HomeMy WebLinkAbout173Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Philip Morley <pmorley@cojefferson.wa.us>
Wednesday, August 24,2076 6:08 PM
Don Coleman; Garth Mann (Garth.Mann@statesmang rou p.com)
Diane Coleman; JT Cooke; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan; David W. Johnson; Michelle
Farfan
RE: Pleasant Harbor Resort planning commission recommendations
SIGNED FINAL PC Transmittal Letter to BOCC with Findings & Conclusions - 7-l-1-2016
.pdf; PC Recommended Development Regs -7-ll-20L6.pdf; SIGNED FINAL Letter to
BOCC approved by 4 Planning Commissioners - 7-6-2016 RE Pleasant Harbor MPR.pdf
Dear Don and Garth,
Thank you for your request for a copy of the Planning Commission's recommendations on the Development Regulations
for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. Please find enclosed PDFs of the following 3 documents:
r Planning Commission's transmittal letter with Findings & Conclusions, dated July 11, 2016;
o Planning Commission's Recommended Development Code
. 8-page letter from PC Chair Cynthia Koan dated July 6, 2016, approved by 4 members of the Planning
Commission, intended by those members to "lay out what we learned in our six month study and review, what
the regulations before you represent, and what we believe still needs to be done."
County Commissioner David Sullivan has been in contact with TribalChairJeromy Sullivan to clarify how we can work in
response to the Port Gamble S'Klallam's request for consultation as a follow up to the government to government
meeting which took place in April. DCD staff is also working to meet with the Tribe's Roma Call as part of that
consultation process. We would like to bring project staff from Statesman into the conversation so the Tribe and
Statesman can work directly with each other to resolve any outstanding issues.
Until your discussions with the Tribe have substantially concluded and we can know what changes, if any, there may be
in Statesman's formal development proposal or if there are any further measures to mitigate potential impacts on treaty
rights, I would not anticipate action by the County Commissioners to formally deliberate on the Planning Commission's
recommended Development Code, norto amend or adopt the Code as it pertains to development in the MPR and any
mitigation measures.
I know Commissioner Sullivan looks forward to meeting with Mr. Mann later this week, and I hope this information is
helpful in your discussions.
Sincerely,
Philip Morley
Jefferson County Administrator
pmorlev(oco. ieffe rso n.wa. us
(360) 38s-9100 x-383
This is o reminder thot oll emoil to or from this email address moy be subject to the Public Records Act contoined in RCW
42.56. Additionally, ollemailto ond from the county is coptured and archived by lnformotion Services.
Philip
1
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 37e-4450
Planning Commission Recommendation for MLA08-00188
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
UDC Text Amendment
For
Title 17 Article II
Development Regulations
&,
Title 18 Code Amendments
Recommendation with Findings and Gonclusions
!o:Board of County Commissioners, Chair Kathleen Kler
Department of Community Development, Director Patty Gharnas
lnterested Parties of Jefferson County
From:Jefferson Gounty Planning Commission
Date:July 1 1, 2016
Attached: Proposed text
The Plannino Commission is pleqsed to subrnit our UOQ lexl Amendment recommendation_Er the Board of
Countv Commissiongls for revlew. The Planning Commission has worked diligently to review and deliberate
the application for an amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) Title 17 Article ll - Development
Regulations for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, and relevant code amendments to Title 18
regarding master planned resorts,
On June 15,2016, the Planning Commission made a motion to accept and forward to the Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) the attached version of Title 17 Article ll, the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
development regulations, with minor amendments to Title 18 of the Unified Development Code. The motion
carried by a vote of six (6) in favor, one (1)opposed, and one (1) abstained.
On June 29,2016, the Planning Commission developed findings of fact and conclusions based upon growth
management indicators as required under JCC 18.45 and other general guidance on required findings, and
therefore do hereby declare the following findings and conclusions in support of our recommendation:
A. Reguired findlnss as per Jefferson Countv Code {JCCI Titls {8.45.080({XbXi-iiil:
1. Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located
substantially changed slnce the adoption of the Jefferson Gounty Comprehensive Plan?
The circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have
substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. For example,
since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan a site specific Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-
designate the subject property from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning (MLA06-00087)
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 14,2008. The site has remained
unused and undeveloped since operations as a campground stopped in September of 2007.
2, Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson Gounty Comprehenslve Plan ls based no longer
valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or
any annual amendments of the Jefferson Gounty Comprehensive Plan?
The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid, as well
as the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from
Rural Residentialto Master Planned Resort.
3. Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
Gounty?
The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on this finding, and therefore, wish to be silent
on this point.
1, ls growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurrlng faster or slower
than anticipated, or is it faillng to materiallze?
Growth is occurring slower than anticipated due to the current population projections which are less
than 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update estimates.
2. Has the capaclty of the county to provide adequate servicee diminished or lncreased?
7-1 l-16 Pleasant Harbor UDC Text Anendment Recommendation to BoCC
Page2
B. Additional required findlnqs as per Jeffer*on Countv Code {JCCI Title 18.45.080('t l(c}(i-viii}:
The level of services provided by the County can be maintained at 2004 levels due to the decrease in
demand based on population projections.
3. !s there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
There is sufficient land available for development in the Port Hadlock/lrondale UGA - in fact, there is a
surplus.
4. Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid?
There is no evidence that the assumptions under which the Comprehensive Plan were based are no
longer valid. The Goals and Policies under the Land Use and Rural element of the Comprehensive
Plan for Master Planned Resort development are still valid. The assumptions under which the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from Rural Residential to Master Planned
Resort are also still valid.
5. Are there changes in the county-wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals
of the Comprehensive PIan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan
Vlslon Statement?
There is no evidence that County-wide attitudes regarding amendments to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) to address development of a Master Planned Resort, or that the goals and policies
regarding Master Planned Resorts as a land use have changed. The proposed amendment to the
UDC is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements.
6. Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan?
With the adoption of the site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment (MLA06-00087) to re-designate
the project site from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort zoning, new language specific to the
Pleasant Harbor MPR will need to be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan periodic update.
No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the adoption of the proposed development
regulations is required.
7. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive
Plan and the Gountywlde Planning Pollcles for Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds no inconsistencies between GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, the
County-wide Planning Policies and the proposed development regulations.
C. The Record
ln addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County Gode,
and the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission finds:
7-l l-16 Pleasant Harbor UDC Text Anendment Recommendation to BoCC
Page 3
1, In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the Gounty-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson
County Gode, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is ln the record with respect to this
proposal?
The record contains an application for a UDC Text Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental
lmpact Statement (FSEIS) with associated project descriptions, maps, technical reports, findings,
conclusions and mitigation measures, appendices, public and regulatory agency comments and
response to comments. Also records of public meetings and hearings, background on Phase 1
Comprehensive Plan approval, as well as a record of the current and on-going negotiations between
the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, the Developer and Jefferson County based upon the April 18, 2016
government to government meeting.
2. Can assertions ln the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
Yes, assertions in the record can be confirmed by information from other sources.
3. ls the decision we are about to make based on the record?
Yes, this UDC Text Amendmenf recommendation is based on the record.
4. Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satlsfy legal criteria?
The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on a finding and/or conclusion on whether or not
the decision satisfies legal criteria, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point.
5. ls the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
Yes, this UDC Text Amendmenf recommendation is specific to the application to amend the UDC Title
17 Article ll Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations (MLA08-00188).
D. Additlonal Findinss and Gonclusions.
The Planning Commission could not agree as a whole on whether or not there were additional findings of fact
or conclusions of law pertinent to this decision, and therefore, wish to be silent on this point.
