinder pump with a forcemain that discharges into the gravity
collection system within the marina (within the BSP area, outside of the site area) and flows
through the marina septic tank, pump tank, pumps, and into the drainfield west of U.S. Hwy 101,
which is also owned by the applicant. 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. These include systems near the restroom buildings, lodge building and
entrance building.
Telecommunications
Centurylink is the communication provider in the area for telephone and DSL internet service.
CenturyLink is the only DSL option in the area and is currently not available to new DSL
customers. HughesNet is a rural satellite internet service provider in the area.
Solid Waste
Solid waste in Jefferson County is managed by the Jefferson County Department of Public
Works. A municipal solid waste transfer station is located at the County's closed landfill outside
of Port Townsend, approximately 40 miles to the north of the Pleasant Harbor site, and a rural
drop box site is located in Quilcene for South Jefferson County residents, approximately 12
miles north of the site. ln20'12, a total of 17,543 tons of municipal solid waste were collected
through these two facilities, with 160 tons colleded from the Quilcene drop box site. The county
also processed 3,785 tons of recyclables, of which 84 tons and 98 tons came from the Quilcene
and Brinnon collections sites, respectively.l County waste is trucked from collection locations
to a facility in Tacoma, and then trans-loaded to railcars to the Roosevelt regional landfill in
Klickitat County. The Department of Public Works contracts with Skookum Educational
Programs to collect and process the county's recyclables at seven sites for free recycling; one
recycling collection station is located in Brinnon at the Dosewallips State Park.2
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan identifies a Level of Service (LOS) standard of 4.20
pounds of solid waste and 0.80 pounds of recycling waste per person per day.3
Currently, solid waste generation on the Pleasant Harbor site is limited to the existing single
family residences (B&B and Pleasant Harbor Hous$
l4taee+e*ien-€f-tho-€itd. S_oliC tvesle gelEletp'd_ 4 !I_e Plg?9?Ir! t!e-D-or--tl-9y9,e, i9 pr:e99!!Uy-
collected by Murre/s Disposal.
t Jefierson County Department of Public Works. DSEIS Comment Lettar from Richard Talbot. 30 Oecsmber 2014.
2 Jefferson County Department of Publac Works: http://,ieffersoncountysolidwaste.com/3-recycling-services/.
3 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Capilal Facilities Element.
3.14
Utilities
Comntented IDWJU: Real Eshre office is now closed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-2
3.16-2 lmoacts
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with
residential, commercial and golf courses uses, along with associated increases in population
and employment on the site. Increases in on-site population and employment would create
related increases in demand on water and sewer systems. Development of the Pleasant Harbor
site would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout.period. ln general, water and
sewer impacts would be similar under Alternatives 1,2W due to the similar levels of
development proposed under both alternatives (i.e. golf course, 890 residential units and
approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial space).
2007 Ers
Water
The 2007 EIS Proposed Action was noted to result in two sources of water demand: potable
water demand for resort operations and irrigation, and nonpotable uses of water for operation
and maintenance of the golf course and marina. Maximum annual water utilization was
anticipated to reach 137 acIe feet. The water supply approach for the development was based
on an integrated use of groundwater (wells), rainwater harvesting, and treatment and reuse of
wastewater (reclaimed water). Groundwater wells would serve as the potable water supply
source for the resort. Water for other uses, such as for toilet flush and irrigation was to come
from stored reclaimed water and from stormwater runoff and rainwater collected from the site.
The existing kettles were to be used for water storage (1 10 million gallons) by grading and lining
the bottoms of the kettles.
The estimated daily potable water demand was approximately 87,300 gpd total, from 62,300
gallons per day (gpd) at 70 gpd per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for residential uses and
25,000 gpd for commercial uses. The EIS noted that total conventional water storage
requirements were approximately 189,530 gallons for an average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU.
Sewer
The 2007 EIS noted that an onsite waste treatment and disposal system would be used for the
Pleasant Harbor site in order to avoid wastewater discharge to Hood Canal or the harbor.
Several alternatives capable of creating water that could be recycled and reused on the site
were presented in the 2007 ElS, including sequencing batch reactor, membrane bioreactor, and
recirculating biofilter (see 2007 DEIS Section 3.1.1.1 for more information). The EIS noted that
all residential and commercial wastewater collected within the development was to be treated to
a Class A reuse standard and reused onsite for nonpotable purposes.
Telecommunications and Solid Waste
Telecommunications and solid waste were not addressed in the 2007 ElS.
sEts
ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, utility demands (water, sewer, telecommunications and
garbage) would be similar, except that the existing Marina is no longer part of the SEIS site.
Water is proposed to be supplied from the same sources identified in the 2007 ElS, including an
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-3
3.14
UAfiAes
integrated use of groundwater (wells), rainwater harvesting and treatment and reuse of
wastewater, and a new water distribution system would need to be construcled. As well, the
daily potable water demand has been calculated at 175/ERU gpd, versus 70 gpd/ERU in the
2007 ElS. All wastewater within the development under the SEIS Alternatives is proposed to be
treated to a Class A reuse standard and reused onsite for nonpotable purposes, as was the
case with the 2007 ElS. A waste treatment and disposal system has been selected for the
proposal, as detailed below; the 2007 EIS noted that several options were available.
Water
Construction
A new water distribution system would be required to be built throughout the site under
Alternatives 'l , 2 aN 3. The new system would be constructed under or near new roadways to
reduce the need for clearing and grading (see Figures 3.16-'l and 3.16-2). ln some locations,
the water system could cross golf fairuvays to reduce overall length or to provide for looped
connections to improve flow rate and pressure. The water distribution system would be within
easements if required. Construction activities related to installation of the distribution mains
may include temporary disruptions in service to some onsite areas; noise and dust during
construciion; and construction-related traffic to deliver pipe and other materials to the site.
Operation
Under Alternatives '1 , 2 and 3, it is anticipated that a multi-purpose utility district would own,
operate and maintain the new water system, however, the new water system would be required
to comply with the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Section 5.6 Utility Service
Review Procedure. System user fees would be paid to the districl to cover the ongoing costs of
the system. Those costs would be expected to increase over time concurrent with the costs of
supplies and labor.
Domestic water on the Pleasant Harbor site would be provided under water rights granted by
the Washington Department of Ecology on June 16, 2010. The water right provides the right to
withdraw 254 acre-feet per year, including '121 acre-feet per year for domestic and commercial
use, 105 acre-feet per year for irrigation use, and 28 acre-feet per year for Fire Smart Program.
The existing onsite well within the Black Point campground would be rehabilitated, and a second
well would be drilled in one of two potential locations. The two wells would be available to
provide the capacity needed to serve the resort. A below-grade 360,0o0-gallon water storage
tank would be constructed on the property the Pth Tee And thg e?S! qlte pCg.llq.efy
Development of the site would be expected to generate an annual potable water supply demand
of at least 93 acre-feet per year, or approximately 30 million gallons. This is based on an
Average Daily Demand of 175 gpd/ERU and the expected seasonal residential occupancy. The
current water right of 1 31 acre-feet per year for municipal (potable) uses is sufficient to provide
this amount. Potable residential water use is projected to be approximately '132,000 gpd during
periods of maximum occupancy (85 percent) and 70,000 gpd during peak periods for
commercial uses. Average daily potable water use is anticipated to be reduced from 175
gpd/ERU to approximately 70 gpd/ERU with the use of low flow plumbing fixtures. This
represents a more conservative water demand in comparison to the 2007 ElS, which estimated
average daily demand of 70 gpd/ERU, with maximum daily demand up to 140 gpd/ERU. The
175 gpd/ERU used in this SDEIS is in compliance with a Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) condition placed on the project (condition 63 0) requiring all calculations for water to be
Commented [DWr2]: ChecL to confim on nw site plm. Mighr
be the 46 tee now.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
2015 3.164
3.16
Utilities
based on the standard of 175 gpd. The quality of waterwould be consistentwith Washington
State Department of Health Standards (see Section 3.2, Water Quality, for more information).
The above referenced water demand does not include golf course irrigation or fire protection,
which would be provided with rainwater and water reuse from the sanitary sewer treatment
plant that would be stored in the Kettle B irrigation pond, when completed. During initial phases
of development (i.e. before the Kettle B pond is completed), fire protection in some areas would
require potable water use, but during later phases, fire protection and irrigation water will be
provided from the irrigation system.
Kettle B would be partially filled and lined with synthetic liners to receive site stormwater runoff
along with Class A effluent from the wastewater treatment plant for irrigation and fire protection.
Kettle C, which would be reconstructed as a new created wetland, would also receive site runoff
if Kettle B reached capacity. The Kettle B irrigation pond would accommodate recycled water
from the wastewater treatment plant and surface runoff water collected from annual
precipitation. After construction of the inigation pond, reclaimed water would be used for
inigation of the golf course, percolation from infiltration fields to groundwater for aquifer
recharge, and irrigation within the naturally vegetated areas of the resort for a Fire-Smart
Preservation program. Recycled non-potable water pressure transmission piping system
throughout the resort would be used for firefighting and landscaping irrigation.
Under Alternatives 2W, Kettle B would not be reconfigured by mass grading as would occur
under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, Kettle B would have a total water volume of 60 million
gallons, whereas under Alternatives 2 ffifi, Kettle B would have double that capacity at 120
million gallons. This is similar to the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, which would have reconfigured
the keftle to have a 1 10 million gallon capacity.
