Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout119STAFF REPORT - Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Development Regulations and Development Agreement DATE: July ___, 2017 TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and Jefferson County Planning Commission FROM: Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MLA08-00188/ZON08-00056: Development Regulations and Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned ATTACHMENTS: a. Development Regulations b. Development Agreement c. (Planning commission recommendation?) RECOMMENDATION Department of Community Development staff recommend approval of the draft development regulations of Title 17 and 18 of the Unified Development Code and approval for the draft development agreement. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Located on the Black Point Peninsula in Brinnon and encompassing 238-acres, comprised of fourteen (14) parcels (one of which is privately owned with an existing bed and breakfast), the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Master Planned Resort requires approval of proposed zoning and development regulations (DR) under Jefferson County Code (JCC) Title 17 to implement the previously approved Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment that re-designated the parcels from Rural Residential RR 1:10 to Master Planned Resort zoning (MLA06-00087) in 2008. The project also requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners of a development agreement (DA) between the County and Developer as to the terms and conditions under which the development shall take place. The proposal includes the completed Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement (FSEIS) to ensure compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and review and recommendation by the Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC), with final approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). The proposal, also the applicants preferred alternative is identified as Alternative 3 of the FSEIS issued on December 9, 2015. Preferred Alternative 3 consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103-acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for the golf course grading. Approximately 900 feet of the Pleasant Harbor public boat launch road will be moved approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast along Black Point Road, all on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owned property. The relocated road will create a safer entrance to the marina and help alleviate congestion during the fishing and shellfish seasons. Of the 890 residential units, 52 will be reserved for staff housing and a ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residents will be reserved for permanent residences consistent with JCC 18.15.123(2) and Condition 63(aa) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. The Pleasant Harbor 300 slip marina, although within the boundaries of the master planned resort, was not included in the analysis of the FSEIS because it was re-developed under an Amended Binding Site Plan. Site development will be conducted in the following phases: Phase 1: • Construct U.S. Hwy 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements • Construct Marina Access Drive within SEIS site • Construct relocated WDFW Boat Access Road • Construct Water Storage Tank at Tee 9 with transmission/distribution piping • Redevelop Resort Well • Create Construction Materials Processing Location on Golf Course Site • Construct Septic Tanks and Sand filters on WWTP Site (Large Onsite Septic System – LOSS) • Construct Drip Line Drainfield in Fairway 14 (LOSS) • Set up Construction Camp • Construct Maritime Village Building and Parking • Construct Transit Stop Parking Phase 2: • Construct Electric Power Infrastructure for Resort Site (Mason County PUD Improvements) • Construct site utilities for Phase 2 – utilities underground and roads • Construct Terrace 1 Building (191 units; 36,000 sf commercial) • Develop second well • Construct Kettle B Reservoir • Create wetland in Kettle C • Construct storm pond at Fairway 10 with stormwater pumps • Clearing and grading of site • Begin Golf Course construction (grading/contouring) and create plant/tree nursery • Construct Wastewater Recovery Plant • Construct Maintenance Building and Staff Quarters (52 units) Phase 3: • Construct Golf Terraces 2, 3 and 4 (329 units) • Construct Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations and Force main • Construct site utilities for Phase 3 – utilities underground and roads • Complete Golf Course Construction • Construct Golf Halfway House (snack and beverage) at Fairway 9 • Reconstruct Black Point Road • Golf Course opens Phase 4: • Construct Seaview Villas (206 units) • Construct Golf Vistas (44 units) PUBLIC OUTREACH/PARTICIPATION Public participation is an essential, and required, component for development regulations. The list below outlines the public participation events that occurred BACKGROUND Case No.: MLA08-00188 / ZON08-00056 Applicant: Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP Garth Mann, President/CEO 7370 Sierra Morena Blvd SW Calgary, AB T3H 4H9 Canada Date of Application: An application to amend the GMA Implementing regulations (Unified Development Code – Jefferson County Code Titles 17 & 18) and a request for a Development Agreement was submitted to DCD on April 16, 2008 consistent with JCC 18.45.090(1)(c), and deemed complete on May 14, 2008 per JCC 18.40.110(4). Location: The project site is located on the east side of Highway 101 and west of Hood Canal approximately one and a half (1.5) miles south of the Brinnon Community and south of Pleasant Harbor on the Black Point Peninsula.   Legal Description: Parcel numbers include: 502153002, 003, 023, 020, 021 & 022; 502154002; 502152005, 012, 013, 014, 015 & 016 (and 017 for development regulations), in Sections 15 & 22, Township 25, Range 02 West, WM, located in Brinnon, WA 98320 Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcels as Master Planned Resort (MPR). The purpose and intent of the MPR designation is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to those properties the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) determines are appropriate for development as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360. The BoCC re-designated the subject parcels to MPR from Rural Residential RR 1:10 on January 28, 2008, as approved by Ordinance 01-0128-08. Site Visits: Jefferson County staff have conducted several site visits; more recently on June 2015, October 3, 2016, and May 24, 2017. Site Description: The Pleasant Harbor site is located in south Jefferson County on the western shore of Hood Canal, about 1.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Brinnon. More specifically, the site is located on a 710-acre peninsula known as Black Point that is surrounded by the waters of Hood Canal on the north, south and east, and is bordered by U.S. Hwy 101 to the west. Pleasant Harbor is an all-weather deep-water harbor formed by the west shore of Black Point and the mainland, and is connected to Hood Canal by a narrow channel at the harbor’s north end. Pleasant Harbor is home to two existing marinas: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Home Port Marina. Pleasant Harbor Marina is located at the south end of the harbor and Home Port Marina is located at the north end of the marina. The project site consists of 13 parcels and is located on approximately 237.88-acres; 218.19-acres are located south of Black Point Road, 19.69-acres are located north of Black Point Road (this does not include the leased tidelands of the Marina). The marina area includes the area north of the Pleasant Harbor House and the existing bed and breakfast (not owned by the applicant), and includes: a pool; grocery and food service building; pool equipment building; pool restroom building; laundry; boaters’ shower; restroom building and docks for moorage of 300 slips. An Amended Binding Site Plan (BSP) (MLA12-00207) allowed redevelopment of these structures within the same building footprint under separate building permits. A small building that contained a former real estate office has been removed at the intersection of Black Point Road and U.S. Hwy 101. This area from this intersection to the BSP boundary is forested with a narrow paved and gravel road that connects the gravel parking lot for the small office building with the marina area. Two single family residences are located at the north boundary of this area including the Pleasant Harbor House, and the privately owned bed & breakfast. The old Naco/American campground located to the south of Black Point Road is unused and consists of overgrown vegetated areas (trees, shrubs, ferns, blackberries, and grasses), a system of paved and graveled roads, paths, parking areas, tent camp sites, recreation vehicle (RV) pad sites, picnic areas with shelter buildings, an activity center and swimming pool that has been filled with soil, playground equipment, restroom buildings with septic tanks and drain fields, wells for water supply, gravel borrow areas, an entry guard house, and fenced equipment storage areas. None of the buildings within the former Black Point campground are in use. The southern portion of the site is a steep bluff (100+ feet high) and a narrow beach fronting the shellfish beaches on the Duckabush River delta. An existing trail, not currently in use, presently leads from the top of the bluff to the beach, but no development is located in proximity to the bluffs or the beaches. Beach access will not be allowed as part of this proposal. A Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) property located north of Black Point Road is approximately 28.7-acres and contains a boat ramp and picnic facilities at the south end of Pleasant Harbor. A boat access road connects Black Point Road to the boat launch. The remainder of the WDFW property is forested hillside. See