E. Recommendation to the Board of CounW Commissioners
We recognize that our recommendation will be reviewed and considered by the Board of County
Commissioners, who will, based upon these findings and conclusions, determine whether or not a change to
the Planning Commission recommendation is necessary (JCC 18.45.090(4).
On June 29,2016, The Jefferson County Planning Commission made a motion to instruct Staff to prepare the
Planning Commission's final recommendation, submit that recommendation with associated findings and
conclusions to the Planning Commission Chair for signature, and then forward said recommendation to the
7-11-16 Pleasant Hqrbor UDC Tqt Amendment Recommendation to BoCC
Page 4
BoCC for consideration. The motion carried by vote of three (3) in favor, one (1) against, and one (1)
abstained.
Cynthia , Planning Commission Chair Date
7-l 1-16 Pleasant Hmbor UDC Text AmendmentRecomrendation to BoCC
Page 5
lzoltu
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT
(Jefferson County Planning Commission Version 2016)
Title 17
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS
Title 17. Articlc I. Port Ludlorv MPR
Chapters 17.05-17.50
No change
Title 17. Article II. Pleas Harbor MPR (1 7.60- I 7.80)
Chanter t 7.60. Gcneral Provisions
17.60.010 Authoritv.
36.70 36 Title 1
17.60.020 Title.
The resulations set forth in this title I be known as the "Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Itesort Code" or bv the short title "Pleasant Harbor MPR Code." Qitations to these
reeulations shall be made using the apnlicable JCC section number.
17.60.030 P-ur,ngne nnd intcnt.
The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR code is to set forth development
regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
fcrr future develqpment within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort.
17.60.040 Additionslrequirements.
In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title l5 and Title 18 of the
Jefferson County Codc shall apply to development in the Pleasant Ilarbor MPR. Applications fbr
development within the MPR must be submitted +s nrovided fol ip JCC 18.35 Article V. Binding
Site Plans. and all subseouent development witlrin the MPR area will be subject to the aoproved
bincling site plan and as specified in the terms and conditions of the Devclopmenl Agreement
between .l e:fferson Cou&ty- zurcl th e Dsvel eeer.
17.60.050 Annlicabilitv,
The provisions of this title shnll applyjo all land use actions and siting of infrastructure
includine over water or in-water work to be conducted within the boundary of the Plqasant
I{arbqr Mflster Planned Reso* 4s de,picted on the official land use rnap for Jefferson County.
W,q$hington.
to
-t -
17.60 060 [{xemntions.
The folloqing structures and uses shall be exempt from the resulations of this title. but
are subject to all other applicable local. state and federal regulations including. but not limited to.
the countv building ordinance. interim critical areas ordinance. the shoreline management master
nrogram, and the State Environnrental Policv Act (SEPA),
(1) Wires. cahlgs. conduits. vaults. pipes. mains yalJqs. tanks. or other similar equipment for
the distribution to consumers of telephone or other communications. electricitv. gas. or water oq
the collection of sewage. or surfiace or subsurlace water operated or maintained by a
govemmental cntity <l{ a puhliq or private qtility or other county franchised utilities inclpding
customary meter pedestals. telephone pedestals. distribution transformers and temporary utility
facifities required duritrg buildinq construction. whether any such f&cility is located underground.
or abovg-ground: but only when such facilities are located in a street right-of-way or in an
easement. This exemption shall not include above-qround electrical substations. sewaqe pump
stations or trqptment plants, or,potable water storaELe tanks or t'q$ilities. which shall require
conditional use approval in any zone where permified:(2) Urrderground utility equinment. ma.ilboxes. bus shelters. infonnational kiosks, public
bicvclc shelters. or similar structuIg or device which is found by the director of conrmunity
development to be appropriately loeated in the public interest:(3) Minor construction aotivities. as defined by the IBC. Section 106.2 and structures cxempt
rurder Chapter 15.05 .ICC, as amended:(4) Development consistent with the Marina Bindinq Site Plan approved by the County prior
to adopti$n of this chqpJer.
17.60.070 Pre-existins uses nnd structures.
Existing legally-permitted. residential and non-residential land uses and structures in all
zones of the Master Planned Resort are lawful uses and may [re continued in a manner consistent
of
re&ulations or Ordinances.
17.60.080 Enforcement
The enforcement orovisions codifi ed Chapter 18.50 Enforcement ofllitle 18 of the
Jefferson County Code as cunently enacted or as hsreafter amended shall apply to any alleged
violation of Title 17. Article II. more commonly known as the "Pleasant Llarbor MPR Code."
Chaoter 17.65 Pleasant llnrbor Master Planned Resprt Residential Recreation antl
Courmercinl Zone (MPR-RRC)
17.65.010 Purpose.
Jhe Iv(PR-RRC z"one allows residential and rec.roatic,nal fucilities. as well as comqersial
arnenities and services associated with the re$ort and surrounding sommunity. It qlso allows for
the central resort and conftrence facilities.
-/,-
17.65.020 Permitted Uses.'(l) Residentid uses includi$g single-family and rnultiftUnily struchrres. condo-miniums.
townhousqs. aplrtments. Iofts. villas. tirTre-share and other fractionally owned accommodations.(2) Short-term visitor accomrnodations. constitutine not less than 6570 of the total residential
units authorized by Ordinqnce #01-0128-08. includine. but not limited to hotels. motels. lodges.
and a4y residential uses allowed under subsection I of this section that are made available for
short-tem rental. "Short-term rental" shall be construedlo mean legs-.than 30 days.
(3) Visit(rr.oriented amenities. including" hut not limited to (a) conference and meeting
facilities: (b) restaurants. cafes. delicatesserrs. pubs, taverns and entertainment a$sociated with
sr.rch uses; (c) on-site rctail services and businesses hrpically found in destination resorts and
designed to serve the convenience needs ol'users and emnlovees of masler planned resort and
(d) reueation business and facilities:(4) Cultural Brld educational facilities of all kinds includinq. but not limited to. interpretative
displays of local Native Anrerican ties to and uses of the area- art galleries. and indoor or outdoor
theaterqi
(5) Indoor and gqtdoor resort-related recreational fscilities. includins but not limited to
tennis coufls. swimminq pools. spa services. hiking trails. bicycle path.s. ropes courses.
amphitheater. and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resortl
(6) Waste water treatment facilities. includins treatment olants. canture. qtorage and
transmission facilities to serve a reusq/rec.ycle program for on-site treatment and use/reuse-of
waste water and stormwaten(7) Public water supplv and related lbcilities:(8) Public thsiliti.gs and seryices as defined in JCC 18.10.160:(.9) Utilities supporting the resort:(10) Emergency servipes (fire" polips. HIvIS):(.1l) Medical services: and
(12) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the
Department of Community Development.
17.65.030 tlcieht restdsliaa&
No buildings within the MPR-GR zone shall be erected. enlarsed or structurally modified
to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by IBC standards e{cep! with approval of the local Fire
Dislrist, Underqround or inlbpdded parking shnll not be included in arry lreight cqlculatio"[9,
17.65.040 Bulk and setback lpqujlemcnt*s,
All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from Master Planned Resort boundary
lines and adjaceJrl MPR z.ones",_Miniruurn-bpildins setback from_State Route 101 is 50 feet,
tZ.fS.0S0 Critic istr
Areas
0) Critical_areas and their buffers within the MPR boundaries shall be identified. delineated
and permanently Brotected in accordance with JCC 18.22 and shall be desis-nated on the official
map of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. A building setback of '10 tbet shall apply to
all designated buffer areas.