Sewer
Because the existing septic systems are not consistent wlth proposed reclamation, construction
of a new distribution system and wastewater treatment plant would be required to serve the
development proposed underAlternatives 1 and 2 and 3, as well as a new gravity sewer system
and/or individual building sewer pump station and force mains connected to the gravity sewer
system. An on-site wastewater reclamation plant (WRP) is proposed capable of producing Class
A reclaimed water for irrigation. At its ultimate, the plant would be designed to treat 280,000
gallons per day.
Construction lmpacts
The new sewer collection system would be constructed within easements located under or
adjacent to roadways or across golf course fairways for efficient conveyanc€. The existing
septic and pump tanks and subsurface drainfields would be decommissioned in place or
removed after completion of the WRP. Construction activities related to installation of the
collection and conveyance system may include temporary disruptions in service to some
customers; noise and dust during the construction phase; and construction-related traffic to
deliver pipe and other materials to the construction sites (see Appendix Q for details).
Construction of a gravity collection system would likely have a longer duration than construction
of a pump station and forcemain system because gravity sewers are deeper than forcemains.
Deeper pipelines require longer excavation and backfill periods of time and also are more likely
to encounter difficult construction conditions including large glacially deposited rocks.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-5
3.16
Utilities
Construction of the wastewater recovery plant (WRP) would begin under Phase 2 of the projecl.
The marina area and existing LOSS would continue operating for the existing facilities until the
WRP is completed. (see Chapter 2 for more information on phasing).
Operational lmpacts
As noted above, in order to serve the development proposed under Alternatives 1, 2 W, a
new wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment plant would be built to convey and
treat sewage on the site. The collection system would include four pump stations and the
treatment plant would have the capacity to treat 280,000 gallons of wastewater per day to meet
the State of Washington requirements for a Class A Reclaimed Water Permit. Wastewater flow
and loading projeclions were based on the projected build-out population. The per capita
loading projections are inclusive of residential, commercial, and public facility land uses, and are
based on 175 gpd per ERU, until lower wastewater flows of approximately 70 gpd/ERU can be
verified through the proposed use of very low flow fixtures, meters and water conservation
measures.
The wastewater treatment plant would be located in the northwest corner of the site, and would
utilize a nutrient removal activated sludge process with clarifiers and filtration to produce Class
A effluent. Effluent use during initial phases of development would include sprinkler inigation in
the native plant nursery and subsurface drainfields in the west area of the site until Kettle B is
converted to a retention pond.
Operation of the new wastewater collection system, conveyance system, and treatment plant on
the site as proposed could result in transportation impacts for waste sludge from the site to a
processing facility, fuel for standby generators, and chemicals for the treatment processes.
Waste sludge would be hauled by tanker trucks along US Highway 101 to the treatment facility
near Shelton. Fuel and chemicals would be hauled to the site. Operation of a new wastewater
treatment plant on the site would also result in increased noise levels, release of odors, and
energy consumption (see Appendix Q for greater detail).
It is anticipated that a multi-purpose utility district would own, operate, and maintain the new
wastewater treatment and conveyance systems. System user fees would be paid to the district
to cover the ongoing costs of the system. Those costs would be expected to increase over time
concurrent with the costs of supplies and labor.
Telecommunications
Centurylink would continue to serve the site for telephone and DSL internet service, with
extensions from existing lines.
Solid Waste
Under the Alternatives 1 and 2 and 3, the amount of solid waste generated from uses on the
Pleasant Harbor site would substantially increase as compared to existing conditions where-
under the site is largely unused. For purposes of this EIS analysis, it is assumed that the 890
residential units could generate up to approximately 1,364 tons of solid waste per year: and that
commercial/retail uses would generate approximately 45 to 5'l tons of solid waste per year.
This is based on the assumption that each residential unit would be occupied by two persons,
with each person generaling 4.2 pounds of solid waste per day (County LOS standard) and that
commercial/retail uses would generate 5lbs/1 ,000 sq. ft./day (industry estimate). These are
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-6
3.16
Utilities
very conservative assumptions, as occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor Resort is anticipated to
fluctuate seasonally, with highest occupancy in the summer (85%). lt is assumed that a private
service would pick up solid waste and that a composting and recycling program would be
utilized to help reduce the solid waste stream.
No Action Alternative
Scenarlo A - Contlnuatlon of Exlstlno Condftions
Under Scanario A, it is assumed that no redevelopment of the site would occur and existing
water system infrastructure, telecommunications, sanitary sewer and solid waste conditions and
demands on the site would remain relatively unchanged.
Scenarlo B - Redevelooment under E'lrlsfino Land Use Deslonatlons
Under Scenario
residential area
a
B, it is presumed that the site would continue
with 30 residences and a thole golf course I
to develop as a single-family
based on the underlying rural
residential zoning. The to utilities would remain as described in the
3.16-3 MitigationMeasures
2007 Ets
Mitiqation Measures Completed
. Any project approval for the resort shall contain a condition that the applicant
demonstrates entitlement to sufficient water rights to serve the approved phase from
WDOE (water rights, transfer, and/or rainwater harvesting rights and use conditions)
prior to preliminary plat approval and construction of any facilities on the property.
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Priorto and Durinq Construction
Any project approval for the golf course area will require construction and operation
permits for a wastewater treatment system for the project by WDOE and an operational
plan in place as a condition of final plat approval and construction of any struclures for
occupancy or residency.
Any project approval for the Maritime Village remodel and upgrade shall include a
demonstration that existing facilities can adequately serve the remodel areas. No
additional residential units would be approved until the sewer system is installed and
operating.
a
I lWrohington Sea Gmt Program - Univeaity of Wchington
Pleasant Harbot Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-7
3.16
Utilities
2007 Final ElS. Water would continue to be provided existing community wells or individual
wells, and sewage and wastewater would continue to be treated by individual septic systems
and drainfields. Solid waste pickup and disposal would need to be coordinated with a local
provider. Overall, utility demands would be less than SEIS Alternatives 1,2 and 3, but
coordinated systems to serve the site would not be
1
BoGG Conditions
The following mitigation measures identified by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) are applicable to Alternatives 1,2 g@9.
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction
o 63 (m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water
rights and an adequate water supply.
63 (n) Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health,
and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be
required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new
development.
63 (0) Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that water
quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is
based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU) for the development using a standard of 175 gallons per day (gpd). The goal of
the development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on
the standard of 175 gpd.
SEIS
ln addition to the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and the BoCC conditions,
the following utility mitigation measures would also apply:
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction
Water
o All proposed water system improvements would be designed and constructed in
compliance with applicable local and State regulations, including: Jefferson County,
Washington State Department of Health, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4.
a Actual domestic water service requirements will be determined at the time of specific
land use applications, based on population projections, then current metered use
records, and fixture counts. The fire flow requirements will be based on building types
and sprinkler usage. Water meters will be installed at each building or at another
connection point using water and pipe/meter sizes to be determined on the basis of
domestic flow rates and early construction phase fire flow rates. Fire flow will be
provided by the projecl inigation/fire flow system following completion and filling of the
irrigation pond in Kettle B.
The district would notify existing customers in advane,e of potential temporary disruptions
to service during new water main construction.
Over the course of the poected 1O-year development of Pleasant Harbor Marina and
Golf Resort and the extension of fiber optic cabling throughout the project, it may be
possible that technologies could be implemented to more closely monitor the infiltration
of re-use water and stormwater runoff and befter control distribution of these resources.
Pleasant Hatbor Final Supplemental EIS
a
a
a
a
3.16
Utilities_ 2015 3.16-8
Sewer
The Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort would comply with all applicable
wastewater colleclion, treatment, and reuse criteria set forth by the multi-purpose utility
district, County, and State permit conditions.
3.16{ SignificantUnavoidableAdverselmpacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would result in an increased demand for utilities. With
implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to
utilities would be anticipated.
a
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.16-9
3.16
Utilities
3.17 Public Services
This seclion of the SEIS describes existing fire, police, school and healthcare services, and
evaluates how each of the alternatives would affect these public services.
3.17.1 FIRE and EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
3.17.1-1 AffectedEnvironment
2007 Ets
The 2007 EIS noted that the Pleasant Harbor site is located within Jefferson County Fire
Protection Distric{ #4, which provides both fire protection and EMS. District #4 serves
approximately 131 square miles and operates out of three fire stations, located as detailed
below.
a Fire Station 41 - Headquarters - 272 Schoolhouse Road, Brinnon WA
Fire Station 42 - Duckabush Fire Station - 51 Shorewood Drive, Brinnon, WA
Fire Station 43 - Maury Anderson Station - 341 Beemill Road, Brinnon, WA
a
a
Station 42, located approximately within a mile of the site (to the west), is the closest station to
Pleasant Harbor. The EIS stated that on average, EMS calls accounted for approximately two-
thirds of the annual call volume, and that call volumes in the Brinnon/Black Point area increase
significantly in the summer, when more people are in the area to stay at their summer homes,
take extended vacations on local properties, and visit State parks and other recreation
amenities.
The 2007 EIS noted that District #4 crews must bring their own water when responding to a fire
anywhere in the district, which results in a limited water supply for fighting fires, and potential
fire truck maneuverability and access issues on narrow, steep roads. Also, the existing
Pleasant Harbor Marina complex was noted to pose a particular challenge for District #4
firefighters because of the narrow, steep access road, which will be remediated under an
amendment to the existing Marina Binding Site Plan.
sErs
Since publication of the 2007 EIS (see 2007 FEIS Section 3.5 for the description of the status of
these services), Fire Station 43 was forced to close. The Brinnen Fire Ghief has alee indieated
that#ire-Station 42 may-n666-1"56"t been closed @iE.