Appendix D of the SEIS for details of this existing access road and surrounding property. Direct access to the Pleasant Harbor site is provided via Black Point Road. No vehicular access currently exists from Black Point Road to the north within the site area; however, a narrow paved and gravel road connects the gravel parking area for the small former office building and the Pleasant Harbor Marina. Direct access to the gravel parking lot is from U.S. Hwy 101. This narrow road is overgrown in some areas. Vehicular access to the Pleasant Harbor House is via the marina area which accesses U.S. Hwy 101 and access to the Bed and Breakfast is direct via the gravel driveway. Vehicular entry to the existing campground is via Old Black Point Road, an undefined County Road that serves as the first 0.04 miles of the existing entrance into the campground. This road is on property owned by WDFW. Old Black Point Road intersects with Black Point Road at approximately 0.05 miles from U.S. Hwy 101. Public access to the campground is currently restricted via an entry gate at the entrance to the campground. The existing campground contains a network of privately-owned paved and gravel roads and paths. Existing vegetative cover on the site is remnant from earlier logging activities and the former campground. Vegetation consists primarily of an over story of Douglas-fir with red alder, black cottonwood, bitter cherry, big leaf maple and Pacific Madrone. Understory includes broadleaf shrubs, red flowering currant, Scot’s broom, blackberry, vine maple, salal and evergreen huckleberry. The site is characterized by several relatively flat terraces, interspersed with steep slopes and a series of kettles or depressions. The topography of the site ranges from mean sea level (msl) to about 320 feet above msl on the peninsula, and from msl to approximately 100 ft. above msl in the area north of Black Point Road. Slopes on the peninsula range from less than 2 percent in the western portion of the site, to more than 100 percent in the area of steep coastal bluffs along the south boundary. The high point on the peninsula (at existing grades) occurs in the southeast portion of the site. The site contains several “kettle” depressions, formed when blocks of ice buried in glacial moraines melted. The largest of these kettles, Kettle B in the north-central portion of the site, occurs in impervious soils and supports a wetland. Other kettles on the site occur in porous soils and are well-drained. Three wetland systems have been delineated in the central and eastern portions of the site. Refer to Section 3.7 of the SEIS for further information on wetlands. Two streams flow through the site north of Black Point Road. Both streams are seasonal streams that do not support fish use or habitat and are classified as Type Ns streams that require a minimum 50-foot buffer dependent on the gradient per Jefferson County Code (JCC 18.22.270). The private water system infrastructure within the site area presently includes supply wells, storage facilities and distribution piping. Two wells supply water to the site including an existing well south of Black Point Road that provides water for the Black Point campground. The second well north of Black Point Road serves the existing, privately owned bed and breakfast. Another well outside of the SEIS boundary serves the marina and the Pleasant Harbor House. Two additional wells within the site located north of Black Point Road serve areas outside the site boundary on the Black Point Peninsula. The existing wastewater collection, treatment and discharge system on the site consists of gravity sewer collection systems, septic and pump tanks, pumps, forcemains, and subsurface drainfields. The Pleasant Harbor House has its own pump tank and grinder pump. The bed and breakfast is served by its own septic system. There are several septic systems throughout the area that are currently not in use. Most natural runoff on the site is presently contained in the kettles or is filtered through natural vegetation. Existing stormwater runoff conveyance systems in the form of culverts are located under Black Point Road and in the streams and drainages north of Black Point Road. Untreated surface drainage from U.S. Hwy 101 is collected in roadside ditches and conveyed to culverts that pass the runoff under the highway to open channels and other culverts to discharge in Pleasant Harbor. Existing utilities in both areas of the site include electrical power, propane gas and telephone. Electricity is supplied to the site via the Mason County PUD. Propane gas is utilized by the adjacent marina and surrounding residential uses. Natural gas is not provided in the area. More details of the site can be found in Chapter 2 of the FSEIS. History: The 2002 Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) identified the previous existing American Campground (consisting of approximately 500 campsites) as an ideal location for a Master Planned Resort (MPR). On March 1, 2006 The Statesman Group submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-zone a portion of Black Point from Rural Residential 1:10 to MPR (MLA06-87). The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved the request on January 28, 2008 with Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 (Exhibit A of this report), stipulating through conditions that any subsequent project level action would require a Supplemental EIS (SEIS). In April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08-00188) to implement the MPR. A public “scoping meeting” was held at the Brinnon School house on October 28th, 2009, and on March 31, 2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining the scope of the SEIS. A revised Scoping Memo was issued on October 12, 2011 to address applicant initiated changes to the alternatives of the project due to the adoption on new Shoreline regulations. On November 19, 2014, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency review with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. Re-development and renovation of the Marina under an existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was completed in April 2015. In July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new preferred alternative #3, which reduced the size of the golf course from 18 to 9 holes with a 3-hole practice course. This change necessitated re-review of some of the environmental elements. A Final SEIS (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015. Proposed Alternatives: The FSEIS evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed project-level development. The following are alternatives evaluated within the FSEIS: 1. Alternative 1 consists of an 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 49,772 square feet of commercial space and resort related amenities on a 231 acre site, with 31 acres of natural area preserved and 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork required for golf course grading. 2. Alternative 2 consists of the 18-hole golf course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 80 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading. 3. Alternative 3, also the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, consists of a 9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading 4. No Action Alternative – it is assumed that the site’s current land use designations would remain (Comprehensive Plan MPR and Rural Residential zoning designations) and the site would remain primarily in rural residential use. Two scenarios are analyzed for this alternative in this Final SEIS; Scenario A – Continuation of existing conditions; and, Scenario B – Redevelopment of the site under existing land use designations with single family residential uses and a 9-hole golf course. The 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, although within of the Master Planned Resort boundary, was not included in FSEIS analysis because it has been re-developed under an existing Amended Binding Site Plan. PROCEDURE Notice: As required under JCC 18.40.150 & 780, public notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader newspaper and mailed to parties of record: Notice of Scoping for Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address Zoning Code Amendments, Development Agreement, and Project Level Environment Review of the Master Plan for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort: October 14, 2009. Notice of Availability of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and Request For Comments on DSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort: November 19, 2014 Notice of Availability of Final Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Amend Unified Development code (UDC) for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort: December 9, 2015. Notice was also posted on the project site on December 23, 2015. SEPA: This application was reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), utilizing the Supplemental EIS (SEIS) type per WAC 197-11-405(4)(a) and as required by Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(b). Jefferson County, as Lead Agency, issued a Draft SEIS on November 19, 2014 with a 45 day comment period that ended on January 5, 2015. The Final SEIS (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015. ADD PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS HERE - DWJ 4/18/16 Government to Government meeting (DWJ to fill this portion in) In a continued effort to address tribal concerns, a meeting was held on December 14, 2016 with Roma Call of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST), Don Coleman (representative of applicant) and Garth Mann (applicant) with Michelle Farfan and Patty Charnas of DCD. PGST claims Kettle B met several criteria for cultural and historic significance and therefore was potentially eligible for further study or inclusion into a National Register (e.g., National Heritage Area or National Register of Historic Places). (In a phone conversation between Michelle Farfan, Patty Charnas and Gretchen Kaehler of Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in May 2017 Gretchen stated no documentation had been submitted for review as nominating Kettle B as a “traditional cultural property (TCP). In order to have Kettle B “listed” it would require the property owner’s signature). PGST raised two other concern: 1) water quality/shellfish and 2) wildlife management. Garth described the investigative work done including identifying the present migration pattern of the Elk Herd which is 2 to 4 miles further to the North of the Black Point Property. Further, the Habitat Study shows no sign of the Elk Herd ever migrating to this area in the past. Washington State Fish and Wildlife already utilize a National Park program for mitigating risks of elk crossing the highway with GPS “proximity-reader” attached to either the ear or a collar on the lead bull elk. At the request of PGST the golf course has been reduced by 50% of grassed area that could attract grazing. Fencing was not considered feasible as investigated in other areas where habitat migration of other species would be impacted, and elk fencing is extremely unsightly and impractical to pursue. Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(q) requires zero stormwater discharge from the golf course into Hood Canal. Marina discharge shall be treated by a system that reduces contamination to the greatest possible extent. Additionally, condition 63(r) requires a county-based water quality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant Harbor. Although not specifically required by this condition, staff offered and sent the draft water quality monitoring plan to the PGST for review and comment. The Tribe responded with a seven-page letter dated May 1, 2017. A second meeting was conducted on January 26, 2017 via web that included from the PGST, Roma Call, Laura Price (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer), Tamara Gage (Shellfish Program Manager), Sam Phillips (Environmental Scientist) and Tim Cullinan (Wildlife Program Manager with the Point No Point Treaty Council); Garth Mann and Jamie McArthur (Statesman Group); and Patty Charnas and Michelle Farfan (DCD). This meeting reviewed in more detail the questions and concerns of the proposed development relative to the PGST tribal treaty rights and resource issues specific to shellfish, water quality, stormwater and wildlife. Laura Price stated on January 23, 2017, the PGST tribal council supported a “path forward to protect Kettles B and C” and will sign a letter being prepared to send to DAHP to request reconsideration of Kettle B and C for further study or listing on a national register. As of June 21, 2017, DAHP had not received anything from the PGST. Garth stated that with timely feedback on the documentation of the cultural significance of Kettle B and C, Statesman will move forward with modifying surface water management from Kettle B to that which is contained in an unofficial, conceptual site plan proposal that was dated August 19, 2016. Garth reminded everyone that the conceptual proposal was in response to PGST communicated concerns regarding Kettles B and C. The proposal lies between two public beaches; the Duckabush (southwest of Black Point) and the Dosewallips (located north of Pleasant Harbor Marina). Tamara reviewed concerns regarding shellfish resources stating the two beaches provide significant shellfish resources for commercial, recreational and subsistence harvest. These two delta flats are two of the most important intertidal areas to tribal harvesters and spoke of the tribe’s concern regarding polluting runoff from the proposed master planned resort. Substantial conversation followed regarding existing verses potential polluting runoff sources and potential impacts to shellfish. Don reminded everyone that the PHMPR is based on a zero-runoff development plan both during and after construction based on the FSEIS page 3.2-7. Additionally, BoCC Condition 63(q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires no runoff from the golf course is to enter Hood Canal regardless of the size or frequency of the runoff event. The Tribe raised the issue of the reduced 9-hole golf course fertilizers and pesticides. Garth reviewed what is in the FSEIS regarding the use of Xeriscaping and Dakota’s REV product which is 100% liquid humic compound, biologically based way to fertilize and manage pests on the proposed nine-hole golf course. The FSEIS contains details regarding treating water for not only biological but other potential contaminants too. Garth stated that Pleasant Harbor staff have been approached to provide area for a shellfish nursery by a member of the PGST. Statesman owns one tideland (approximately 10.11 chains) located at south end of the steep shoreline bank. PGST is concerned the 9-hole golf course will attract elk. The potential risk of mortality to elk crossing the highway is only one concern, the other is the reduced opportunity for Tribal members to hunt and thereby diminishes their treaty right. Tim showed the 2013 elk location and home range data on where elk usage and assemblies have occurred. The data show elk congregating in cleared areas through the studied landscape west of Highway 101. Historically, the elk herd have not shown any migration pattern on the property even in times when considerable grass areas were planted for the purposes of the former American Campground. Tim stated the most important issue is the attraction of elk away from usual hunting areas to the PHMPR. Discussion continued regarding a potential 10 foot high anchored fence along Highway 101 adjacent to the MPR property. Garth stated installing a fence would significantly change the biology and ecological significance of the MPR property. Wildlife protection as described by Tim is not to protect the habitat and management of the elk herd, but to harvest the elk herd based on Tribal hunting rights. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AND PERMITS REQUIRED: Type V Amendment to Development Regulations Type V Development Agreement Type III Binding Site Plan or Type I Boundary Line Adjustment Type I Stormwater Permit for Infrastructure and Class IV General Forest Practices with Public Works review Type I Building permits   APPLICABLE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES: Jefferson County Code (JCC), JCC Titles 17 & 18, Unified Development Code, as amended Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, as amended COMMENTS: Public and Agency comments and staff responses to each comment to the DSEIS can be found in Volume II of the FSEIS. A summary of comments received can be found in Chapter 5 of the FSEIS and is reproduced here as Exhibit B of this report. PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: This section constitutes staff’s findings and conclusions regarding the applicant’s consistency with Washington State Statue, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. RCW 36.70A.360 Master Planned Resorts: The proposed development is subject to the following criteria and requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. Staff Comment: as reviewed, approved and conditioned under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 (Exhibit A), the proposal complies this criterion. Subsequent development shall comply with the conditions of approval under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 #63(a) thru (dd), and specifically condition 63 (aa) that requires a minimum of 65% of residential units be provided for short-term visitor accommodations, and the FSEIS that lists the resort amenities (Appendix S of the FSEIS and Exhibit C of this report) and recreational facilities. NOTE: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 was appealed and upheld by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition v. Jefferson County and Pleasant Harbor - Case No. 08-2-0014 Final Decision and Order) on September 15, 2008. The Board’s Synopsis of Decision is reproduced here: “In this Order the Board finds that the process employed by Jefferson County to adopt a comprehensive plan amendment authorizing a proposed Master Planned Resort map legal description and text amendment for the Brinnon Master Planned Resort complied with the Growth Management Act's public participation requirements, as well as the process required under the Jefferson County Code. In addition, the Board finds in this Order that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any of the challenged aspects of the Brinnon MPR create an inconsistency such that one feature of the Jefferson County plan is incompatible with any other feature of its plan or regulation. The Board also finds that Petitioners have not demonstrated that the adoption of the Ordinance and environmental review fails to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW including implementing regulations in Chapter 197-11 WAC and JCC 18.40.700 et seq. including the procedural requirement for consideration of alternatives in the EIS. As the Board has not found any area of noncompliance, there is no basis for a finding of invalidity.” Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas. Staff Comment: The resort will be completely self-contained in terms of water, waste water and stormwater treatment. Basic security systems and personnel will be provided on-site by the developer, along with a 500 square foot room dedicated to law enforcement. Fire and emergency medical will be provided by the local Fire District and Jefferson Healthcare. The Developer is required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(c) to maintain Memoranda of Understanding with the Sheriff’s Department, Fire District and Jefferson Healthcare to provide those services. Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing certificates of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place of use for a water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing water right. All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise. Staff Comment: Water rights have been granted for three (3) on-site wells by the Department of Ecology under application number G2-30436. Approval of a Class A Water System by the Department of Health is required prior to any County development permit approval per Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(n). A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort. Staff Report: No more than 35% of residential use shall be for permanent use. Fifty two (52) residential uses shall be dedicated to Staff Housing as required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(g). Both uses are integrated into and support the recreational nature of the resort. (4) A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if: The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts; Staff Comment: Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural element goal LNG 24.0 and policies LNP 24.1 thru 24.13 guide the development of new Master Planned Resorts and will be addressed specifically in the following section on the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion (see Exhibit A, page 5 #34). The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110; Staff Comment: Under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion (see Exhibit A, page 5 #33). The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forest land or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170; Staff Comment: Under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion (see Exhibit A, page 5 #33 & 34). The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and Staff Comment: applicable sections of the Critical Area ordinance (JCC 18.22) will be addressed under the Jefferson County Unified Development Code section. On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated. Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services, and under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(c), Memorandums of Understanding are required for all public service providers. [1998 c 112 § 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 17.] NOTES: Intent—1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the 1994 department of community, trade, and economic development's master planned resort task force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of capital facilities, utilities, and services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for shared facilities with such providers, when all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity increases, are fully borne by the resort." [1998 c 112 § 1.] Staff Comment: The 30 conditions imposed on the developer under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and specifically condition 63(c) that requires Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with service providers is the BoCC response to this intent. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed development is subject to the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The following Plan goals and policies apply to the proposal:   The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Land Use and Rural Element MASTER PLANNED RESORTS As required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 Section Two, the following text amended the Comprehensive Plan narrative on page 3-23, last paragraph: “Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units.” Staff Comment: Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 in January 28, 2008, the then proposed marina development has changed due to the required 150 shoreline buffer under the new Shoreline Master Program. The proposed additional residential and commercial development was moved out of the marina area and up to and abutting Highway 101 as the Maritime Village complex. As such, staff recommends the following revision to this text to be included the Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement, as well as included in the periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment due June, 2018: “Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon, known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be redeveloped under a legally permitted Binding Site Plan. The Black Point area and Maritime Village along the Highway 101 of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units.” GOALS AND POLICIES – Land Use and Rural Element Goal 24.0 (p. 3-65) states: Provide for the siting of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs) pursuant to the adoption of development regulations consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.360), in locations that are appropriate from both an economic and environmental perspective. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this goal since Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 approved the re-designation of the subject parcels from Rural Residential to Master Planned Resort on January 28, 2008, effectively siting the resort on the subject parcels. Policy 24.1 - Master planned resorts are generally larger in scale, and involve greater potential impacts on the surrounding area, than uses permitted under the Small -Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses standards. MPRs may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by RCW 36.70A.360. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Policy 24.2 - Owners of sites where MPRs are proposed to be located must obtain an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, giving the site a master planned resort designation prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review. The comprehensive plan amendment process should evaluate all of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts from the entire proposal, even if the proposal is to be developed in phases, and these impacts shall be considered in determining whether any particular location is suitable for a master planned resort. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Policy 24.3 - The process for siting a master planned resort and obtaining the necessary Comprehensive Plan designation shall include all property proposed to be included within the MPR and shall further include a review of the adjacent Comprehensive Plan land use designations/districts to ensure that the designation of a master planned resort does not allow new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR. This policy should not be interpreted, however, to prohibit locating a master planned resort within or adjacent to an existing Urban Growth Area or within or adjacent to an existing area of more intense rural development, such as an existing Rural Village Center or an existing Rural Crossroad designation. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Policy 24.4 - MPRs should not be located on designated Agricultural Resource Lands or Forest Resource Lands, unless the County specifically makes the finding that the land proposed for a Master Planned Resort is better suited and has more long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and also makes the finding that the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent Agricultural or Forest Resource Land production. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. Policy 24.5 - The master planned resort shall consist of predominantly, short-term visitor accommodations and associated activities, but may include some other permanent residential uses, including caretakers' or employees' residences and some vacation home properties, provided they must be integrated into the resort and consistent with the on- site recreational nature of the resort. MPRs may propose clustering construction, setbacks, lot sizes, and building sizes that vary from those normally found in the Rural or Resource Lands designations. Staff Comment: No more than 35% of residential use shall be for permanent use. Fifty two (52) residential uses shall be dedicated to Staff Housing as required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (g). Both uses are integrated into and support the recreational nature of the resort. The proposal includes suggested development and zoning regulations that deviate from those found in other zoning districts. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.6 - The master planned resort may include indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, conference facilities and commercial and professional activities and services that support and are integrated with the resort. These facilities shall be primarily designed to serve the resort visitors, either day visitors or overnight visitors, but may also provide some limited goods and services for the surrounding permanent residential population. Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(d) requires the applicant provide a list of amenities which include recreational, commercial or professional activities and services (non-residential or operational) and identifies which are accessible to the general public. That list is Exhibit C of this report. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.7 - The capital facilities, utilities and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical provided on-site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the resort. These facilities, utilities, and services may be provided by outside service providers, such as special purpose districts provided that the resort pays all costs associated with service extension capacity increases, or new services that are directly attributable to the resort, and provided that the nature of the facilities and services provided are adequate to meet the increased needs of the resort, based on the planned concentration of guests, structures and other facility, utility and service demands. Plan approval shall provide that facilities serving the resort, which may be urban in nature, not be used to serve development outside the resort areas, except at appropriate rural densities, uses, and intensities. Staff Comment: the FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services, and under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(c), Memoranda of Understanding are required for all public service providers to ensure that those infrastructure and services required by the resort, are contained within the resort and fully paid for by the developer. No resort infrastructure or services are to be provided to areas outside the resort, with the exception of water service to those residential uses under the Neighborhood Water Supply Program (Appendix F). The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.8 - MPRs should only be approved when it can be demonstrated that, on-site and off-site impacts to public services and infrastructure have been fully considered and mitigated. Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services, and under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (c), Memoranda of Understanding are required for all public service providers to ensure that those infrastructure and services required by the resort are fully paid for by the developer. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.9 - The MPR shall contain sufficient portions of the site in undeveloped open space for buffering and recreational amenities to help preserve the natural and rural character of the area. Where located in a rural area, the master planned resort should also be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent practical, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent rural areas outside of the MPR designation. Staff Comment: Natural open space, pervious and impervious surface area calculations are contained in Table 2-3 (page 2-35) of the FSEIS (Exhibit D of this report). Alternative 3, the Applicant’s preferred alternative, preserves 103 acres of natural undisturbed open space from a total site acreage of 231 acres - 45% or nearly half of the total site area. With the exception of the Maritime Village Complex (which needed to be relocated from the Marina to along Highway 101), and those properties at higher elevations west of the resort, the resort shall be screened from view with vegetation and site topography to the maximum extent practical. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.10 - The MPR must be developed consistent with the County's development regulations established for environmentally sensitive areas and consistent with lawfully established vested rights, and approved development permits. Staff Comment: The FSEIS analyzed impacts consistent with current Critical Area regulations under JCC 18.22, and shall be described in further detail in the Jefferson County Unified Development Code section below. The application includes draft development regulations and a Development Agreement (Exhibit E of this report) that regulate how development will occur, and address vested, legal non-conforming rights and uses, as well as development permit review and approval for the resort. Proposed section JCC 17.60.040 of the development regulations allow Title 15 (building code) and Title 18 (Unified Development Code) to supplement the proposed new development regulations for the resort, including JCC 18.22 Critical Areas. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.11 - Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development Agreements, as authorized by RCW 36.7013.170, to implement these policies. Staff Comment: The Development Agreement is a contract between the County and Developer over the terms and scope of development, and is also a requirement under JCC 18.15.123(4). The BoCC will hold a public hearing before the Development Agreement is signed. A draft of the Development Agreement is included in Exhibit E of this report. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.12 - The County shall prepare development regulations to guide the review and designation of master planned resorts that include, at a minimum, compliance with these policies. Staff Comment: JCC Title 18 Article IV Master Planned Resorts – Special Provisions constitute the development regulations cited above, and shall be reviewed in detail in the Jefferson County Unified Development Code sections below. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 24.13 - New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas or existing shoreline development, such as marinas and shoreline lodges, which promote public access to developed shorelines, and/or locations which promote public access and use of National Parks and National Forests. Staff Comment: The proposed resort as located includes Pleasant Harbor, a marina and public access point to the shoreline, and Black Point Peninsula, which is completely surrounded by marine waters. The site is also within close proximity to access of the Olympic National Park and adjacent National Forests. The proposal is consistent with this policy. Jefferson County Unified Development Code: The proposal is subject to review to determine consistency with the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. The following code sections are applicable to the proposal. JCC 18.15.025 Master Planned Resort Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated development with primary focus on resort destination facilities that includes short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. A resort may include other residential uses, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort. Staff Comment: As described in the prior two review sections, the proposal is consistent with this description as a land use district. The following is the applicant’s proposed new subsection (2) to this section, to follow subsection (1) describing Port Ludlow as the first Master Planner Resort (MPR). Staff’s suggested edits are indicated by strike-through and underline: (2) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort is the second officially designated master planned resort in the County. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360 as a new master planned resort and is subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17 Article II. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is characterized by a golf course resort facility with associated residential uses south of Black Point Road, a 300 slip Marina at Pleasant Harbor, and a Maritime Village mixed use recreation center with associated housing north of Black Point Road. The resort is designed to serve resort and recreation uses and has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is located within 2 miles of the Brinnon Rural Center, which accommodates LAMIRD-scale commercial uses serving the resort and local population. The master planned resort's internal regulations and planning restrictions such as codes, covenants and restrictions may be more restrictive than the requirements in JCC Title 17. However, Jefferson County does not enforce private codes, covenants and restrictions. JCC Chapter 18.15 Article IV. Master Planned Resorts – Special Provisions JCC 18.15.115 – Designation - "Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The officially designated master planned resorts in the county are the Port Ludlow MPR and the Pleasant Harbor MPR, provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts. Pleasant Harbor MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 pertaining to new Master Planned Resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required by JCC 18.45.080. Staff Comment: The Applicant’s proposed changes to the current code are indicted by strikethrough and underline. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 established the boundary and siting of the resort through the site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process. JCC 18.15.120 Purpose and intent - Jefferson County has a wide range of natural features, including climate, vegetation, water, natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural, and geological features, which are desirable for a wide range of recreational users to enjoy. New master planned resorts authorized by RCW 36.70A.360 offer an opportunity to utilize these special features for enjoyment and recreational use, while bringing significant economic diversification and benefits to rural communities. The purpose of this article is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to those properties the board of county commissioners determines are appropriate for development as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW 36.70A.360. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this purpose and intent. JCC 18.15.123 Allowable Uses - The following uses may be allowed within a master planned resort classification authorized in compliance with RCW 36.70A.360: (1) All residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums, time-share and fractionally owned accommodations; provided, such uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort. (2) Short-term visitor accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, lodges, and other residential uses, that are made available for short-term rental; provided, that short-term visitor accommodations shall constitute no less than 65 percent of the total resort accommodation units. 3) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and uses, including, but not limited to, golf courses (including accessory structures and facilities, such as clubhouses, practice facilities, and maintenance facilities), tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas, hiking and nature trails, bicycle paths, equestrian facilities, sports complexes, and other recreational uses deemed to be consistent with the on-site recreational nature of the master planned resort. (4) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) sites. (5) Visitor-oriented amenities, including, but not limited to: (a) Eating and drinking establishments; (b) Meeting facilities; (c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the needs of the users such as gas stations, espresso stands, beauty salons and spas, gift shops, art galleries, food stores, real estate/property management offices; and (d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and outdoor equipment rental and sales. (6) Cultural and educational facilities, including, but not limited to, interpretative centers and exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums. (7) Capital facilities, utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the master planned resort. (8) Temporary and/or permanent structures to serve as sales offices. (9) Any other similar uses deemed by the administrator to be consistent with the purpose and intent of this section, the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding master planned resorts, and RCW 36.70A.360. Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this section of the code. Proposed uses and amenities are listed in Chapter 2 of the FSEIS and in Appendix S (Exhibit C of this report). Uses and amenities not listed there but allowed here, may be established at a future date, or deemed allowable by the Administrator if they are consistent with the purpose and intent of this section, the Development Agreement and Development Regulations. JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts - An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements: (1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include: (a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational features that will attract people to the area and resort. (b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and commercial and supportive services provided. (c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its users. (d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential development types and location. (e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site design and protection of natural amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the project site. (f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program. (g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the development. (h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met. (i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all phases are completed. Staff Comment: In substance, the FSEIS, Development Agreement, Zoning and Development Regulations constitute the “master plan,” under this section. However, a County drafted “Master Plan for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort,” meeting required elements of this section, as well as permitting processing tools such as mitigation checklists and other documents to guide future permit review, shall be prepared and included as Exhibit F of this report prior to final adoption of the Development Agreement and Amendment to the UDC. (2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements), and RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210. Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set forth the development standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned resort, which may include, but are not limited to: (a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes; (b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant; (c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans; (d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if applicable), visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor accommodations, on-site recreational facilities, and on-site retail/commercial services; (e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and (f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840 and RCW 36.70B.170(3). Staff Comment: A draft Development Agreement meeting the required elements of this section is attached to this report in Exhibit E of this report. (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. Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 established the boundary and siting of the resort through the formal site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process. (4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a master planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168. Staff Comment: the proposal is not a Planned Action. (5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110. Staff Comment: All supportive commercial and resort services with the exception of gasoline and too an extent, groceries (a farmer’s market on site will provide fresh produce), shall be provided within the resort. No new urban or suburban (subdivision) developments shall be allowed outside the boundaries of the MPR. JCC 18.15.135 – Criteria for Approval An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or approved with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the application shall be denied. The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI-D of this chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA)). Staff Comment: The FSEIS technical reports analyzed the proposal under current ESA regulations under the County’s Critical Area Ordinance – JCC Chapter 18.22, specifically for a Habitat Management (Plan), Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Wetlands. The FSEIS concluded that the proposal would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, and would comply with JCC 18.22 with the Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas, and Wetlands. Also, Critical Aquifer Recharge and Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zones were analyzed by the Department of Ecology use State protection standard, but those standards are consistent with standards under JCC 18.22. The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other applicable sections of this code and all other codes and policies of the county. Staff Comment: As stated above in the applicable sections of this report, the proposal complies with this criterion. No new resort development shall take place within the Shoreline jurisdiction. If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. Staff Comment: As detailed in the Master Plan requirement under JCC 18.15.126(1)(i), the proposal is consistent with this criterion. The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and sufficient services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and health services, to adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR. Staff Comment: The list of available resort and recreational amenities; the increase in undisturbed open space between Alternatives 1 and 3; the proposed infrastructure improvements to Black Point Road, the DNR boat ramp, shuttle service to and from the resort and SeaTac Airport, and between the golf and marina side; and the MOUs for public service; all demonstrate compliance with this criterion. The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. Staff Comment: As state in the FSEIS and Master Plan, the proposal complies with this criterion. Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views. Staff Comment: As described in the Master Plan as required under JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), the proposal complies with this criterion. All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and mitigated. Staff Comment: Per the FSEIS, the proposal complies with this criterion. Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property. Staff Comment: Development along the south bluff is setback at least 200 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark, and south beach access is prohibited specifically to avoid any impacts to the marine waters of Hood Canal. Also, the Stormwater System is designed to prevent any discharge into Hood Canal per Ordinance condition (q). Siting of buildings and recreational activities were designed to be buffered from adjacent properties. The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the character of the resort. Staff Comment: the master plan contains zoning and development standards specific to each zone in order to maintain the specific character of each zone, such as golf course, marina and mixed use recreational (Maritime Village) as different aspects of the overall resort. (10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agricultural or forest resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 contained findings per the RCW that satisfy this criterion. JCC 18.15.138 - Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this UDC. Staff Comment: the strikethrough in the section above is the recommended change to this section in order to reflect the addition of Pleasant Harbor as the second MPR in Jefferson County, should the amendment be approved. JCC 18.20.190 – Golf Courses (1) Applications for a golf course must be accompanied by a design plan and best management practices plan. The design plan shall minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and groundwater by the type and placement of appropriate vegetative materials and other means. The use of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers that are known to leach into groundwater are prohibited. The design plan shall also demonstrate that an adequate water supply shall be provided without diminishing the level of service for system users or others dependent upon the resource. The best management practices plan shall include monitoring procedures and an integrated management plan. Once approved by the county, the management plan shall be a condition of project approval and failure to comply with the approved plan shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. Staff Comment: The Applicant submitted a Golf Course Development and Operation Best Management Practices Plan as part of the SEIS, which shall be incorporated into a design plan that shall be required as a condition of approval for further development and submitted for review and approval at time of stormwater management permit application to grade and develop the golf course under Phase 2 of the overall resort development. (2) Accessory uses to golf courses shall be limited to those either necessary for the operation and maintenance of the course, or those which provide goods or services customarily provided to golfers at a golf course. Accessory uses may include parking, maintenance facilities, cart storage and repair, clubhouse, restrooms, lockers and showers, food or beverage service, pro shop, and practice or driving range, swimming pools, tennis courts, weight rooms, or similar uses oriented to persons other than golf course patrons. Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, accessory uses are listed as permitted uses in the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development regulations (17.65) for the resort. (3) Accessory uses which provide commercial services, such as food and beverage service and pro shop, shall not exceed a total of 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development regulations (17.65) for the resort. (4) No occupied building accessory to a golf course shall be located within 100 feet of any property line. Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development regulations (17.65) for the resort. (5) No off-street parking or loading area shall be permitted within 50 feet of a side and rear property. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] Staff Comment: Since the golf course is not stand-alone, but accessory to the resort, applicable development standards are listed under the Golf Resort zone (MPR-GR) of the development regulations (17.65) for the resort. JCC Chapter 18.40 Article XI – Development Agreements 18.40.820 Purpose. This article establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into development agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A decision to enter into a development agreement shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement may be appropriate for large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not contemplated by existing development regulations or existing application procedures. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] 18.40.830 General requirements. (1) Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the county, except a development agreement shall be required for applications for master planned resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and major industrial developments in accordance with JCC 18.15.605. Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted a draft Development Agreement as part of their Type V application for a Master Planned Resort. That draft is provided in Appendix S of the FSEIS and in Exhibit E of this report. (2) Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the county shall be parties to a development agreement; provided, that if a proposed development is within an adopted municipal UGA, the applicable town or city shall also be a party to the agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party beneficiaries and utility service providers. Staff Comment: the application is consistent with this requirement. (3) Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other conditions that shall apply to and govern the development, use and mitigation of the property subject to the agreement. Staff Comment: the application is consistent with this requirement. (4) When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project permits for development of the property. Staff Comment: the approval of the development agreement shall take place prior to approval of any project permits for development of the property. (5) Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code, except in the case of a master planned resort (which requires a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Article VI-D of Chapter 18.15 JCC may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] Staff Comment: development standards as proposed are consistent with Title 17 Article I Port Ludlow MPR, and as a Master Planned Resort. Mitigation measures listed in the FSEIS shall be required as part of the development agreement, and proposed section 17.60.040 Additional Requirements of the development regulations ensures that environmentally sensitive areas under JCC 18.22 would apply to any resort development. 18.40.840 Development standards to be addressed. (1) A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more of any of the following types of development controls and conditions: (a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential and nonresidential densities, scale and intensity of uses and/or building sizes; Staff Comment: these standards are addressed in the development regulations Title 17 Article II as adopted under Section 3 Development Standards of the proposed development agreement. (b) Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements pursuant to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW; Staff Comment: Section 4 of the proposed development agreement addresses mitigation measures. (c) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, screening and landscaping and other development features; Staff Comment: these standards are addressed in Section 3 of the proposed development agreement. (d) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure requirements; Staff Comment: these standards are addressed in Section 3 of the proposed development agreement. (e) Affordable housing; Staff Comment: addressed in the revised MOU for housing attached as Exhibit G of this report. (f) Recreational uses and open space preservation; Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4 of the proposed development agreement and in the Master Plan for the resort as a condition of approval for the development agreement. (g) Phasing; Staff Comment: addressed in Section 5 of the development agreement. (h) Development review procedures, processes and standards for implementing decisions, including methods of reimbursement to the county for review processes; Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4 of the proposed development agreement. (i) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures. Staff Comment: addressed in Section 3 & 4 of the proposed development agreement. (2) A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities. Staff Comments: not included as part of the proposed development agreement. (3) Development agreements shall: Establish a process for amending the agreement; Staff Comment: addressed in Section 6.6 of the DA. Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires; Staff Comment: addressed in Section 1 of the DA. Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4.3 of the DA. Reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] Staff Comment: addressed in section 4.3.1 of the DA. 18.40.850 Procedures. (1) A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the property owner to the administrator of the department of community development. The request should describe the project and the specific reasons why the project is suitable for a development agreement. The request should identify the development standards set forth in JCC 18.40.840 that the applicant is requesting to be included in the development agreement and any other reasonable information requested by the county. Staff Comment: the application (MLA08-00188) submitted April 16, 2008 satisfies this requirement. (2) If the administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development agreement should be considered by the county, the property owner shall be so informed, except that development agreements shall be required for the approval of master planned resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and for the approval of major industrial developments in accordance with JCC 18.15.605. Staff Comment: The DA was required as part of the application to implement a master planned resort as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. (3) When a development agreement is being considered prior to project permit approvals, the property owner shall provide the county with the same information that would be required for a complete application for such project permits in order for the county to determine the development standards and conditions to be included in the development agreement. Staff Comment: MLA08-00188 included a request to amend the UDC to adopt new standards for development under proposed Title 17 Article II. (4) When a development agreement is being considered following approval of project permits, the development standards and other conditions set forth in such project permits shall be used in the development agreement without modification. Staff Comment: not applicable since the DA is required prior to project permits. (5) The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. The board of county commissioners may, in its sole discretion, approve the development agreement. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement. Staff Comment: the BoCC shall schedule and conduct a public hearing prior to approval of the DA. RCW 36.70C does not apply since an appeal of the DA would be heard by the Growth Management Hearings Board per JCC 18.40.050 Table 8-2 Action Types – Process note 2. (6) An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] Staff Comment: addressed as a recommended condition of approval. 18.40.860 Effect. (1) A development agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property subject to the development agreement. Staff Comment: addressed in Section 6.2 of the DA. (2) A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. Staff Comment: addressed in Section 6.11 & 6.12 of the DA. (3) A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or that part of the development specified in the agreement and may not, unless otherwise agreed to in the development agreement, be subject to an amendment to a local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement. Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4.3 of the DA. (4) Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent with the agreement. Staff Comment: addressed in Section 4.1 of the DA. (5) Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.200 and Section 501, Chapter 374, Laws of 1995, or this chapter is intended to authorize the county to impose impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any other financial contributions or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions of state law. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] JCC 18.45.080 – Final Docket – Planning Commission and Board of County Commissions review The following code is applicable only to the process to amendment the zoning and development regulations under the next section, JCC 18.45.090, and shall be addressed during the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner’s formal review and recommendation under that section: (1)(b) Required Findings – Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following: (i) Whether 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; Staff Comment: the applicant submitted the following suggested text as part of their application MLA08-00188 in response to this requirement for a finding: “The proposal is a UDC amendment and amendments to Title 17 and 18 Jefferson County Code describing the zones and criteria for development of the Master Planned Resort at Brinnon. During the adoption process for the Comprehensive Plan. Staff detailed a two-step process: (1) define the nature of the plan amendment approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and (2) develop and adopt implementing regulations and development agreement before any development could occur. Step 1 was completed with the adoption of Ordinance 01-0128-08. This application is designed to start Step 2. The proposals put forth in the application arc in furtherance of that objective and the Goal of GMA to adopt development regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As the Brinnon Master Planned Resort amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were only adopted in January 2008, no implementing regulations or development agreement are presently available to judge any future development.” (ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and Staff Comment: the applicant submitted the following suggested text as part of their application MLA08-00188 in response to this requirement for a finding: “As with item one, this question is also answered by the comment that the proposed regulations are developed as part of the two-step approval process outlined by Staff and approved by the Board. The proposals before the County in this application serve to implement the conditions and requirements of the Master Planned Resort approved in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08.” (iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. Staff Comment: the applicant submitted the following suggested text as part of their application MLA08-00188 in response to this requirement for a finding: “On January 28, 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 approving the amendment of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan map to enable the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort at Brinnon as depicted in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The Comprehensive Plan adoption speaks to the public interest and values of the residents of Jefferson County. The development regulations and development agreement provide the specific means by which that interest may be accomplished.” JCC 18.45.090 – Amendments to GMA implementing regulations (1) Initiation. The text of the county’s adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (also referred to within this code as “development regulations”) may be amended at any time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment shall be processed concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for plan amendments set forth in this chapter. “Implementing regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by the county, including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see RCW 36.70A.030). Proposed amendments, changes, or modifications may be initiated as follows: (a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 36.70.550; (b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or (c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent with the plan and Land Use Map. Staff Comment: this subsection applies since MLA08-00188 was submitted to the County following approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to designated the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. (2) Notice. (a) Proposed amendments to the implementing regulations pursuant to subsection (1) of this section which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as plan amendments consistent with this chapter. Staff Comment: not applicable since the proposed amendment to the implementing regulations is being processed separately from the Comprehensive Plan amendment. (b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the implementing regulations generated by DCD staff, the board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process shall be given by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. Staff Comment: notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on January 6, 2016 to consider the proposed amendment to the implementing regulations was published in the official newspaper and posted in the County Courthouse on December 9, 2015. (c) Any additional notice required by state or local law (e.g., statutory notice requirements for amendments to the Shoreline Master Program), or deemed appropriate by the administrator, shall be paid for by the applicant. Staff Comment: the applicant has and shall continue to reimburse the County for all expenses related to noticing and mailing. (3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable. Staff Comment: the Planning Commission public hearing was scheduled for January 6, 2016 at the Brinnon School Gym staring at 6pm. The hearing will include a presentation by the Applicant, by Staff and testimony by the public on the proposed project and amendment to the implementing regulations. Subsequent meetings, times and dates to be determined, will be held by the Planning Commission to deliberation and make a recommendation to the BoCC. (4) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting. Staff Comment: Staff shall place the proposed amendments on the BoCC agenda to present the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission as soon as feasible after the recommendation is made. (a) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that no change in the recommendation of the planning commission is necessary, the board may make a final determination on the proposed amendment(s) and adopt the amendments as recommended by the planning commission. Staff Comment: Staff shall have prepared an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments should the BoCC accept the Planning Commission recommendation. (b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the planning commission is necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed amendments to implementing regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county commissioners. Staff Comment: since the BoCC must hold a public hearing on the DA, they may wish to consolidation that public hearing with the hearing to amend the development regulations should they determine a change to the Planning Commission recommendation is necessary. (5) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment(s) to the implementing regulations at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD (State Office of Community Development – now the Department of Commerce) within 10 days after adoption by the board. Staff Comment: Staff transmitted a copy of the proposed amendments to the Department of Commerce on December 10, 2015. No final action by the BoCC may, nor is it anticipated that it will, take place before February 10, 2016 – sixty days from the date of transmittal to the State. (6) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations shall be filed with and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2-06 § 1] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, staff recommends that the proposal is consistent with the applicable codes, ordinances and statues, and that it satisfies all relevant review criteria. Approval of the proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County Code and Development Agreement between the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC should be granted subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS Adopt FSEIS Alternative #3 as the “preferred alternative” or “proposed action” under SEPA WAC 197-11-440(5). The proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County, and a Development Agreement between the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC and Jefferson County be approved, adopted and enacted by the Board of Jefferson County Commissions by two separate Ordinance. The development agreement include and adopt the “Master Plan for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort,” as required under JCC 18.15.126(1), which shall include required mitigation measures and development review checklists for use by Staff and the Applicant to ensure proper design, review and approval of subsequent phases of resort development. (Believe this to have been covered in the Development Regulations) An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor at the Applicant’s expense. Explore the feasibility of creating a “revenue development area” (RDA) within the Brinnon LAMIRD (Local Area of More Intense Rural Development) through the State’s Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) to set aside a portion of the property and sales tax revenue generated by the resort to be used on infrastructure improvement projects that will benefit the Brinnon community, such as renovating the Community Center, developing affordable housing and/or financing possible hook-ups to the Dosewallips State Park sewer system. (??????)