-3-
G). Significant Tree Retention.
AII trees measurine l0" dianreter breast high (dbh) or grealsr on the date of binding site plan
approval shall be located and rnorked for retention. and measures taken to protect surrounding
soil and roots during site disturbance. Where there is no alternative to removing such trees.
additional trees. such as Douglas Fir or Sitka Spruce at least four years old or fuur feet in height"
shall be planted in buffer areas at a ratio of two uees planted for eaclr removs:d. Where feasible.
remoyed trees and their root wads shall be made available for walershed reslorqtion uqiasls.
(3) Kettles.
A "kettle" is defined as a 4epression on the land surface left by an ice blosk after glacial retreat.
Blask Point has three such geologic and culturally significant fbatures inside the MPR
boundaries. Kettles are identified as a tyne of ,wetland difficult to replace. The three kettle sites
gn Black Point inside the MPR boundaries shall be preserved and protected to include buffers as
deemed sufficient per agreement with the Port Gambl-e*S'Klallam Tribe.
(4) SpecialEnvironmentalProtectionProvisions.
Notwithstanding all other enJironmental reqrlilements. the MPB. approved plan must have
provisions for:
(a) Well-head Protection and Aquifer Recharge Area
Permeable soils on qite mean potential contarnination of the aguifer could occur from
improperly directed run-ofll spills or other contamination of fertilizers. pesticides.
herbicidel0nd petroleum products. putting human health at risk as well as fish and
wildlife. An approved plarr for directing untreated run-off away from the aquifer and
treating all on-sije run-off with current biofiltration standards prior to any discharse
to the aquit'er.
(b) An approved organic veqetation and site management plen shall be submi.tted to the
County as part of the overqll Master Planned Resort application for review and
approval. or npproval with conditions,
(c) All development and landssaping within the_ PHMPR area must be lccated "
constructed. and maintained in such a manner as to provide full protection to the
aeuifer and any on-site or neighboring wells that rely qn that acluifer lbr potable
water.
(d) No golf course greens should_be constrUgled over the aguifer recharge area. Site
srading and excavation shall be minimized. as denronstrated by-a County reviewed
and approved Erracling nlan pursuant to JCC 18.30.050 & 070.
(e) l,a$d {isturbing aetivitier such as grading qr.rd.filline sha[ be keplto a minimum and
natural contours shall be fcrllowed in locating and designing all development features
to protcct the rratural environmental uniqueness of the site-
(f) Regular independg$t water quality testinq shall be conducted at specific monitorins
sites to be identified in the Resort Plan to test fo[saltwater intrusion and tgxiq
-4-
contamination in local wells that rely on the Black Point sole source aauifer.as well as
testing in the lower reaches of the two adjoining watersheds for toxic contamination
and low oxygen levels.
(g) All development and land disturbance shall protect/avoid all important
culturalAristoric sites that are listed. or elieible tp be listed. by $tate Historic
Preservation Oflicer or by a locnl "lribe with jUrisdiction. Pursuant to JCC 18.30.160.
the Count)f.recognizes that thg area of the MPR is within lhe seded area of Tribes that
were parities to the Point No Point Trealy,
(h) 'lhe ownerldeveloper or assignees must provide for all on-site recyeling of r-naterial.
includine paper. glass. cflrdbe.Old8. plastics. arul c,pmpostin&of garden Waste" food
waste. All compost should be reused on site. The owner/developer or assienees must
nrovide a written record.tha! landscapirlg,rnaterials pprchased and.gppliecl onsite.
includin&those anplied as compost feedstocks. and pest controls are within the
parameters and use restrictions set tblth b), the Nation,al List of Allowed and
Prohibited Substgnces as published and perioflically updatgdhy USDA Nqlional
Organic Proqram.
(i) The applicant shall identifii wildlife use arsas within the site and provide for set-aside
and pr$rtection of c_ore-wildlife habitat_Areas and connecting co{fidors.
O In coopemtien and consultatign lvith local tribes. areas shall be sel aside pnd
maintained for the occasional harvestirre of medicina!_pJants and othsr plants
imporJant to tribal cult.ure.
(k) All development with the PHMPR must comply with the requirements for buffer
retgntion. wildlife protection. preenbelt retention and maintenance and establishment
pf permanent protective easemsnts fbr these resources. as well as the other specilic
requirements of Jefferson C-QUntyOrdinan$e.0l-0128-08. which Was part of thd:_Board
of Countf Commissioners Council approval for establishment of the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort.
(l)Any developrnent proposed in the PI-IMPR shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design) green building rating system standards.
(m) Any development proposed in the PHMPR shall use the,International Dark Skv
Association_(IDA) ZonE E-l standards for the MPRj$ order to limit night-time light
pollution which may affect neighborjng residentiql greas as well as wildlife.
(5) Public Acqess to M$ster Planned Resort Amenities.
All amenities and recreational resources of the developrnent shall be open to all members of the
public. With the exception of those type of activities pertaining.to guests and residents onl.v-quqh
as access to laundry rooms or internal recreation rooms. TV rooms, etc. Nothins in this section
shall prevent the onerator of anv recreational resource fiom establishing a ,f-ee or charge for the
plrblic's use pLLhe recreational resource.
-5-
Chnnter 17.70. Onen $rrace Reserye (MPR-OSRI
17.70.010 Purpose.
'fhe purpose of the MPB-OSR zone iulpJrovidc fur a natural veuetated buff€r area
between the resort activities and the waters of Hood Canql. The MPR-OSR zone shall include a
buffer extending landward 50 feet as sr[veyed ftom the top-of [he shoreline bluff bank, including
a l0 tbot building setback. along southern boundary oj'the MPR in accordance with Ordinance
No. 0l-0128-08,
17.70.020 Pcrmitted uses.
The followins uses mav be allowed in buJfer and open.sDoc€ areas in the MIR-OSR
zonq alter review end approval ofaBpropriate critical area reports:
(1) Re*storation of existing develonment intru$ions (roa4$, camnsiteq) to their natural,pre-
development state: and
(2.) Passive recreation" including hails that do not reduce the forest canopy. increase
stormwater dj.scharge. or blufT erosion.
(3) Educational and intefpretive display-s and signs may be installed if such installations involve
a minimum ot'disturbance to soils or vegetation.
thantcr I7.75. Marina - Maritime Villase (MPR-MV)
I7.75.010 Purrrose.
The MPR-MV zone nrovides mixed use amenities and services associated with the
marina and rnaritime villaee poftion of the resort and swroundine comnrunity. and provides the
ce$tral support to the marina operations.
17.75.020 Permitteduscs.
. The following uses are permitted in the MPR-MVi(.1) Marina and overwater structures as approved throuqh rhg Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Progtam and associated regulations Chapter 18.25 JCC:
(2) Residential uses including single-{hmily and multifarnily structures. condominiums. tirne-
share and fractionally owned accommodations of all kindsi(.3) '[he Marina and Maritime Village related upland rnixed use.$ommercial and service
facilities. including open parking lots. restaurants afld shons. as well as marine service facilities.
marina office. yacht club and recreation facilities servinq. the resort and the Marina:g) All over-water buildings and docks shall he const$r.cted so as not iruLqdp misrating Fsh
and to minimize shading.