The fire district is pursuing other locations to accommodate the existing equipment at these fire
stations.
Pleasant Hatbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services_2015 3.17-1
Updated fire and EMS call information is provided in below Table 3.'17-1 for Fire District #4. As
shown, the majority of calls are for EMS.
Table 3.17-1
FIRE DISTRICT #4 - FIRE AND EMS CALLS 2008.2012
EMS Calls Fire/Rescue
Calls
Total Calls
2008 146 82 228
2009 171 93 264
20't0 146 103 249
201',!155 65 220
2012 44 29 73
2013 161 88 249
Source: Brinnon Department:
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a goal of
having '1.25 fire units and 0.5 EMS units in service per 1,000 population.
3.17.1-2 lmpacts
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with
residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and
employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related
increases in demand for fire and EMS services. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would
occur gradually over the assumed 10-year buildout period.
2007 Ets
The 2007 EIS noted that development of the Master Plan would add an additional 80 permanent
residential units to the community and 52 staff apartments. The resort development's winter or
permanent population was projected to increase by 200 to 300 people, which would translate
into a few additional calls for service, but was determined to be well within the capacity of the
existing facilities and services and anticipated growth. During the summer, a resort population
of 1,500 to 2,000 people was anticipated to strain existing personnel and services and
equipment. Accordingly, the 2007 EIS identified measures (outlined in Section 3.17.'1,{, below)
to mitigate impacts to fire and EMS services.
sEls
Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to fire and EMS services under either SEIS Alternatives 1 2
or 3 would be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. The 2007 EIS
Proposed Action included a golf course and resort with 890 residential units and approximately
79,000 square feet of commercial uses located on the Black Point campground and the upland
portion of the marina area. Under either Alternative 1 ,_Alternative 2 or 3, the number of total
residential units remains the same (and consequently the number of people on the site
potentially creating service demands would be anticipated to be similar), but the overall square
footage of commercial uses has been reduced to from 73,000 sq. ft. under the 2007 EIS to
56,680 square feet in Alternative 2 and 3 and less than 50,000 square feet underAlternative 1.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
201 5
3.17
Public Senrices3.17-2
As well, the site acreage has been reduced to 231 acres as compared to 256 acres under the
2007 ElS, with the elimination of the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina from the site area.2 ln
general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1 2 or 3 would result in associated
increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the
site, which would result in related increases in demand for fire and EMS services. As noted for
the 2007 ElS, demand for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort
would be anticipated to be operating at a fuller capacity, with at least 85 percrnt occupancy.
Construction lmpacts
During the development and construction process for the Pleasant Harbor site under either
Alternative 1,2 ot 3, Jefferson County Fire District No. 4 would be involved in the review and
inspeciion of permit applications for new development infrastructure on the site. The District
would also conduct final on-site inspections for new development to ensure that construction
complies with applicable fire safety standards. Fire Department service calls related to
inspec{ion of speciflc construction projects onsite and to respond to potential construc{ion-
related accidents and injuries would increase as a result of new development and construction.
Site preparation and construction of new infrastructure and buildings could also increase the risk
of a medical emergency or accidental fire.
Operational lmpacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 would occur gradually
over the assumed 1O-year buildout of the site and associated demands on fire and EMS
services would increase incrementally over that time period. Under either Alternative 1,2 ot 3,
890 residential units would be provided onsite, including 560 short term tourist residential units
and 278long term units. The 278 permanent units, plus 52 units for staff housing could result in
a permanent onsite population of b6d(nctqdi_ng '!94 emplqyegg). A! wqll, eqEjlig4q!y!9j!glq,
both overnight and day trip, would be on the site, adding to general activity levels. New
development under either Alternative 1,2 ot 3 would, therefore, result in an increase in on-site
residents, visitors and employees as compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that the
increased on-site population (both permanent and temporary) would result in an increase in the
number of calls for fire and emergency medical service from the Pleasant Harbor site; demand
for services would likely be greatest in the summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be
operating at peak capacity. Based on historic calls for service over the last five years (see
Table 3.17-1), it would be expected that the majority of the calls generated from new
development on the Pleasant Harbor site would be EMS calls.
As noted previously, Jefferson County's goal for Brinnon is to maintain 1.25fire units and 0.5
EMS units per 1,000 population. Accordingly,0.83 fire units and 0.33 EMS units could be
required for the permanent site population of 660 residents and employees. An MOU is being
negotiated with the Brinnon Fire Department to address potential impacts resulting from
increased demand for services.
The MOU currently states that the Resort shall provide to the Department the sum of
$10,000.00 per quarter commencing 45 days before the anticipated start of construction or
demolition in order to offset the cost of providing EMS and fire responses during the
2 Structures wilhin the existing Pleasant Harbor Marina would be renovated or replaced, as a separate action within
the existing Binding Site Plan permit. This projecl under the existing BSP does not require additional SEPA review
and is not evalualed in the SEIS.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemen/r,l EIS 3.17
Public Services
CommcnEd [DWJlt: Numbr conflids vith number on page
3.12-6
_2015 3.17-3
construction time period. This amount will continue until the increase in Property Value
Assessment is reflecled in the Resort's tax payments and the Resort has paid their property
taxes for the year of the increase. Such financial contributions would be expected to help offset
potential increases in calls for service as related to the new Pleasant Harbor resort
development.
Proposed new development under Alternatives 1,2 ot 3 would be constructed in compliance
with applicable codes, including the Uniform Fire Code and the lnternational Building Code, as
adopted by the Jefferson County Code. Adequate fire flow to serve the proposed development
would be provided as required by these codes (see Section 3.16, Utilities). Specific
requirements regarding emergency access to structures would also be adhered to, as required
by the Fire Code.
No Action Alternative
Under Scenario B, it is presumed that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning.
and EMS services would be as described in the 2007 Final ElS.
The to fire
3.17.1-3 MitisationMeasures
2007 Ers
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durino Construction
Any preliminary plat for the development of a portion of the resort shall require the following:
. Ensure the onsite water system will provide for adequate sustainable fire flow.
o All resort buildings to include internal sprinkler systems with FDC connections.
r lncorporate Firewise site design standards in the layout of the proposed resort, as
appropriate and approved by the local fire authority.
o All subsurface parking will have to provide fire systems, including air handling, water,
and emergency access and egress.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services_2015 3.174
lnstall hydrants, two portable fire pumps with hoses and related fire suppression
equipment at the marina and maintenance area as approved by the local fire authority.
Develop an "emergency aciion plan" with the Fire District l# 4l in conjunction with
predevelopment, development, and operation to assure clear lines of responsibility and
response in the event of any incident reguiring emergency response.
Any development of the existing marina complex as part of an MPR shall include
improving emergency vehicle access to this portion of the resort.
Through a memorandum of agreement with District #4, provide the equipment necessary
to mount rescue and fire fighting operations on any structure over 18 feet from ground
level, including but not limited to the Condotel/Conference Center Building.
Enter into an 'action plan" with the local fire authority at District #4 to assure coordinated
control of additional services necessary to achieve an adequate level of service to the
resort.
Provide a back-up electrical power supply to the resort to ensure continued operation of
emergency systems and water supply during any outage.
Comply with the provisions of a memorandum of agreement with local service providers
to address service equipment and personnel needs created by the resort, taking into
consideration increased tax revenues from the resort activity.
Enter into a memorandum of understanding with the local fire authority to address the
following issues:
"Firewise" design standards
"Emergency action plan" for predevelopment and operational service for each phase
of development
Provide necessary facilities to mount rescue and fire fighting operations in all phases
of the resort
"Action plan" for coordinated control and additional services
BoGG Gonditions
Mitioation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Gonstruction
63(c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs,
dock access, loading and unloading, and parking.
o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson
County Fire District t 4, DBA Brinnon Fire Department.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services
a
a
a
t
a
_2015 3.17-5
a
SEIS
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC
conditions, no additional mitigation measures for fire, medical and public services would be
necessary.
3.17.14 Significant UnavoidableAdverse lmpacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 2, or 3 would result in
increased demand for fire and EMS services from new uses and population. With
implementation of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse fire or
EMS impacts would be anticipated.
3.17.2 POLIGE SERVIGES
3.17.2-1 AftectedEnvlronment
2007 Ers
The 2007 EIS noted that police protection to the site is provided by the Jefferson County
Sheriff s Office, which serves all of the unincorporated areas in the County. The Sheriffs Office
is located at the Justice Center in Port Hadlock and also maintains an office at the Courthouse
in Port Townsend, a substation in Clearwater, and an annex in Quilcene. The Brinnon/Black
Point area is in the Sheriffs Patrol District 55. The 2007 EIS noted that deputies were
dispatched to the Brinnon/Black Point area from the Justice Center in Port Hadlock or the
Quilcene annex. The 2007 EIS noted that calls in the 55 District primarily related to traffic
violations, DUI arrests and burglaries.
sEts
The existing status of police service providers (Jefferson County Sheriffs Office) has generally
remained similar to that presented in the 2007 EIS (see FEIS Section 3.5 for a description of the
existing status of these services), except that the Quilcene sub-station has been closed due to
budget cuts.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) identifies a proposed
Level of Service (LOS) of 244.5 sq. ft. of dedicated sheriff administrative space per 1,000
population. The Capital Facilities Element states that the proposed LOS would not require any
additional space by the end of the planning period (2010), and no capacity projects are required.