(5) Accessory uses and stnrctures. such as gar4ges. carports. storage building$ and similar
$$uctures supporting marina and rqpritime village uses.-fuel service and parkingr
(6) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities. includine but not limited to
tennis courts. swimmine pools. marinas. hiking tr&ils,, bicycle paths. rQpes courses, game center
and other reoreational uses consistent with the naturs of master planned resort:
-6-
(7\ I Itilities srrnnor-f ino the resnrt:(E) Infrastructure qnd buildlngs. both above and below ground. for the utilitie!;(9) Hrnergency services (fire. police. EM$):(10) Public facilities. and services serving the MPR-MV zone:
(l l) Medical services: and
(12) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of the zone and MPR as determined by the
Department of Community Development and cq{rsistent with 18.25 JCC.
17.75.030 Hcishtrestrlctions.
No buildines within the MPR-MV zone shall be erected. enlarged or structurally
modified to exceed 35 f€et in heieht as measured by IBC stqru!_ards. Undsrground or iEqbedded
parking slrall not be included in qnyleight oalc-ulations.
7.75.040 Bulk and setback
There are no yard or setbask pro*y,,ifiip-Es inter4al to the MPR-MV zone. All new
structures located within shoreline juri$diction shall conrply with the setback requiremcnts of the
Charrter 17.80, Pleasant Harbor Rcsort Dcvclopment
17.80.()10 Resort develonment.
This section describes the "Resort Plan" for facilities to be located in the resort MPR. sets
out a required environmental review process for any future resort development. and provides
processes for reviewing maior or minor revisiqns to the l(esort Plan, These provisions apply to
all resort and associated development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
17.80.020 Development cap.
The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of (intentionally left
blank to be determiugd by furthe.{ consultation with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe) residentia!
units provided. however. short term visitor aocommodatisn units shall constitute not less than 65
percent of the total units. "fhe Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a developmcnt cap of
56.608 square feet of resort commgrcial. retail. restaurant and conference space._not including all
internal open spa0c.
17.80.030 RcsnrtPlansndDevclonment.Asrcement
The Resort Plan. shall consist of an approved binding site nlan, including monitoring and
operational plans. and.an approved Dqvelopment Agreement fur future development of
prope$jes in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. The rrocess &t ppproval of such ggteernents is
contained in 18.40.820 JCC
17.80.040 Permit process- for resort development,(.1) A project-level supplemental environmental inrpact statement ($l]lS.) analyzjng
development of the Resort Plan is required prior to issuance of building permits for any new
resort development.
7-
(2) Notice of devclopment application and environmental review under SEPA shall be
provided to all persons or agencies entitled to notice p.lrrspant to the land use procedures of JCC
Title 18,
(3) Actual builcling nermit plans or construction drawings may not be required during the
SEPA review process. but subrnitted architectural drawinqs must contain and demonstrate
sufficient details. including a detailed site plan. showing appJoximatg_elevations. sections".and
floor plzurs are reguired. however. !o gnsure that the SEPA feview process anal)"zes and
considers proj ect- l.evel detai ls.
(4). The department ot'cornmunity development m-ay impose mitieating conditions or issue a
denial of some or all of the Re.sort Plan based on the environmental review and using authority
provided pursuant to the SIate Environnrental Policy Act. Chapter 43.21C RCW. Arlicle X of
Chapter 18.40 JCC shall be apnlicable to tlre permit process for resort development.(5) Followins, completion of the SEIS. buildinB pernrits ma), be issued. followine appropriate
plan review. for projeots analvzed in the SEIS.(O Actual {psort devcleErment mav be undertaken in phaseE,.hJt only following completion
of review and approval of a full resort buildout plan through the SEIS process. A phasinq
schedule may be proposed as part of the environmental review or may be developed at a later
date,
17.80.050 Environnrental review for Resort Plan develonmcnt,(.1) AII project level applications will be Eesumed to meet the tlueshold for a SEPA
Deterrnination of Siqnifioance exgept where lhe SEP.d-rq$ppnsible official detennines that the
ap0lication results in only mine.r impacts. Existine enviromneuld_review dpcuments may be
adopted under SEPA if those documents meet the SEPA and JCe requirements to adequately
address environmental impacts and mitigation as set forth in RCW 43,21C.034.(2) The scope of au SEIS prepared under this section shall address environmental issues
identified in the Proqramnratic FEIS- jssued Novernber 2007. together with such additional
requirements as a nrojectgrccific application may raise*-The scope $hall not change the
standards of apnroval. however. as set forth in the applicable devslopment agreement and these
development regulations.
(3) The ulility element of any subsequent phase of SEPA review pertainins to the Pleasant
Harbor MPR shall provide information on all afftcted [tility systems. including sewer and water
systerns and the results of required monitoring. The effectiveness of such monitori[q shallbe
evaluated. Supplements or changes to the monitoring and reporting systems shall be considcred
if necessary to ensure that wate{ quality and water supply are adequatelv protected and irnpacts
to natural resources rninimized. Requirements for water ryality and quantity monitoring as well
as for run-off irrrpacts shall be specified in the Developer Aqreement and in 17.80.030.
(4) A,ery preliminary scope for future developmerrt within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be
consistent with the approved &psort Plan. Other elqments. issUep. and $pecific levels of detail
may be included-based on information available-at the time the Resort Plan development
aoplication is submitted. Elements noted above may be combinqd in the SEPA analysis to reducc
duplication and narrow the fucus on potentially significapt adverse environmental impacts.
[7.80.060 Revigions to ll.esort Plnn,
-8-
(1) Any proposed revision of size or scope to the Pleasant l"larbor MPR boundary or zone
changes within the MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amenelment and related zoning
action. Such qhanges are outside ths scope of the revision processss deseribqd below and in JCC
17.80.070"and 17.80.080. The County may approve an amenclment to the Comprehcnsive Plan
only if "all recluirements of the GrqWth Management Act (Chanter 36.704 RCW) are fulfilled.(2) . The County shall accwt buildirlg petmits only for proiqcts included in and consistent
with the Resort Plan. A revision to the elistins Resort Plan shall be submitted to the county for
approval prior to the acceptance o['anv proposal that is inco[sistent with the Resort Plans set
forth in this title. Upon approval of a revision. all subsequcnt development proposels shall be
coruistent with the revised Resort Plan and development requlatiols.(3) Proposed revisions tp the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Comrnunity Development (.DCD) and the DCD director will determine whether the proEsal
conFtitutes a mqior or mino{ revision. Upon making o determination. the prouosed revision shall
fgllow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outli_ned in JCC I 7,80 060 snd 17.8Q,p70.
17.80.070 Minnr revisions.
0J Minor Revisions. Resort Plans may require minor changes to facilities and services in
response to c.hanging condilions or market. Minor fevisions arc those that do not result in a
substantial chanqe to the intent or purpose of the Resort Plan in effect. A changc that satisfigs
the following critcria shall be deemed a rninor revision for purposes of this chanter:(a) Involve no more than a fivepercent (5olo)-increase in the overall qross souare
fqotaee oflthe Resort Plan:(b) Will have no additional impapts on the environment and/or fucilities than that
addresse_d in the development plant
(c) Do not alter the boundaries of.the npproved plant
(d) Do noUlropose new usgs or uses that modify the fecreaticlnal nature and intent of
the resort.
(2) Minor Revision ApprovalPfocesq. Applipations for minor revisions shall be submitted to.
and reviewed by the JefTerson County Department of Communitv Development (DCD) to
determine if the revisions are consistent with all of the approved provisions of the Resort Plan
the 2015 IiSEIS. the JetTerson County Comprehensive Plan and otherpertinent dosuments.