3.17.2-2 Impacts
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community with
residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and
employment on the site. lncreases in on-site population and employment would create related
increases in demand for police services. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site would occur
gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout period.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services_2015 3.17-A
2007 Ers
The 2007 EIS noted that the population on-site would increase as a result of the Proposed
Action, and similar to fire and EMS, associated increases in the need for police services would
be generated. The resort is located at the southern end of the County and coordination to
address the need for additional services was determined to be important. lt was determined that
police staffing and facilities would be adequate to serve the increase in site population
anticipated under the Proposed Action.
sErs
Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacls to police services under either SEIS Alternative 1 or 2
would be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action. The 2007 EIS Proposed
Action included a golf course and resort with 890 residential units and approximately 79,000 sq.
ft. of commercial uses located on the Black Point campground and the upland portion of the
marina area. Under the current proposal, the number of total residential units remains the same,
although the overall square footage of commercial uses has been reduced from 73,000 sq. ft
under the 2007 EIS to 56,680 square feet for Alternativefi 2W and less than 50,000 square
feet under Alternative 1. ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1 2, W
would result in associated increases in permanent residents, reso( visitors (both day and
overnight) and employees on the site, which could result in related increases in demand for
police services. As noted for the 2007 ElS, demand for serviccs would likely be greatest in the
summer, when the resort would be anticipated to be operating at full capacity.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort could result in an
increased demand for police services during the 1O-year construction period. Service calls
could increase during construclion due to trespassing, construction site theft, vandalism and
traffic incidents due to construction traffic. The construction site would be secured to prevent
trespassing, vandalism and to avoid accidents involving the public. As well, the Resort's
existing security staff and security systems would be maintained and increased as needed.
With the implementation of these measures, overall construction impacts on police services
would be short-term and would not be substantial. Existing staffing and equipment are
expected to be sufficient to handle increased calls for services associated with construction
activities over the buildout period.
Operation
Potential increases in on-site population and employment associated with new development
under Alternatives 1, 2 Wtould be incremental and could result in associated incremental
increases in demand for police services. lt is anticipated that annual ca.ll _volumes to the
Jefferson County Sheriffs Office could increase under Alternatives '1, 2 ffi. ln order to
reduce potential impac{s to the Jefferson County Sherriffs Office, the Resort would maintain
security staff sufficient to provide twenty four hour a day, seven day a week service to the site
including roving patrol, video systems, intrusion systems and gated entry, as necessary.
Consistent with Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LOS guidelines, a 500 sq. ft. "public
service room" would be provided on the resort for the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office, if the
Sheriff indicates that the space would be useful (see Appendix R). The public service room
would be exclusively for county law enforcement use. With the provision of onsite law
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services_2015 3.17-7
enforcement room and implementation of onsite security measures, significant impacts to the
Jefferson County Sheriffs Office would not be anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Under it is that site would continue to develop as a single-family
residential area based on the underlying rural residential zoning. The
services would remain as described in the 2007 Final ElS.
3.',7.2-3 illltlgatlon tleasures
2007 Ets
Mitiqation Measures to be lmolemented Prior to and During Construction
Project Level: Permit approval for both the marina and the golf resort shall address
security-related issues, and shall include specific mitigation which may include:
Controlled access at the entry and exit points of the resort and docks. Onsite security
and surveillance systems for the protection of resort guests, residents, and property
coordinated with local service providers to assure appropriate communication and
control systems are in place.
Community level: Explore the use of a development agreement or other assurance to
provide a mechanism for the County to provide some public safety funding to the
Brinnon area from the revenues received from the resort to assure that the funds will not
be diverted to the more populous north county.
BoGG Gonditions
Mitiqation Measures to be lmolemented Priorto and Durinq Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services
a
a
a
_2015 3.17-8
A, it is assumed that no redevelopmeflt of the site would occur and
services demands on the site would
to
with correspondingly less revsfiue to support services- The addition of 30
represent an increase of approximately 4 to 5 percent of the
a corresponding increase in calls for sheriff services
population in the
area, and would be anticipated.
in the 2007 ElS, such an increase would be within the overall planned
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs,
dock access, loading and unloading, and parking.
o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and the Jefferson
County Sheriff.
sEts
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC
conditions, no additional mitigation measures for sheriff services would be necessary.
3.17.24 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 Or 3 would result in
increased demand for police services from new uses and population. With implementation of
identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to sheriff services
would be anticipated.
3.17,3 PUBLTG SCHOOLS
3.',7.3-1 AlfectedEnvlronment
2007 Ets
The 2007 EIS noted that the Pleasant Harbor site is located within Brinnon School District #46,
which serves grades K through 8; students of high school age have a choice of schools in
adjacent districts. District enrollment in 2000 totaled 74 students. Enrollment declined to a low
of between 30 and 40 students in 2005, and increased to 56 students in the 2005/2006 school
year, and 49 students in 200G12007. The Brinnon Subarea Plan identifies a Level of Service
(LOS) standard of 23 students per classroom. With four regular classrooms and two portables,
the school can accommodate up to 'l 38 students based on the established LOS standard. The
EIS noted that Brinnon School district lf46 experienced excess capacity from 2000 to 2006.
sErs
School enrollment in the Brinnon School District has declined since publication of the 2007 ElS.
Table 3.17-2 details the student population for the years 20081o 2012.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services_2015 3.17-9
Table 3.17-2
BRIN NON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLM ENT : 2008-201 2
Supedntandent of Public
lnstruction
Besides declining enrollment and increased excess capacity, existing school conditions have
generally remained as described in the 2007 ElS.
3.17.3-2 lmpacts
New development on the Pleasant Harbor site would result in a new resort community wilh
residential, commercial and golf course uses, along with associated increases in population and
employment on the site. lncreases in the permanent on-site population and employment could
result in new students to the area school district. Development of the Pleasant Harbor site
would occur gradually over the assumed 1O-year buildout period.
2007 Ers
The 2007 EIS concluded that the construction phase of the project would not result in additional
school age children in the area, since the construction crew camp would be temporary quarters,
and most families would be expected to attend school in their home districts. As the permanent
population increased (both staff and permanent residents), some increase in school age
population was anticipated, though minor. While staff increases were noted to be great in the
summer, this staff was anticipated to be primarily single adults or families without children. The
longer term resort families were predicted to be largely over the age of 55, and therefore to have
limited children of school age, particularly K-8. Therefore, the EIS estimated a potential annual
increase of 5 to 10 students in grades K-8, and one to two students in high school. The EIS
stated that specific mitigation agreements with the School were to be addressed as part of the
preliminary plat process for the golf crurse.
sEts
ln comparison to the 2007 ElS, the specific number of housing units that would be devoted to
permanent residents versus short term visitors has been defined for SEIS Alternatives 't , Z aty&
$
Residential development and associated increases in the on-site population under Alternatives
1, 2flf.F]d{Eg would generate some additional student enrollment in the Brinnon School District. lt
is assumed that only permanent residents of the site would potentially have children that could
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services
ofof
2006 56
2007 49
31
2009 29
2010 33
2011 38
2012 35
_ 2015 3.17-10
be enrolled in the Brinnon School District, as the rest of the site units would be occupied by
temporary, short-term visitors. Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, 52 staff housing units and 276
293 resort units would be reserved for permanent use. The remaining 562{lX units would be
for seasonal/occasional use.
lncreases in on-site population and associated student generation would occur incrementally as
the Pleasant Harbor site develops over the full buildout period and would be accompanied by
subsequent increases in demand for public school services.
For the purposes of this SEIS analysis, potential impacts to public schools were projected for
the development of the Pleasant Harbor site based on the projected population for the site
under either Alternative 1,2 ot 3. The 2010 US Census indicates that approximately 6.8
percent of the Brinnon population is school-age children (ages 5 to 19 years), including
approximately 1.4 percent between the ages of 5 and 9 years old (elementary school),
approximately 2.3 percent between the ages of 10 and l4 years old (middle schooUjunior high),
and 3.1 percent between the ages of 15 to 19 years (high school). This percentage was used in
conjunction with the projected permanent population for the Pleasant Harbor site to estimate the
potential number of students that could be generated from permanent onsite residential
development under either Alternative 1 , 2 ot 3. Table 3.17-3 summarizes the potential students
that could be generated from development of the Pleasant Harbor site at buildout.
Table 3.17-3
PLEASANT HARBOR ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION
-ALTERNATIVESl &2
1 Approximately 3.7 percent of the total (2010 US Census).
2 Approximately 3.1 perc€nt of the total population (2010 US Census).
As noted previously, the Brinnon School District only accommodates students in grades K-8.
Based on existing school capacity and current enrollment data (see Table 3.'|7-2), the Brinnon
School District currently has excess capacity that could accommodate an additional 24 students
in grades K-8. Development under either Alternative 1,2 or 3 also includes execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Brinnon School District that would contribute to
exploring ways to increase revenue to the District's budget. lmplementation of this MOA would
help to offset any potential impacls resufting from increased student population as a result of
resort development. lt should also be noted that the student generation estimate presented in
Table 3.17-3 is very conservative, because permanent housing associated with the resort is
likely to be marketed to an older/retirement age demographic - an age set with minimal
potential to generate K-12 students.
Pleasant Hatbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services
Alternatives 1, 2 660
_2015 3.17-11
PotenUal
Pelmanerltsh
Populatlon
Grades K-8
Studentsr
High School
Studentss
Total
Studentr
24 20 44
No Action Alternative
Under it is that the site would continue to develop as a single-family
3.1+3 Mltigation Measures
2007 Ets
Estimates for planning purposes are that the project will increase the Brinnon School
District by 5-10 students and the adjacent district for high school by 1-2 students in any
given year. Specific mitigation agreements with the School will be addressed as part of
the preliminary plat process for the golf course.
BoGG Gonditions
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and During Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), houslng, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs,
dock access, loading and unloading, and parking.
o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Brinnon School
District #46.
sEls
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC
conditions, no additional mitigation measures for public schools would be necessary.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Services
a
a
_2015 3.17-12
atea based on the The
in
to 6 re+Wnt, sf::ilre p*pulatia*,]n the
an
revenue to support
of approxirnately 4
correspondingly
an tflcrees6resresGnt
a {:onesponding inoreese jit
f;l$, such an in€resse wpuld
andarea,antioipated,
the 2W7tn
school demands
3.17.34 Siqnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmoacts
Development and occupancy of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1, 2 ffi would
result in new students to the area school district. With implementation of identified mitigation
measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public schools would be anticipated.
3.17.4 HEALTH SERVIGES
3.17.+1 AftectedEnvlronment
2007 Ets
The 2007 EIS noted that the Brinnon Black Point area does not currently have a medical facilig.
The area is served by Jefferson General Hospital in Port Townsend and Mason General
Hospital in Shelton. A medical clinic was also established in Quilcene, supported by Jefferson
General Hospital.
sErs
Health care service conditions have generally remained the same as described in the 2007 EIS
3.17.+2 lmpacts
2007 Ers
The 2007 EIS noted that the proposal included 5001 sq. ft. of clinic space in the development of
the Maritime Village for a certified nurse and/or a general practitioner. Selected staff would also
be provided with basic emergency medical training.
sErs
Compared to the 2007 ElS, impacts to health care services under either SEIS Alternative 1,2 W
$ would likely be similar to those identified for the 2007 EIS Proposed Action in that the same
number of residential units are proposed (890), which would likely result in similar numbers of
people on-site. However, the number of units devoted to a permanent residential population has
been specified for the SEIS, and the permanent population would be likely to make more regular
use of health care services in the vicinity.
ln general, new development under either SEIS Alternative 1,2 fufi would result in associated
increases in permanent residents, resort visitors (both day and overnight) and employees on the
site, which could result in related increases in demand for health care services. lt is anticipated
that health care service needs would primarily be related to accidental injury or unanticipated
illness. However, permanent residents of the site, as well as employees, would also have basic
and specialty health care needs which would require doctor visits. ln order to provide health
care services in proximity to site residents and visitors, as well as to reduce the increased
demand on Jefferson Healthcare, approximately 500 sq. ft. of clinic space would be provided on
site for a certified nurse and/or general practitioner that would be staffed and equipped by
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.17-13
3.17
Public Services
Pleasant Harbor resort. ln addition, select resort staff would receive training to the level of first
responder with ongoing training in CPR, AED, Orygen Administration and First Aid. With the
implementation of these measures, significant impacts to health care services would not be
anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Under it is presumed that the site would continue to asa
potentia
Alternatives 1, 2
3.17.1l.3 illltlsatlonMeasures
2007 Ets
Mitiqation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and Durinq Construction
Project-specific mitigation shall be addressed in the public services memorandum of
understanding (MOU), which shall address reasonable site needs and the means of
providing and paying for services. The MOU shall be in place prior to issuance of
building permits for development of resort facilities.
o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson
HealthCare.
BoGG Gonditions
Mitigation Measures to be lmplemented Prior to and DurinE Construction
63 (c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant
Harbor Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs,
dock access, loading and unloading, and parking.
o See Appendix R for the draft MOU between the Applicant and Jefferson
HealthCare.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS 3.17
Public Sarvic*
a
_2015 3.17-14
a
4 ta'$ofcour$e would represent an inffease
in the
sEts
With the implementation of the 2007 EIS mitigation measures and compliance with the BoCC
conditions, no additional mitigation measures for health services would be necessary.
3.17.44 Slgnificant Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts
Development of the Pleasant Harbor site under either Alternative 1 2, ai $ would result in
increased demand for health care services from new uses and population. With implementation
of identified mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to health services
would be anticipated.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015
3.17
Public Services3.17-1 5
3.{8 BoGG Gonditions
This section of the SEIS provides a background of the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioner (BoCC) conditions placed on the MPR proposal as presented in the 2007 ElS, as
well as the status of compliance with each of the BoCC conditions. Since publication of the
2007 ElS, the applicant (Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP) has revised the master
plan to address the 30 conditions placed on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the
BoCC, to comply with the new Shoreline Plan buffer of 150 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM),
(Alternative 3).
This section also includes a programmatic review of the consistency of the proposal with the
preliminary zoning regulations for the Brinnon MPR and the preliminary development agreement
for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. The preliminary development agreement and
zoning regulations are contained in Appendix S of this SEIS.
BoGG Conditions Background
The Statesman Group of Companies (Statesman) applied to Jefferson County for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2006 for a Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation in the
Brinnon subarea. This application was processed with the County's 2007 docket of annual
Comprehensive Plan amendments. ln September 2007, Jefferson County completed a
programmatic-level EIS that addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could
occur as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and MPR approval for the
proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort project. The MPR proposal represented a
change in land use for the project site, from rural to urban, and proposed 890 units of housing,
an 18-hole golf course, and commercial space along the marina and at the golf course.
ln 2008, the Jefferson County BoCC conditioned the approval of the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort (BMPR) Comprehensive Plan Amendment with 30 conditions, as well as
requiring project-level review of the MPR proposal (including environmental review of the
proposed Zoning Code amendments and draft Development Agreement required to implement
the proposal). Accordingly, this Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS)
prepared under Chapter 43.21C RCW provides project-level environmental review to
supplement programmatic environmental review completed with the 2007 ElS.
The project proposal as reflected in this SEIS has been modified in a number of ways since the
2007 EIS in order to respond to and comply with the BoCC conditions. as well as chanoes
initiated bv the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts, The 2007 EIS Proposed Action
included a master plan for a golf course resort on the Black Point campground and the marina
area. Since 2008, the applicant has revised the master plan to address the 30 conditions placed
on the BMPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the BoCC and to comply with the new SMP
buffer of 150 feet. The SEIS Alternatives have been drafted to conform to the conditions and the
SMP buffer,
Master Plan.
and reduce the for environmental im associated with the
While Alternatives 1 2 include golf course and the same total number
of residential units as the 2007 EIS Proposed Action, the distribution of the units are more
consolidated under the SEIS Alternatives in order to reduce the amount of impervious area. The
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-1
3.18
BoCC Conditions
layout of the golf course in Alternatives 2 and 3 is also revised to reduce the amount of cut and
fill necessary as compared to Alternative 1, and more closely follow the existing topography.
As well, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 relocate the proposed Maritime Village out of the shoreline
management area to a new location near U.S. Hwy 101. Redevelopment of the marina area is
permitted under an existing Binding Site Plan (BSP) which allows for re-modeling or completion
of previously approved structures within their building footprints. As a result, a portion of the
Maritime Village is no longer included as a part of the site and the overall site area analyzed in
this SEIS is less than that analyzed in the 2007 ElS.
Gompliance with BoGG Gonditions
Table 3.18-1, below, outlines all thirty BoCC conditions, indicates measures intended to comply
with the conditions, and indicates the etatus of actions intended to comply with the conditions.
As indicated below, several of these conditions that have yet to be finalized or would be
addressed in the Development Agreement between the County and the Applicant.
Table 3.18-1
BoCC CONDITIONS
BoCC #Gondition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
a Any analysis of environmental
impacts is to be based on
science and data pertinent to
the Brinnon site. This includes
rainfall projections, runoff
projections, and potential
impacts on Hood Canal.
The analysis of environmental
impacts contained in the SEIS is
based on site specific data,
including rainfall projections,
runoff projections and potential
impacts to Hood Canal. See
SDEIS Section 3.2, Water
Resources, and Appendix F for
more information.
Measures
intended for
compliance
completed.
b All applications will be given
an automatic SEPA threshold
determination of
Determ ination of Sig nificance
(DS) at the project level
except where the SEPA-
responsible official determines
that the application results in
only minor construction.
The proposal was automaticallv
given a Determination of
Sig nificance. initiatinq €n€€te,ber
+q#O$an+th is project-level
Su pplemental E I S-*as+repared.
e Marina redevelo
determined by the SEPA
responsible officialto be minor
construction and therefore not
included in the SEIS.
Measures
intended for
compliance
completed.
c The project developer will be
required to negotiate
memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of
agreement (MOA) to provide
needed support for the
Brinnon school, fire district,
Emergency Medical Services
MOU's have been negotiated with
Brinnon School District #46,
Jefferson County Fire Protection
District #4, Jefferson County
Sherriff's Office, Jefferson Transit,
Jefferson Healthcare, and
Jefferson County (housing). No
MOU has been neqotiated for
Measure
intended for
compliance
partially fulfilled
The following
MOU's are in
draft form and/or
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.18-2
3.18
BoCC Conditions
(EMS), housing, police, public
health, parks and recreation,
and transit prior to approval of
the development agreement.