Those proposals that satisfy the above-refereflced uiteria shall be deerned a minor plan revision
zurd may be administratively approved (.as a Tylle II decision under the land use nrocedurss of
JCC Title 18. Unified Development Code) by the director of the department of community
devglopment. Public notice of thc application..the writtgn decision. and appeal opportunities
shall be nnuided to all persons or agencies a"s required by the land usg procedures of JCC J'itle
18. Unified Development Code. Those re,yisions thq,t do not complv with the provisions
contained within thls section sha[[ be dee{ned a major revision. sutrject to the, provisions outlined
in JCC 17.80.080.
17.80.080 Maiorrevisions.
Revisions to the Resort Plan that will result in a substantial changg to the resort
iJrsluding: chanqes in use. increase in the intensity of use. or in the siz-e. scale. or density of
developm$nt: or ch&nges which nnav have additional impacts on the qlvironment beyond those
reviewed in previous environmgntal documents. qre cons,idgred to be nujor revisions and will
require ap$Jicatinn for a revis.ed Resort Plan.
-9-
(1) Application for a Major Revision to the Resort Plan. An anplication shall be prepared
describing the proposed revision in relation to the aprBroved Resort Plan and providing a
framework fo{.teview. a$ralysi$ aqd mitigation of the revised develoument activiba.proposed. IhS
Resort Plan revision ploposal shall include the following inlbrmation:
(a) A deqgdption of how thp ,tevised Resort Plan would further the goals and policies
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan:(.b) A description of how the Resort Plan revision complements the existing resort
Ihcilities of the MPR:(c) A clescription of the design and functional features of the Resort FIen revision.
setting out how the revision provides for unified development. inteqrated site design and
protection of natural amenities:
(d) A listing of nrnposed gdditional usgs and/or proposed chanses to densitv and
intensity of uses within the resort. and a discussion of how these changes meet thg needs
of resideqts of the Pleasqtrl Harbor MPR and patrons of the resort:(e) A completed SHPA environmsltal checklist with descfiption and analysig of the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision. including an analysis of the
curnulative impacts of both the oropose{revision and the approve4 Resorl Plan. and their
effects on surroundlng properties andlor public facilitiesl(.0 A description of how the proposed Resort Plan revision is integrated with the
overall Pleasant l-Iarbor MPR and any features. such as connections to trail systems.
natural systems or greenbelts. that have bgg*- Sstablished to retain and enhance the
character of Lhe resort and the overall MPR;(.9) A description of the intended nhasing of development proiectsl
flr) Maps. drawings. illustratioB.[. or other m4teriuls necessary to astist in
understanding and visualizing the design and use of the completed proposed
development. its facilities and scrviees. and the protection of critical areas:(j) A calculation of esti.mgted new demands on capital facilities and seryices and
their relationship to the existinu resort and MPR demands. including but not limited to
transportation. water. sewer and stormwater facilitiesl and a demonstration that su'tlicient
{apilitiep and services to support the development are availablE or will be available at the
time development permits are 4Bplied for.
(2) Major Revision Process. Major revisions shall be processed as a hearing examiner
desision (TyBe III)" With a required public hearinB prior to the decision. Publignotice of the
application. the required public hearing. the written decision. and appeal opportunities shall be
providgd to all persons or aeencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Chapter 18.40
Article [II. Unified Development Code* Any proposqd mqior revision also involving a change to
lhe boundaries of the MPR zone shAll requhe a Comprehensive Plan erncndment (a Type V
sounty c_ommissioners decision) prior to any decision on the Resort Plqn amendment and review
by the County Planning Cqmnrission and qubsequent reconlnrendation to the Board of County
Commissioners who apl)rove all Comprehensive Plan amsndments.(3) Decision Criteria. The heating examiner may approve a major revision to the Resort PIan.
and the lloard*gf County Commissiouerc may approve any associated Conrprehensive PIan
Amendr$enls. only if all the following criteria are met:
(a) 'l'lre proposed revision would further the qoals and policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan:
-10-
(,b) No unmitigated probable sisrrificant adverse environmental impacts would be
created bv the proposed revision;
G) The revision is consistent with all applicable development reg$lations. includinq
those established for critical areas:
(d) _ On.site and off-site infiqstucture (inch,rding but not limited to water. sewer.
storm water and transpeirtation facilities) impacts have becn fully considered and
mitigated:(e) The oroposed revision gomplements the existin&resort facilities. meets the needs
of residents and patrons. and provides br unified devglopment. integrated sit, design.
and protection of natural amenities.
-l l-
Title 18
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Chapter 18.15
Land Use Districts
18.15.025 Master planned resort.
Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated
development with primary focus on resort destination facilities that includes short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the
property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. A resort may include other
residential uses, but only ifthe residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site
recreational nature ofthe resort.
(1) Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). The fifglenly existing
offrcially designated master planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, which is
designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.362 as an existing master planned resort and is
subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is
characterized by both single-family and multifamily residential units with attendant recreational
facilities including a marina, resort and convention center. The master planned resort of Port
Ludlow also includes a large residential community. The entire resort is served by a village
commercial center, which accommodates uses limited to serving the resort and local population.
The master planned resort's internal regulations and planning restrictions such as codes,
covenants and restrictions may be more restrictive than the requirements in JCC Title 17.
However, Jefferson County does not enforce private codes, covenants and resffictions.
(2) Pleasant Harbor MPR. Plea$ant Harbor.MPR is thg second officiallv designated nraster
planned resprt in the County. The Pleasant Fl&rbor MPR is designated in accordance with RCW
36.704.360 as a new master planned resort and is subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17. The
Pleasant Flaxbor MPR is characjerized by rqjiort and recreation facilities and amenities south of
Black_Point Road and a mprina/Maritimg Village end associatsd housing north of Black Point
Road. The resort is predominatel,y designed to serve resofi and recreation usqs- and has only
limited full-tinre occupancy. The Iesort is served hy the Brinnon Rural Center. which
accommgdates LAMIRD-scale commercial uses serving the resort and local population. The
rnaster planned resort's internal regulations and pl{nning restrictions such as codes. covenants
and restrictions may be more.restrictive than the reguirements in JCC--Title 17. However.
Jefferson County does not enforce private codes. covenants and restrictions.
18.15.115 Designation.
"Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive
Plan. The enl:rereistirlg officially designated master planned resortq in the county g1q is the Port
Ludlow MPR-and the Pleasant Harb , provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17.
The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of
existing master planned resorts. Pleasant Flarbor MPR is adopted pprsuant to RCW 36.704.360
perlaining to new Master Planned Resorls. Designation of any new master planned resorts
pnrsuant to RCW 36.70A,360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a
formal site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the
findings required by JCC 18.45.080.
-12-
18.15.120 Purpose and intent.
Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features, including climate, vegetation, water,
natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and geological features, which are desirable for a
wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New master plarured resorts authorized by RCW
36.704.360 offer an opportunity to utilize these special features for enjoyment and recreational
use, while bringing significant economic diversification and benefits to rural communities. The
purpose of this article is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to
those properties the board of county commissioners determines are appropriate for development
as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW
36.70A.360.
18.15.123 Allowable uses.
The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.360:(1) All residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums,
time-share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided, such uses are integrated into and
support the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort.(2) Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges,
and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental; provided, that short-term
visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort
accommodation units.
3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to tennis
courts, swimming pools, marinas, hiking and nature trails, bicycle paths, equestrian facilities,
sports complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent with the on-site
recreational nature of the master planned resort.
(4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites.(5) Visitor-oriented amenities, including, but not limited to:
(a) Eating and drinking establishments;
(b) Meeting facilities;
(c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the
needs ofthe users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas,
gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real estate/property management offices; and(d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and
outdoor equipment rental and sales.(6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and
exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums.(7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the
master planned resort.
(8) Temporary and/or permanent structures to serve as sales offices.(9) Any other similar uses deemed by the administrator to be consistent with the purpose and
intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding master planned resorts, and
RCW 36.70A.360.
18.15.126 Requirements for master planned resorts.
An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements:
-1 3-
(l) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and
provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include:
(a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being situated
to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational features that will attract
people to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term
visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site
recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and
commercial and supportive services provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of
use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs
ofthe resort and its users.
(d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing
the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and
services, including residential and nonresidential development types and location.
(e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and functional
features that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of
natural amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities,
road and parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the
project site.
(0 A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the
measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water
and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and
supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area
pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program.
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its
design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among
land uses within the development and adjacent to the development.
(h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary,
appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that
concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met.
(i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The
initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the
full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also
discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of
the project, and how the project may operate successfu[y and meet its environmental
protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all
phases are completed.
(2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a
development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development
Agreements), and RCW 36.708.170 through 36.708.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40,830(3) and
RCW 36.708.170, the development agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set
forth the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned
resort, which may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
-14-
(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 (ifapplicable),
visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on-site recreational
facilities, and on-site retail/commercial services;
(e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and
(0 Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and
RCW 36.70B.170(3).
(3) Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A master planned resort shall
require a site-specific amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to a master planned
resort land use designation, pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18.45,040; provided, that the
subarea planning process authorized under Article VII of Chapter 18.15 JCC (Subarea Plans) and
JCC 18.45.030 may be used if deemed appropriate by both the applicant and the county. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the county concurrent
with the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for approval of a
master planned resort.
(4) Planned Actions. [f deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a master planned
resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of
RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-ll-164 and 197-11-168.
(5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level
commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such
services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and land uses
are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master plan:red resort, except in areas otherwise
designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.704.110.
18.15.129 Applicationrequirementsand approvalprocess.
New MPR applications shall be processed as Type V permits under this UDC, requiring
legislative approval by the board of county commissioners and the following:
(1) A draft of the master plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of JCC
r8.1s.126(1).
(2) A request for authorization of a development agreement, pursuant to the requirements of
JCC 18.15.126(2) and Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements).
(3) A request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment necessary to
meet the requirement of JCC 18.15.126(3) and 18.45,040. [Ord. 8-06 $ 1]
18.15.132 Decision-making authority.(1) The planning commission, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040 and
18,45.080, shall hear and make recommendations on master plans and site-specific applications
for MPR land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
(2) The board of county commissioners, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC
18.40.040, 18.40.850(5) and 18.45.080, shall designate new master planned resort land use
districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the uses, densities, conditions and
standards authorized for site-specific MPRs in a development agreement, and approve master
plans.
-15-
18.15.135 Criteria for approval.
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or
approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or
modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the
application shall be denied.
(1) The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI-D of this
chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA).
(2) The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections of
this code and all other codes and policies of the county.
(3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space,
recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR suffrcient to stand alone if
no subsequent phases are developed.
(4) The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and sufficient
services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to adequately
meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR.
(5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
(6) Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening of
facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in
order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic
sites, and public views.
(7) All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and
mitigated.
(8) Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid or
minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property.
(9) The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the
character of the resort.
(10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-term
importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of
agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agricultural or forest
resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 $ I ]
18.15.138 Port+{dlo# Master Planned Resort
The Port=Lud*,sw Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title l7), as may be amended to be
consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of
this UDC.
-t6-
July 6, 2016
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Kathleen Kler, BOCC Chair; Phil Johnson; and David Sullivan;
The Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC) has spent the last six months reviewing the Pleasant Harbor
Master Planned Resort (MPR) project with the goal of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners on the Development Regulations (code) that will govern future development of this
Comprehensive Plan designated MRP site at Black Point near Brinnon, Washington.
As you know, it is not without significant concerns that we send these recommendations forward to you. We will
attempt here to lay out what we leamed in our six month study and review, what the regulations before you
represent, and what we believe still needs to be done. We also want to lay out how we believe this process should
have gone and should go from here forward. This learning curve has been steep and mostly "self-taught" without
much support from a Department of Community Development (DCD) that has been without a full-time DCD
Director for nearly a year and without a DCD Manager for over a year and a half. This is our attempt to convey to
you the depth of what we have learned and now understand as a result of our study.
What is the action?
From the very beginning of our review we sought clarification of the "Proposed Action" which triggered the
current SEPA review. Here is what is stated in the SFEIS:
"PROPOSED ACTIONS: Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Draft Supplemental EIS
Jefferson County is considering the adoption of amendments to Title l7 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. 0l- 0128-08, adopted January 28,2008. [n addition, the
County is considering the text of a proposed Development Agreement, as required by the Comprehensive
Plan, to guide the development, phasing, and standards for the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR)."
The purpose of the EIS, therefore, should have been to examine alternative language for the development
regulations, NOT alternatives to a specific development proposal and its accouterments. This point remains a
significant point of confusion for all parties involved.
In our review we held a public hearing in Brinnon on January 6th, closely following release of the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), where we heard from a divided public. Vocal
proponents and opponents filled the Brinnon Elementary School Gym and stood in line to speak, both for and
against this development. At that hearing it was very clear that the public was unaware of the proposed action,
approval of MPR development regulations, and understandably believed the hearing was addressing approval of
the Statesman Development proposal specifically, not proposed regulations. The FSEIS certainly contributed to
that confusion.
1
Since then we have been educating ourselves on the history and current state of this proposal by reviewing the
FSEIS and its accompanying letters and other documents, as well as fifteen years of public and tribal comment on
development of this site.
What we have learned about the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) site:
The site designated as the Pleasant Harbor MPR takes up approximately one third of a peninsula on Hood Canal
known as Black Point. Black Point sits directly adjacent the Duckabush River estuary and just south of the
Dosewallips River estuary, two important salmon and steelhead rivers, on a stretch of beach rich in shellfish and
other marine life and on the south end of Hood Canal, a body of water with one entrance and one in which little
exchange of water from the Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Ocean can occur. What goes
into this body of water primarily stays in this body of water.
The Black Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR is a particularly and specifically sensitive site for the following reasons
a. The site is located on, and in close proximity to, the Hood Canal, a sixty-mile long fiord with limited tidal
exchange.
b. The site includes unusually large kettles, geological formations formed by retreating glaciers.
c. The site is located between the Dosewallips and the Duckabush rivers, two major salmon habitats.
d. The site is surrounded by significant shellfish habitat with a harvest of 140,000 lbs. yearly.
e. The site's critical role in aquifer recharge.
f. The site includes a small freshwater aquifer surrounded by salt water, making it particularly vulnerable to
saltwater intrusion.
g. The additional traffic that will contribute to significant runoff impacts from increased traffic on WA-101.
h. The likelihood that wastewater, even after advanced treatment, will still include significant pesticides,
herbicides, and an overabundance of nutrients, as well as human hormones and other medications is
high. These contaminants, if introduced into the aquifer, even after treatment, can pollute wells and seep
out into tidal beaches that rely on fresh water from the aquifer mixed with salt water for healthy marine
habitat. Excess nutrients are a major contributing factor in toxic algae blooms and low oxygen events in
the Hood Canal.
Hood Canal
2
Ilo*eqallipr &Irsr
& rstaarn
I
xDuckabuslr Birer
& rstuerv
BhrkPoint/
Pleasanr Eartor
MPRGeoeral
Locetion-
Black Point between two estuaries
Ho*d C$nfil
N
W-;il 1
:1I
N
What we have learned about this MPR process:
The approval of the Brinnon/Pleasant Harbor Master PIan Resort (MPR) will be largest single land use decision
made by the Jefferson County BOCC since enactment of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990.