Such agreements will be
encouraged specifically
between the developer
and the Pleasant Harbor
Yacht Club, and with the Slip
owner's Association regarding
marina use, costs, dock
access, loading and
unloading, and parking.
parks and recreation; however,
public amenities are proposed
within the development (see
Conditions 63d below). Some of
the MOU's are in draft form and
have yet to be signed by the
Applicant and agency/district.
The marina area has been
removed from the SEIS site
boundary, as this area is now
subject to an existing Binding Site
Plan, which does not require
additional environmental review.
As the upland marina area is no
longer being reviewed under this
SEIS, no agreements have been
negotiated with the Pleasant
Harbor Yacht Club or the Slip
owner's Association.
have yet to be
signed by the
agency/district:
Fire District;
Sherriff's Office;
Jefferson
Transit; and
Housing
(County).
The MOU with
Jefferson
Healthcare and
Brinnon School
District have
been signed by
the appropriate
agencies.
d A list of required amenities
shall be in the development
agreement along with
conditions for public access
A list of amenities that would be
provided as part of the proposal is
summarized in Chapter 2 of this
SEIS, with a detailed list in
Appendix S. Public access
conditions shall be included in the
Development Agreement between
the Applicant and the County.
Wbe
addressed in the
Development
Agreement
e Statesman shall advertise and
give written notice at libraries
and post offices in East
Jefferson County and recruit
locally to fill opportunities for
contracting and employment,
and will prefer local applicants
provided they are qualified,
available, and competitive in
terms of pricing.
This condition shall be negotiated
in the Development Agreement
between the Applicant and the
County.
Wbe
addressed in the
Development
Agreement
t Statesman will prioritize the
sourcing of construction
materials from within
Jefferson County.
This condition shall be negotiated
in the Development Agreement
between the Applicant and the
County.
lnt*gded,to be
addressed in the
Development
Agreement
g The developer shall
commission a study of the
A study on the number of jobs
expected to be created as a result
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-3
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCC #Condition Measures lntended for
Comoliance
Status
Measures
intended to
number of jobs expected to be
created as a direct or indirect
result of the MPR that earn
80% or less of the Brinnon
area average median income
(AMl). The developer shall
provide affordable housing
(e.9., no more than 30o/o of
household income) for the
Brinnon MPR workers roughly
proportionalto the number of
jobs created that earn 80o/o or
less of the Brinnon area AM!.
The developer may satisfy this
condition through dedication
of land, payment of in lieu fee,
or onsite housing
development.
of the MPR was completed:
Summary of Pleasant Harbor
lmpacts: Job Creation and Value
Added to National Economy
(2012). The report is included in
this SEIS as Appendix N.
Of the 890 housing units
proposed as part of the project, 52
units would be staff housing for
resort employees.
availability of
affordable
employee
housing for
positions earning
less than 80% of
the AMI shall be
addressed in the
Housing MOU.
The
h The possible ecological
impact of the development's
water plan that alters kettles
for use as water storage must
be examined, and possibly
one kettle preserved.
The 2012 Grading and Drainage
Report (Appendix E) includes an
analysis of the interconnection
between stormwater, water
storage, irrigation, g roundwater
recharge, and wetlands. The
SEIS identifies the retention and
enhancement of the wetland
contained within Kettle C. See
Section 3.2, Water Resources,
for a summary of this analysis.
Any study done at the project
level pursuant to SEPA (RCW
43.21C) shall include a
distinct report by a mutually
chosen environmental
scientist on the impacts to the
hydrology and hydrogeology
of the MPR location of the
developer's intention to use
one of the existing kettles for
water storage. Said report
shall be peer-reviewed by a
second scientist mutually
chosen by the developer and
the county. The developer will
bear the financial cost of
these reports.
An aquifer test was conducted by
the Subsurface Group in 2008
and subsequent analysis by the
Pacific Groundwater Group was
performed in 2009. These
analyses, which are incorporated
into this SEIS, were confirmed by
the Department of Ecology in
2010 (Appendix F). See Section
3.2, Water Resources, for a
summary of these analyses.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-4
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCG #Condition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
uonotuon rlrgg-9! 9c rrttgt rugu rvl
Compliance
uratus
j Tribes should be consulted
regarding cultural resources,
and possibly one kettle
preserved as a cultural
resource.
Six tribes were consulted
regarding the proposed Cultural
Resource Management Plan and
three tribes concurred. See
Appendix O for copies of email
correspondence.
k As a condition of development
approval, prior to the issuance
of any shoreline permit or
approval of any preliminary
plat, there shall be executed
or recorded with the County
Auditor a document reflecting
the developer's written
understanding with and
among the following:
Jefferson County, local tribes,
and the Department of
Archaeology and Historical
Preservation, that includes a
cultural resources
management plan to assure
archaeological investigations
and systematic monitoring of
the subject property prior to
issuing permits; and during
construction to maintain site
integrity, provide procedures
regarding future ground-
disturbing activity, assure
traditional tribal access to
cultural properties and
activities, and to provide for
community education
opportunities.
To avoid potentially adverse
impacts to cultural resources,
periodic archaeological monitoring
would be carried out during
construction excavations and
other below-fill, ground-disturbing
project actions. Monitoring would
occur at those locations within the
site area that have previously
been identified as high probability
areas (i.e., kettles, vantage points,
and bluff edge) until it could be
determined with greater
assurance that continual
monitoring would not be
necessary. Monitoring results
would be reviewed with
Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation staff and
tribal representatives prior to
adjusting the monitoring schedule.
See Appendix O of this SEIS for
details of the monitoring plan.
the
monitoring plan,
along with the
letters of
concurrence,
shall be
executed or
recorded with
the County
Auditor prior to
approval of the
Development
Agreement.
A wildlife management plan
focused on non-lethal
strategies shall be developed
in the public interest in
consultation with the
Department of Fish and
Wildlife and localtribes, to
prevent diminishment of tribal
wildlife resources cited in the
Brinnon Sub- Area Plan (e.9.,
A Habitat Management Plan was
completed January 27, 2012 by
GeoEngineers. See Appendix H
and Section 3.4, Fish and
Wildlife, of this SEIS for
additional detail.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-5
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCC #Gondition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl,
osprey, eagles, and bear), to
reduce the potential for
vehicle collisions on U.S.
Highway 1Q1, to reduce the
conflicts resulting from wildlife
foraging on high-value
landscaping and attraction to
fresh water sources, to reduce
the dangers to predators
attracted to the area by prey
or habitat, and to reduce any
danger to humans.
m No deforestation or grading
will be permitted prior to
establishing adequate water
rights and an adequate water
supply.
Water rights have been
negotiated and a permit received
from Department of Ecology (G2-
30436). An adequate water
supply has been determined to be
available. See Section 3.16,
Utilities, of this SEIS for
additional detail.
n Approval of a Class A Water
System by the Washington
Department of Health, and
approval of a Water Rights
Certificate by the Department
of Ecology shall be required
prior to applying for any
Jefferson County permits for
plats or any new
development.
Water rights permit G2-30436
granted for (3) wells on the
Pleasant Harbor site - (1) year
round domestic & commercial, (2)
summer irrigation - total of 300
gallons per minute. See Section
3.16, Utilities, of this SEIS for
additional detail.
o Detailed review is needed at
the project-level SEPA
analysis to ensure that water
quantity and water quality
issues are addressed. The
estimated potable water use is
based on a daily residential
demand used to establish the
Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU) for the development
using a standard o1175
gallons per-day (gpd). The
goal of the development is 70
gpd. All calculations for water
Water quantity issues are
addressed in this SEIS in Section
3.16, Utilities, and waterquality
in Section 3.2, Water
Resources. Refer to Appendix F
of this SEIS for additional detail
on Water Resources.
The water rights approval based
is on 175 gallons per day per
equivalent residential unit. See
page I of the DOE report for
reference that is contained in
Appendix F of this SEIS.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-6
3.18
BoCC Conditions
use at any stage shall be
based on the standard of 175
gpd.
p An NWP shall be established
that requires Statesman to
provide access to the water
system by any neighboring
parcels if saltwater intrusion
becomes an issue for
neighboring wells on Black
Point, and reserve areas for
additional recharge wells will
be included in case wells fail,
are periodically inoperable, or
cause mounding.
A Neighborhood Water Policy was
drafted and reviewed on January
2011, but is not yet finalized
(SEIS Appendix F).
The NWPWbe
finalized prior to
approval of the
development
agreement.
q Stormwater discharge from
the golf course shall meet
requirements of zero
discharge into Hood Canal. To
the extent necessary to
achieve the goal of designing
and installing stormwater
management infrastructures
and techniques that allow no
stormwater run-off into Hood
Canal, Statesman shall
prepare a soil study of the
soils present at the MPR
location. Soils must be proven
to be conducive to the
intended infiltration either in
their natural condition or after
amendment. Marina discharge
shall be treated by a system
that reduces contamination to
the greatest possible extent.
The soil study has been
com pleted (Subsurface Group,
LLC. November 21, 2008) and the
infiltration rates to be used for
final design of stormwater facilities
are presented in the 2012 Grading
and Drainage Report (SEIS
Appendix E). No stormwater from
the golf course fairways would
discharge to Hood Canal. See
Section 3.2, Water Resources,
of this SEIS for additional detail.
r A County-based
com prehensive water quality
monitoring plan specific to
Pleasant Harbor requiring at
least monthly water collection
and testing will be developed
and approved in concert with
an adaptive management
program prior to any site-
A draft Water Quality Monitoring
Plan was completed by the
applicant and reviewed by the
Jefferson County Water Quality
Department in June 2011 (SEIS
Appendix F).
draft Plan
requires
finalization and
The
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-7
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCC #Condition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
BoCC #Condition
specific action, utilizing best
available science and
appropriate state agencies.
The monitoring plan shall be
funded by a yearly reserve,
paid for by Statesman, that
will include regular offsite
sampling of pollution,
discharge, and/or contaminant
loading, in addition to any
onsite monitorinq reqime.
Status
approval prior to
approval of the
Development
Agreement
S The developer must ensure
that natural greenbelts will be
maintained on U.S. Highway
101 and as appropriate on the
shoreline. Statesman shall
record a conservation
easement protecting
greenbelts and buffers to
include, but not be limited to,
a 200-foot riparian buffer
along the steep bluff along the
South Canal shoreline, the
strip of mature trees between
U.S. Highway 101and the
Maritime Village, wetlands,
and wetland buffers.
Easements shall be perpetual
and irrevocable recordings
dedicating the property as
natural forest land buffers.
Statesman, at its expense,
shall manage these
easements to include
removing, when appropriate,
naturally fallen trees, and
replanting to retain a natural
visual separation of the
development from Highway
101.
The proposal includes preserving
a riparian buffer along the
south/southwest bluff of the
peninsula. This buffer would
permanently preserve the 200-ft
wide Shoreline Environment and a
steep slope setback (up to an
additional 30 feet wide in places)
in a conservation easement.
Note that redevelopment for
maintenance, repair and
renovation in the Marina Center
(marina upland) area is now
limited to occur within existing
building footprints, under a
separate existing Binding Site
Plan permit. The Maritime Village
building is now proposed to be
located north of the Black Point
Road and U.S. Highway 101
intersection.
These
easements shall
be finalized and
recorded prior to
approval of the
Development
Agreement.
t The marina operations shall
conduct ongoing monitoring
and maintain an inventory
regarding Tunicates and other
invasive species, and shall be
required to participate with the
County and state agencies in
an adaptive management
An !nvasive Tunicate Monitoring
Agreement between the applicant
and the Department of Fish and
Wildlife was drafted in October
2010 (SEIS Appendix l). See
Section 3.5, Shellfish, of this
SEIS for additional detail
This
agreement shall
be finalized prior
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-8
3.18
BoCC Conditions
Measures lntended for
Compliance
BoCC #Condition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
program to eliminate,
minimize, and fully mitigate
any changes arising from the
resort, and related to Pleasant
Harbor or the Maritime
Village.
to final BoCC
approval of the
Development
Agreement.
u ln keeping with the MPR
designation as located in a
setting of natural amenities,
and in order to satisfy the
requirements of the Shoreline
Master Program (JCC
1 8.'1 5.1 35(1 ),(2),(6), the
greenbelts of the shoreline
should be retained and
maintained as they currently
exist in order to provide for
"the screening of facilities and
amenities so that all uses
within the MPR are
harmonious with each other,
and in order to incorporate
and retain, as much as
feasible, the preservation of
natural features, historic
sites, and public views."
!n keeping with
Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Policy 24.9,the site plan
for the MPR shall "be
designed to blend with the
natural setting and, to the
maximum extent possible,
screen the development and
its impacts from the adjacent
rural areas." Evergreen trees
and understory should remain
as undisturbed as possible.
Statesman shall infill plants
where appropriate with
indigenous trees and shrubs.
The proposal includes preserving
a riparian buffer along the
south/southwest bluff of the
peninsula. This buffer would
permanently preserve the 200-ft
wide Shoreline Environment and a
steep slope setback (up to an
additional 30 feet wide in places)
in a conservation easement. The
proposal includes landscaping
throughout the site, including
reuse of healthy trees and shrubs.
See Section 3.3, Plants, of this
SEIS for additional detail
regarding retention of existing
trees and vegetation and
transplanting of viable trees and
vegetation within the
development.
V ln keeping with an approved
landscaping and grading plan,
and in order to satisfy the
intent of JCC 18.15.135(6),
ln order to blend into the terrain,
the largest structure within the
Maritime Village area (Maritime
Village Building, no longer located
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-9
3.18
BoCC Conditions
and with special emphasis at
the Maritime Village, the
buildings should be
constructed and placed in
such a way that they will blend
into the terrain and landscape
with park-like greenbelts
between the buildings.
at the marina but near Black Point
Road) would be built into the
existing topography, with two
stories visible from U.S. Hwy 101
to the west and three stories
visible internalto the site. Areas
of disturbance would include
transplanted healthy vegetation
from the site, as well as native
and low water consumption
plants. See Sections 3.3, Plants,
and 3.15, Aesthetics, of this
SEIS for additional detail.
The landscape plan for the single
Marina Village Building willprovide native vegetation
plantings islands in the parking
area and along the U.S. Hwy 101
and Black Point Road rights-of-
way, while providing adequate
visual access from the highway
needed for the retail/commercial
structure. The building will be
placed near the rear property line
and adjacent to the stream buffer
to take advantage of the sloped
area of the site. The stream
buffer vegetation will be enhanced
after removing invasive plant
species. Building architecture will
share similar features to those at
the marina and within the golf
resort.
w Construction of the MPR
buildings will be completed in
a manner that strives to
preserve trees that have a
diameter of 10 inches or
greater at breast height (dbh).
An arborist will be consulted
and the ground staked and
flagged to ensure the roots
and surrounding soils of
significant trees are protected
during construction. To the
extent possible, trees of
An individual tree survey has not
been completed for health and
size, but during construction,
viable trees within proposed
development areas that can be
transplanted would be relocated
on a temporary basis to an on-site
nursery located in the western
edge of the development. These
trees would be irrigated and
cultivated until replanting is
possible within designated areas
of the development. See Section
lndividualtrees
will be
inventoried to
account for size
and health prior
to construction
for viability of
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-10
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCC #Condition Measures Intended for
Gompliance
Status
BoCC #Condition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
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.
3.3, Plants, for additional detail transplanting per
the arborist
report and tree
protection plan
x Statesman shall use the
LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design)
and
"Green Built" green building
rating system standards.
These standards, applicable
to commercial and residential
dwellings respectively,
"promote design and
construction practices that
increase profitability while
reducing the negative
environmental impacts of
buildings, and improving
occupant health and well-
being."
The Narrative Demonstrating
Compliance with the lntent of
LEED standards is provided in
Section 3.8, Energy and Natural
Resources, and Appendix K of
this SEIS and addresses this
condition.
v There shall be included as a
best management practice for
the operation and
maintenance of a golf course
within the MPR that requires
the developer to maintain a
log of fertilizers, pesticides,
and herbicides used on the
MPR site, and this information
will be made available to the
public.
The Golf Course Development
Best Management Practices
(SEIS Appendix F) are intended
to comply with the Jefferson
County Code Chapter 18.20, Part
190 Performance and Use-
Specific Standards for golf
courses.
The
development
agreement will
address the
maintenance of
the golf course
chemical
application log.
z Statesman shall use the
lnternational Dark Sky
Association (lDA) Zone E-1
standards for the MPR. These
standards are recommended
for "areas with intrinsically
dark landscapes" such as
national parks, areas of
outstanding natural beauty, or
residential areas where
General guidelines that would be
followed to minimize potential light
and glare impacts include the
following:
a
a
lllumination would be to the
minimum practical level.The affected area of
illumination would be as
confined to specific areas as
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-11
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCG #Gondition Measures Intended for
Compliance
Status
inhabitants have expressed a
desire that all light trespass be
limited.
practical.
The duration of illumination
would be as short as practical
for Resident Safety.
lllumination technology would
minimize the amount of blue
spectrum in the light.
Technology would utilize High
Efficiency Lighting Standards
(Energy Star Guidelines).
a
a
a
See Section 3.14, Light and
Glare, of this SEIS for further
information.
aa ln fostering the economy of
South Jetferson County by
promoting tourism, the
housing units at the Maritime
Village should be limited to
rentals and time-shares; or, at
the very least, it should be
mandated that each section
be required to keep the ratio
of 65% to 35% of rental and
time-shares to permanent
residences per JCC
18.15.123.(2).
Alternatives 1 and 2 include 890
units, including 52 units for staff
housing, are proposed under
Alternatives 1 and 2. To meet the
BoCC conditions of approval of
the MPR, the majority of this
housing (6765%) would be for
short-term visitors and 3335%
would be for permanent residents.
See Section 3.11, Housing and
Employment, of this SEIS for
additional detail.
Measures
intended for
compliance
completed.
bb Verification of the ability to
provide adequate electrical
power shall be obtained from
the Mason County Public
Utility District.
A report is cunently being drafted
with the Mason County PUD but
will not be complete until after the
scheduled issuance of this Draft
SEIS. This report will address the
demand, capacity and availability
of electric power from the PUD.
See Section 3.8, Energy and
Natural Resources, for additional
detail.
The Applicant in
conjunction with
Mason County
PUD will
complete the
report on the
capacity of
infrastructure to
serve the energy
demands of the
project prior to
approval of the
Development
Agreement
cc Statesman Corporation shall
collaborate with the Climate
Action Committee (CAC) to
calculate qreenhouse qas
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Report was prepared for the
SDEI9DSEIS by Failsafe Canada
(Mav 2012) that reviewed and
Measures
intended for
compliance
completed.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-12
3.18
BoCC Conditions
BoCC #Condition Measures lntended for
Compliance
Status
emissions (GHGs) associated
with the MPR, and identify
techniques to mitigate such
emissions through
sequestration and/or other
acceptable methods.
analyzed the source GHG
emissions for the first five year
construction period of
development, as well as the
annual emission profile when in
full operation, of the project under
Alternative 2. The report is
included in this SDEIS as
Appendix M.
Numerous potential mitigation
measures are identified and
detailed in Section 3.10, Air
Quality/GHG and Appendix M of
this SEIS.
dd Statesman Corporation is
encouraged to work with
community apprentice groups
to identify and advertise job
opportunities for local
students.
i
lntended+e+e
gevdepmen+
Agr€emen+A!]!he
discretion of the
developer.
Prelimin ary Zoning Regulations
Jefferson County has drafted a preliminary set of draft zoning regulations for the Brinnon MPR
designation, labeled the Brinnon MPR code (JCC 17.60-17.80, Appendix S). The zoning
regulations would be adopted prior to approval of the preliminary plat for the Pleasant Harbor
Golf Course Resort. The zoning regulations set a cap of 890 residential units and 125,000
square feet of commercial and conference space. Alternatives 1,2 and 3 of this SEIS include the
maximum number of residential units allowed under this proposed zoning (890 units), but
propose significantly less than the 125,000 square feet of commercial/conference space allowed
under the preliminary zoning (49,772 sq. ft. under Alternative 1 and 56,680 sq. ft. under
Alternatives 2 and 3).
The MPR-Brinnon code is divided into three zones: the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR), the Open
Space Reserve zone (MPR-OSR), and the Marina Village zone (MPR-MV). See Figure 3.18-1
for a delineation of these zones.
The Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR), which permits residential and recreationalfacilities, as well as
commercial amenities and services associated with the resort and the surrounding community.
The permitted uses in this zone (JCC 17.65.020) include: hotels; conference and drinking/eating
establishments; staff/service apartments; resort-related gallery and retail uses; resort-related
indoor and outdoor recreation facilities (including swimming, tennis, spa, amphitheaters, pools,
and playgrounds); multi-family dwellings (both longterm and shortterm resort recreational
housing); golf course uses; and wastewater treatment, public water supply, and other public
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-13
3.18
BoCC Conditions
facilities. The uses proposed by the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort within the Black Point area
(generally the MPR-GR zone) include all of the permitted uses within this zone. The maximum
height for the buildings within the MPR-GR zone is 75 feet (not including underground or
imbedded parking). The tallest buildings proposed within the Pleasant Harbor site are the Golf
Terrace buildings, which are approximately 48 feet (4 stories) under Alternative 1 and 70 feet (5
stories) under Alternatives 2W. All structures over 50 feet in height must be set back 100
feet from the MPR boundary lines. The tallest Golf Terrace building is proposed to be located
300 feet from the northern property line. The uses and heights proposed within the Pleasant
Harbor Marina and Golf Resort comply with the standards for the MPR-GR zone.
The purpose of the Open Space Reserve zone (MPR-OSR) is to provide a natural buffer
between the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canal. The JCC indicates that this zone
shall consist of a tract of land located south of the MPR-GR zone and extend landward 200 feet
from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as measured under the Shoreline Management
Act or 25 feet from the top of the bank as measured under Chapter 18.22 JCC, whichever is
greater. The MPR-OSR zone permits restoration and maintenance of existing development
intrusions (roads and campsites) and passive recreation. The Pleasant Harbor Resort proposal
includes a 200 foot buffer within this zone, which would be restored and planted with native
vegetation, consistent with the purpose of this zone. The trail in this area would also be
decommissioned and access to the shoreline would not be permitted, even though the MPR-
OSR zone would allow passive recreation (JCC 17.70.020(2)).
The Marina Village zone (MPR-MV) allows residential facilities, mixed use amenities and
services associated with the marina portion of the resort and surrounding community, and
provides the central support to the marina operations. The permitted uses in this zone (JCC
17.75.020) include: marina and overwater structures; Marina Village related upland mixed use,
commercial and service facilities, including restaurant and shops, as well as marine service
facilities and marina office; yacht club and recreational facilities; structures providing long and
shortterm resort housing; trails, parks, pools, hot tub, open space, and playgrounds; and public
facilities. The uses proposed in the Maritime Village area of the proposal include Marina Village
related upland mixed use, short-term housing, commercial and service facilities, open space,
trails and recreational facilities. The marina area that is outside of the SEIS site but within the
MPR-MV zone would include marina and overwater structures, commercial and service facilities
including marina service facilities and marina office, a yacht club, trails, pool and hot tub, all
within the footprints of existing structures. The maximum building height in this zone is 55 feet.
The tallest building proposed in this zone is the Maritime Village building at 39 feet under
Alternative 1 and less than 53 feet under Alternative 2W All structures over 30 feet in height
shall be set back at least 20 feet from the external property lines and comply with the setback
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The bulk of the Maritime Village building
would be approximately 140 feet from U.S. Highway 101, but the northern portion would angle
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-14
3.18
BoCC Conditions
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.18-15
3.18
BoCC Conditions
Fiqure 3.18-l
closer to the property line within 47 under Alternative 1 to 67 feet under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 do not include any development within the SMP buffer, and development
under the existing binding site plan only allows redevelopment of structures within existing
footprints. The uses and heights proposed within the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort
comply with the standards for the MPR-MV zone.
The existing MPR regulations (JCC 18.15.123) include general allowed uses within MPRs, and
are consistent with the permitted uses noted in the three zones in the Brinnon MPR outlined
above. The existing MPR regulations noted that short-term visitor accommodations shall
constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units. As noted in Section
3.11, Employment and Housing, the Pleasant Harbor proposal meets this requirement.
The draft Development and Agreement and zoning regulations are included in Appendix S of
this SEIS. The BoCC would adopt the MPR-Brinnon zoning regulations subsequent to a
Planning Commission recommendation.
Preliminary Development Agreement
A development agreement is required for master planned resorts as prescribed under JCC
18.15.126(2). The development agreement sets forth development standards specific to the
master planned resort, including, but 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, shortterm visitor accommodations, on-site
recreational faci I ities, and on-site retai l/com mercial services;
(e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and
(0 Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and
RCW 36.708.170(3).
A preliminary development agreement between the applicant and Jefferson County was first
drafted in April of 2011 and revised in October 2014 (see Appendix S). This development
agreement could be revised prior to adoption by the Jefferson County BoCC.
The development agreement references the preliminary zoning regulations regarding permitted
land uses and density standards, and the existing Jefferson County Code for other development
regulations including the stormwater code, the critical areas code, the land division code, and
the Shoreline Master Program.
Water and sewer service for the Pleasant Harbor MPR would be required to be in conformance
with the water and sewer technical reports prepared for this SEIS (see SEIS Appendix Q), and
associated county and state requirements.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS2015 3.18-16
3.18
BoCC Conditions
The development agreement also addresses the public services: sheriff, fire and emergency
medical service, schools, and transit. The provision of these services shall be consistent with
the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the appropriate agencies. These MOUs are
contained with the SEIS appendices, and are currently in draft form (see SEIS Appendix R).
These MOUs would need to be finalized and signed by both parties prior to approval of the
development agreement.
Phasing of the Pleasant Harbor resort is outlined in the preliminary development agreement and
is broken down into phases. The first phase focuses development within the Maritime Village
area and begins the development of infrastructure within the Black Point area (the wastewater
treatment plant, large onsite septic system and drainfield, the water storage tank, and the
construction materials processing area). Construction of the U.S. Hwy 101 intersection
improvements, the marina access drive, and the relocated WDFW access road will also be
included in this first phase. The second phase includes the initial development of the Black Point
area, beginning with grading of the site and the initial construction of the golf course and the
Golf Terrace and Conference Center (Terrace 1). This phase would include construction of the
electric power infrastructure for the site, as well as the construction of stormwater facilities. The
third phase includes completion of the golf course and a significant portion of the residential
units, as well as the staff quarters. The fourth and final phase completes the residential units.
The details of the proposed phasing is provided in the preliminary development agreement, but
could be revisited prior to approval to assure consistency with current plans.
The term of the development agreement would be twenty years from the effective date of the
agreement. The proposed buildout period is ten years, providing significant timing for buildout of
the proposed project.
Compliance with the BoCC conditions, as outlined in the previous subsection, would require that
several issues be addressed within the development agreement. Such items include, but are not
limited to, public amenities (Condition 63d), local employment (Condition 63e and 63dd),
sourcing of local materials (Condition 63e), and affordability of staff housing (Condition 63f).
Additional policies and monitoring plans including, but not limited to, the Neighborhood Water
Policy (Condition 63p), Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Condition 63r), and the Golf Course
chemical application log (Condition 63y) could also be included in the development agreement.
The preliminary development agreement would be completed subsequent to issuance of the
Final SEIS in order to include pertinent mitigation measures from the SEIS. Approval of the
development agreement would occur prior to preliminary plat approval.
Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental EIS
_2015 3.18-17
3.18
BoCC Conditions