Two primary documents await approval: 1) the Development Regulations or "code" that will be incorporated into
the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and2) the Development Agreement between the county and a specific
developer.
In our study we have discovered the following
o No study specifically addressing shellfish impact and tribal harvest rights was found to be included in any
EIS.. Other important environmental concerns raised in comments in the Draft Supplemental EIS were not
addressed, or were addressed only superficially, in the Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS),. Jefferson County, as an agent of the State, is a party to the Point No Point Treaty of I 855,o Black Point is within the usual and accustomed grounds included in the Point No Point Treaty of 1855, (the
ceded area) which entitles treaty tribes certain named and established rights to hunting, fishing, gathering
and the right to carry on cultural and spiritual practices. The Tribes have standing as natural resource co-
managers.. Comments submitted repeatedly at different points in the process by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
(PGST) were not addressed in the FSEIS.. PGST comments to the Draft SEIS were not included in the Final SEIS.. An anthropology report, addressing the cultural significance of the kettles, was not found to be included in
any Environmental lmpact Statement.. Government to government consultation with the PGST took place only in the last several months, when the
PGST insisted upon it.e The Planning Commission was informed by staff (David Wayne Johnson) late in the process that draft
regulations put before the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) had in fact been drafted by
Statesman Group and written to accommodate the company's specific development proposal. Those draft
regulations included language naming a specific developer (Statesman) addressed the specifics of
Statesman's yet-to-be-approved development and included references to a development agreement that has
yet to be developed,/approved.. DCD recommended enacting development regulations and a developer agreement in a single action, an
impossibility if the developer agreement is to reflect the direction of the adopted regulations. The PC was
told that if Statesman withdrew, the regulations would also be withdrawn.r Requirements included in the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ordinance 01-0128-08 that the
tribes be consulted, as well as other requirements such as the preservation of at least one kettle, were not
included in the proposed regulations.
Where the process appears to be out of sequence:
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70a.360 (4)(a) states:
"A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if: (a) The comprehensive plan specifically
identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts;"
In keeping with the above language, Chapter 3 (Land Use and Rural Development) of the current (Revised by
ORD#01-0105-09) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP) Goals and Policies, LNP (Land Use Policy) 24.12
states:
J
"LNP 24.12 The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review and designation of
master planned resorts that include, at a minimum, compliance with these policies."
The BOCC adopted Ordinance 01-0128-08 allowing the CP MPR designation on Black Point references both
RCW 36.70A.360 and our own Jefferson County Goals and Policies (24.1-24.13) following completion of the
original FEIS. However, we find no evidence that general regulations have been adopted (not specific to any
particular MPR) "to guide the review and designation of master planned resorts", which are required both by the
RCW and by our own CP LNP 24.12.
As proposed by Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD), the development regulations
and the development agreement were to be submitted together in a single action to the BOCC. The Planning
Commission was asked to review and recommend adoption of Development Regulations by the BOCC that
incorporate and reference a Development Agreement that has not yet been put before the Planning Commission.
In the absence of such regulatory directives as is required (See RCW and LNP references above), we find the draft
regulations specific to this site and Statesman's specific development proposal now before the PC out of sync
with WA State code and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policy.
That policy/code, when enacted, should clearly spell out a sequence for creating and approving the comprehensive
plan designation of a new MPR, when and how regulations governing that MPR should be drafted and adopted,
what action prompts SEPA Review, how applications for specific MPR development proposals are to be reviewed
and approved, and how the development agreement should relate in timing and in fact to the regulations
governing the MPR site and the application for the specific MPR development.
We believe this step is required before any further review of this MPR can take place. This general MPR Policy
should include the steps required to create development regulations for any MPR in Jefferson County and for each
MPR designated area.
MRSC recommendations for MPRs in small rural counties:
According to Master Planned Resorts "Washington Style," MRSC of WA State (2003): "A large and complex
MPR development can add substantially to the workload of county staff, particularly in a small rural county.
Significant staff time and often specialized expertise from outside the county may be required during the
development review process, construction and follow-up monitoring stages." A sample agreement for such
services is included in that guidance document. Again, this is pertinent guidance that the Planning Commission
had to discover and research on our own.
Why members of the Planning Commission took on a draft edit:
On April 18th a Government to Government meeting between the BOCC and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
(PGST) took place at the Jefferson County Courthouse in BOCC chambers, The result of that meeting was an
agreement between the BOCC and the PGST that technical staff employed by the PGST, Jefferson County DCD,
and Statesman Group would hold further meetings to work out the technical and environmental requirements of
this site and this development. As far as the Planning Commission is currently aware, these technical meetings
have not taken place, and no agreement has been reached.
In anticipation of that Government to Government meeting and again afterward, the Planning Commission
repeatedly asked that the regulations be taken back to DCD staff so that deficiencies in the draft regulations could
be addressed, references to the specific developer removed, and time allowed for the government-to-government
negotiations with the PGST to conclude, with the results incorporated into a future draft, before the Planning
4
Commission spent any more time on the development regulation recommendation process. These requests were
denied and the BOCC instead gave the PC a deadline of June z}'h,2016 (later extended by the BOCC to July I l'h,
2016), by which date a recommendation from the PC for development regulations would be made to the BOCC or
else the BOCC would consider the PC to have no recommendation.
Feeling that it was important to pass our learning onto the BOCC in some form, some PC members stepped in to
revise the proposed regulations themselves. The PC's revised regulations removed references to a specific
developer inappropriate at the regulatory level, included regulations that address the development review process
and requirements of this particularly sensitive site, and clarified that legislative action on the development
regulations needs to proceed the review and approval of any related development agreement so that the agreement
can be written to comply with those enacted regulations, It is the position of the PC that this, work should have
been done at staff level or by a consultant to this MPR process before the proposal was brought before the
Planning Commission in the first place. Also, PC members attempted to include appropriate references to the 30
Conditions included in Ordinance #01-0128-08 which were not included in the draft regulations the PC was given
to review.
Using the PC Draft, the entire Planning Commission spent approximately eight hours during the course of two
public meetings going line by line over the development regulations to find what we could, as a majority, send
forward to you.
Each member of our planning commission has had different questions about this process and about the proposed
development, but as a whole we worked hard to find a way to make recommendations that allow the development
to move forward while necessarily protecting this particularly sensitive site, the aquifer for the Black Point area
the MPR would draw from, the area's role as a critical aquifer recharge area, surrounding shellfish beds fed by
that aquifer, neighboring estuaries and salmon habitat, its unique geology and cultural history, and its location on
Hood Canal.
We believe in the case of this particularly environmentally sensitive location, the county has a legal right, and in
fact a legal and ethical imperative, to go beyond the mitigation measures that are proposed in the FSEIS in order
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Critical Areas Ordinance, the UDC and state and federal
requirements for the protection of the environment. In fact, there is valid concern that adequate mitigation of
significant environmental impacts may not even be possible given the scale of the proposed development and the
sensitivity of the site and surrounding area.
How we think this process should go:
We believe a clearer, fairer, and more defensible sequencing for this and all future MPRs the BOCC considers
would be to:
l. Clarify and expand the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Jefferson County Code for designating and
considering any and all new MPRs to include a clear and specific order for MPR designation, creation,
and adoption of regulations as a clear and distinct action subject to SEPA Non-project Review.
2. Adopt development regulations (county code) for this specific MPR that would clearly articulate the
process for, and requirements of, any proposed development application within this MPR, only after full
public review and consultation with any tribal governments with jurisdiction. Such regulations should be
based on the 30 specific conditions outlined in the BOCC ordinance, the general policies of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive PIan, as well as the specific policies pertaining to MPRs, and the Brinnon
Subarea Plan.
3. Once a MPR development application receives approval, then and only then should a development
agreement be drafted that would meet the requirements of the adopted regulations and clarify the
5
agreement between the county and the developer. Only after adoption of the developer agreement would a
developer have vested rights.
In this way, were the current developer to choose not to proceed with this project, a future party would be able to
proceed with a development proposal on this site knowing what that process would entail and what the
requirements would be, for the protection of the county and transparency for all applicants as well as other
interested parties, including other agencies or tribes with jurisdiction, the surrounding community, and the general
public.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, MPRs, and this proposal:
Even though our Comprehensive Plan allows for Master Planned Resorts, they must still be consistent with the
overall vision, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable regulations. The Planning
Commission finds this development, as currently proposed, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's MPR
designations or with the Brinnon Subarea Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan states
"The economic reasons for siting of a master planned resort, however, must also be carefully balanced against
the potential for significant adverse environmental effects from such a development. Any proposal must be
carefully planned and regulated to prevent any type of sprawl development outside of the master planned
development that would destroy the scenic and often environmentally sensitive setting. The Comprehensive
Plan identifies policies in LNG 24.0 that help guide development of any new MPR designation. The goal and
policies focus on protecting the rural character and natural environment of areas potentially impacted by
development of an MPR, ensuring adequate provision of public facilities and services, and preventing the
spread of low density sprawl."
and
. Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of lifestyles that make up the
intrinsic character of this community.r Support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by recognizing existing local
businesses, making prudent and appropriate infrastructure investments, and encouraging new business
start-ups and recruitment which are compatible with and complementary to the community.o Protect and conserve the local natural resource base, balancing both habitat and economic values.o Reinforce and enhance the historic sense of "place" or "community" around traditional population centers.r Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in favor of infill and the
strengthening of local communities.
The Brinnon Subarea Plan states:
P 1 . I Encourage the proposal of a Master Planned Resort for Black Point to foster economic development in
Brinnon consistent with the vision illustrated in this Subarea Plan.
P1.2 Ensure that the project review procedures and public involvement processes in place for designation of
an MPR at Black Point are implemented in a manner that results in a project that meets the need for local
economic development while protecting the natural environment and rural character of surrounding
properties.
P1.3 The Black Point MPR project review and approval process should reflect the diversity of interests and
potential property owners who may be included in such an overall project at Black Point.
From: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-16 Revised by ORD#01-0105-09
6
The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC careful consideration of the following:
. The feasibility and appropriateness of siting a golf course and mega-resort over a critical aquifer recharge
atea;. Keeping all three kettles intact in recognition that they are important cultural sites and significant geological
formations;o A thorough independent review ofthe hydrologic function and relationship between surface water,
groundwater and runoff and the sensitivity of this particular aquifer as both a sole-source (or near sole-source)
aquifer for the residents of Black Point and the significant aquifer recharge area, potential for contamination
by pollutants in runoff or any other contributions to the aquifer from treated sources;. The planning commission's finding that the proposed 890 housing units was three times the density of Port
Townsend, some of us believe a density of no more than 300 units could be more appropriate to the site,
pending technical review;. Building height allowances to be consistent with existing Jefferson County Code;. The need for a detailed stormwater management plan that demonstrates how all stormwater runoff generated
onsite will be treated and infiltrated onsite.. Proposed mitigation for stormwater pollution impacts generated off-site and related to increased traffic on
Hwy 101 and arterial roads that is caused by the development.o Address the elimination of contaminants before they enter runoff and groundwater, while utilizing a
comprehensive monitoring and feedback plan as an important last line of defense.. A clear and defensible plan for what happens iflwhen monitoring reveals problems. (e.g. can the site be shut
down or scaled back, etc.);. Coordination/consultation with affectedtribes;o Meet or exceed 30 BOCC conditions;. Feasibility of doing off-site treatment of black/gray water as well as runoff in place of the planned rapid
injection system approach, which could result in inadequately treated stormwater/blackwater entering and
polluting a finite, sensitive aquifer that discharges to adjacent shellfish beds as well as salmon/steelhead
habitat in adjacent river estuaries.. Local hires and contracts prioritized (in the MPR Washington Style guide as well as one of 30 BOCC
conditions) with a clear process of prioritizing, fostering, and maintaining local business relationships and
labor pools;. Working with the existing geography, land contours and natural beauty, minimize land disturbance, and
design in accordance with other principles and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Despite the PC's agreement on many revisions, some of us do not believe that the regulations we put forth to you
in our majority recommendations go far enough and do not represent a clear and appropriate succession of events
leading up to the PC review of the proposed regulations. In the interest of completing the technical process
agreed upon in the April 18th government to government meeting between Jefferson County and the Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe between PGST, the developer, and county staff, and in the interest of making sure what happens
next is as clearly sequenced and defensible as possible, we put forward the following:
We advise that a moratorium on development approval at the Black Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR site be put
into place until clear regulations be adopted pursuant to, and consistent with, RCW 36.70a.360 Master
Planned Resorts and our own CP LNP 24.12.
We advise that the proposed development regulations currently under consideration be withdrawn, new MPR
tiered policy/code be created and adopted that specifies how new MPRs are to be proposed and reviewed.
Following that, we further propose that specific regulations for the Black Point/Pleasant Harbor MPR be
proposed, reviewed and adopted in full consultation with tribal governments who have treaty rights as a
result of the Point No Point treaty of I 855.
a
a
a
7
a
a We find that it would not be within the best interests of the county to adopt the proposed unclear regulations
at this time. We believe the regulations should undergo a further refinement and review, which is beyond the
scope of this Planning Commission, the timeline given the planning commission, and the current resource
constraints of the DCD. We recommend an outside consultant, chosen by the county and paid for by the
developer, further review the MPR regulations to address all environmental and regulatory concerns.
In the absence of these steps, we feel that the draft regulations put forward herein are premature.
We find that the process and distinct steps for adopting an MPR is extraordinarily complex and needs to be
clarified in in our Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Jefferson County Code for the future so that all
parties - staff, applicant, and the public - can anticipate and follow the process. Similarly, Comprehensive Plan
policies and guidelines for golf courses should be reviewed and updated and the question of where, how, and/or if
new golf courses should be allowed should be addressed.
Despite all of the aforementioned concerns, we do believe that an appropriately planned and scaled low-impact
development MPR at Black Point, designed to maximize preservation of existing natural features and cultural
resources, and affording ample public access, could offer an extraordinary opportunity to create a recreational
development with unique features and qualities, one that highlights and enhances the natural beauty and character
of Brinnon and the Pleasant Harbor MPR site for the enjoyment of all and the full environmental health of this
pristine location. As one planning commissioner quipped, "This could be and should be the cleanest resort in the
world !" The citizens of Jefferson County and the State of Washington deserve that.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Koan, Chair
Jefferson County Planning Commission
cc: Philip Morley, Patty Charnas, Planning Commission Desk
Letter approved at71612016 PC public meeting
In Favor:
Cynthia Koan, Chair (District 1)
Lorna Smith, Co-chair (District 2)
Mark Jochems (District 2)
Tom Giske (District 3)Abstaining:
Mike Nilssen (District 3)
Absent:
Gary Felder (District l)
Matt Sircely (District 2)
Richard Hull (District 3)
Kevin Coker (District l)
8
Opposed: