HomeMy WebLinkAbout064Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Susan Porto < SPorto@cojefferson.wa.us>
Thursday, April 27, 2017 5:2L PM
Scott. Pol lock@ DO H.WA.GOV
Tom Walker; Michelle Farfan
FW: Draft Neighborhood Water Policy for Pleasant Harbor MPR
Attached Image (441 KB); Neighborhood Water Supply Program.pdf; 01 0128 08.pdf
Scott, here is the original request for comment. I will forward my response next.
(took a while because the file attachments had been archive in barracuda and I couldn't retrieve them...geez...)
From: M ichel le Fa rfa n [ma ilto:M Fa rfa n @co.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 27,2077 5:21 PM
To: Susa n Porto <SPorto @co.jefferson.wa. us>
Subject: IResent from Archiver] Draft Neighborhood Water Policy for Pleasant Harbor MPR
Hi Susan and Stuart:
I have attached a draft Neighborhood Water Policy as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08 (also attached); specifically
condition 63p as imposed by the BOCC for the Pleasant Harbor MPR. I attached the preferred alternative map from the
FSEIS as well.
Please review the draft Policy and let me know if you have any comments, additions, deletions, etc. on or before April
3L,2017. Once finalized, this Policy will become an appendix to the Development Agreement and recorded with the
county Auditor. As you may know, I will have to present the Development Regulations and Development Agreement
with a staff report to the BOCC for their consideration.
Thank you for your time,
Michelle Farfan
Associate Planner, Brinnon MPR Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
62l Sheridan
Port Townsend WA 98368
V: 360-379-4463
F: 360-379-4451
mfarfan@co rson.wa.us
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the
Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail
and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from
production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
1
PLEASANT HARBOR NEIGHBORHOOD WATER SUPPLY PROGRAiI
APPLICATION NO. G2€0436
February 24,2010
The following four elements to protect existing water rights concern water right
application no. G2-30436:
1. Monitorino Proqram
This monitoflng program meets and exceeds all requirements for a High Risk
SIPZ zone as deftned by Jefferson County. Though Pleasant Harbor is not
located in a high-risk zone, the resort has committed these resources to assure
its neighbors and the County that the aquifer is being wisely used and protected.
A copy of the Pleasant Harbor Groundwater Monitoring Plan, as revised
February, 2010, is aftached and incorporated herein ('monitoring plan').
The following summarizes the monitoring program
(a) Water quality samples will be collected on a quarterly basis.
(b) Flow meters will be installed.
(c) Pleasant Harbor will have a very thorough network of monitoring
wells (8) which will be used to document draw down conditions in
the aquifer.
(d) The network will include monitoring aquifer salinity conditions on
one-half hour increments.
(e) The locations of Pleasant Harbor wells will be located over 1,000
feet fiom any neighboring well or the shoreline.
(f) The existing well has supplied water at similar to proposed rates
with no adverse impacts (chlorides = 0).
(g) Hydrogeologic analysis is comphted.
(h) Pleasant Harbor will route all site water into the aquifer in such a
manner that the aquifer will actually be receiving more water than
under existing natural conditions.
(i) This program will be continued for five years or until the resort has
achieved full build-out, whichever is longer.
2. Recharoe Areag. Pleasant Harbor will set aside recharge areas to
mitigate an impact scenario or provide access (connect) to neighboring paroels to
Neighbofiood Water Supply Program - Page 1
the Pleasant Harbor water system in the event of a problem with increased
chlorides (we also have the option to drill them a new well). The identification of
an impact is already presented in the County's SIPZ program.
3. lnitial Mitiqation Measures. lf the monitoring program and evidence of
increased chlorides in neighboring wells show a probable salt water intrusion
impact on the wells from Pleasant Harbor's withdrawal of groundwater, Pleasant
Harbor will implement a plan to mitigate or minimize such impact by considering
lower pumping rates and/or adding points of withdrawal, in addition to recharge
as provided in paragraph 2 above.
4. Water Suoply Replacement. ln Jefferson County's approval of the FEIS
completed for Pleasant Harbor, Jefferson County has included condition P, the
Neighborhood Water Policy, which requires Pleasant Harbor to provide access to
its water system by any neighboring parcels if salt water intrusion becomes an
issue for neighboring wells on Black Point. Statesman proposes to expand and
define the terms of this policy as a condition of the water rights, as follows.
lf the initial mitigation measures stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above do not
correct or resolve the salt water impacts detected by the monitoring program,
Pleasant Harbor will offer at its cost sufficient mitigation and/or replacement
water for potable water for any existing home on a well that has an increase in
chloride levels as follows and under the following conditions:
(a) The neighboring resident's well is within the radius of influence of
the Pleasant Harbor wells. Until such time that Ecology has
sufficient evidence to delineate this area of influence, wells located
on the Black Point Peninsula in the same aquifer as Pleasant
Harbor's wells are covered by this neighborhood policy.
(b) The well owner provides conclusive evidence that, over a
statistically relevant period of time, chloride levels have increased
over chloride levels in the well prior to Pleasant Harbois use of
groundwater, including but not limited to, evidence that the increase
in chloride levels is from the Pleasant Harbor groundwater use and
not from the construction of the well owner's well, and the data from
the monitoring program is consistent with the increase in chlorides.
As a default standard, Pleasant Harbor will provide an altemative
water supply if chlorides in a well exceed baseline (pre-Pleasant
Harbor groundwater use) by 15Yo that results in levels above 200
mgfl; or levels increase by 30o/o that results in levels above 100
mg/l over a 12-month period (250 mgfl is the SDWA standard).
(c) Pleasant Harbor has the right to request additional evidence from
the resident showing that the Pleasant Harbor groundwater
withdrawal is the cause of the increase in chlorides if the increase
Neighborhood Water Supply Program - Page 2
is isolated to one well, the increase is likely caused by another
problem, and the only reasonable water replacement is a new well.
(d) The monitoring program will be continued for five years or until the
resort has achieved full build-out, whichever is longer. After this
period, the level of monitoring may be decreased unless there is
significant data showing increased chlorides, and Ecology
determines the monitoring program must be continued.
(e) lf Pleasant Harbor provides replacement water from the Pleasant
Harbor system, it may apply for consolidation of the water rights
under RCW 90.44.105. The well owner will waive any claims
against Ecology or against Pleasant Harbor for any impairment of
the water right if Pleasant Harbor offers a reasonable alternative
source as provided above.
Neighborhood Water Supply Program - Page 3
GATE
Davld Hamltton Archltcct
wA qx*)
1..oo66P-7&
PrclctNme:
PLEASANT 1IARBORll[l.r Pl.nnld Rert
Slte
uate:NovemDer 19, 2015
MARITIME VILLAGE
PLEASANI
HOUSE
2OO-FT SI.IORELINE
UARINA
ACCESS
MAR]TI},lE
BUILDING
vrsrToR
owi{ER
us 101
HIGHWAY
@
lJ---------1.
It
PLEASANT HARBoR
ru
lR4C{C!UtrON8Am6
U?AUOUS: r&
@u@lre.mlmlTaBaa86
UXIE:E
ABI:JAG
lJm:6
-
@rEuGdDI coNEf,Ee eM l-&sa
JD UNIETMtF,qWTIuvEvl&silumBED & BREAKFAST
BY OIHERS).utNE vrsrasum
SHORELINE
\u.o*SEA LEVEL
r TtNilrreMNCISI srMeuArExs
52 UNE
I ffiGulsEEUloNG
1r-m s.P 6[r[GRdaL
I EOIEaENS
I rtrl(rulrutmmrcmu@E)
I UIMGREDENGMAMWrcRrcSE
I IN(UW.MGMUMB
Tor&t8maau mutmM&6UEIO*t@S.
BUIlDING
eO.
GOLF COURSE
AND RESORT
D
WATER
I
I
&watx
XEIIII C
a
.T',
Dt\rld H.r7|En^rcrrlt ctwA6i..0{1716
PtAlctl{srE PITA8AXT}uIIEORIlLrPlrrii-df
Flgir!:
YARMXE VITJ.IGE
ruASA}ITl0rrsf
IARIXA
accEss
(PioPGED)
l.^trttG
Bt t rl.G
YISITOR
owr.ER
us ,ot
*&,
^_r
iL
PLEASANT HARBoR
-
MARIi.|A AND@TF RTSORT
-
BM
@@wNqwwffi
Al&atElJm$
ffirc&r@wm5
ffiffiqBmllrDlxE
msalm
st{ofEuxE
gvEru
ralm
ffiENTlJm
IffirJtmNsaqNlEalNB
MWM6lJm&0s.ffi
E'@MlrM6urumffirg)
SEA l.aV[L
ffiM' TMrelrMcrw8mtxnE)
M&rmgUiNME@'T9.
!ULDNlc
80.
GAIE
oot.F couRsE
COYT'UNITY
RECREATION
A
'AIB
2@-FT S{oMUNE
D
cc ffi"
rft.,n*
rfarfo6
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
AN ORDINAFTCE APPROVING ONE )
CoMPREHENSTyE PLAtt AMENDMENT, l
FILE NUMBER }
MLA06-E7 [STATESMANI ]
OrdinanceNo. 0L-0L28-08
\ilHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissionen ('"the Board") has, as required
by the Growth Management Act ("ttre GMA"), * codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in
motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and comment with
respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan originally
adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended, and;
WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the
proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan ("CP") that composed the 2007
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket ("the Docket"), and;
WHEREAS, of the ten (10) proposals that compose the Docket, three (3) were rejected;
ono proposal, MLA07-104, has been forwarded to the 2008 CP Cycle; the Board has approved or
approved with conditions six (6) of the remaining proposals, five (5) of which are analyzed in
Ordinance No.02-0128-08 herein analyzed is only one proposal, MLA06-87
[Statesman], which was approved unanimously by the Board; and
WHEREAS, ffi adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board's legislative
decision with respect to MLA06-87, and;
WHEREAS, the Board makes the follorring Findings of Fact and Conclusions with
respect to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and the amendment contained herein:
l. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or Unified Development Code (UDC), Title l8 in the Jefferson County Code
(JCC) in December 2000. The CP was reviewed and updated in2004.
2. The Growth Management Act (GMA), which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a CP, also requires that there be in place a process to amend the CP. The UDC
contains precisely such a process in Section 9, and in Title 18 in the JCC.
I
3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County
[including corporations and other business entities] on a regular basis. ln accordance with
RCW 36.70A.130, CP amendments can generally be considered "no more frequently than
once per year."
4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before March 1,2007, the deadline for
submission of a proposed CP arnendment.
5. MLA06-E7 was timely filed on by March 1,2006, and carried over to the 2007 cycle in
December 2006, because a separate environmental impact statement was deemed
necessary, and this work could not be performed in 2006.
6. The2007 CP process started with nine formal site-specific amendments and three
suggested amendments (for a total of trvelve), all of which were placed on the Preliminary
Docket through the CP amendment process contained at JCC Section 18.45.050.
7. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners held a joint workshop
on April 4,2007 to provide an opportunity for the site-specific CP amendment applicants
to make public presentations on their proposals.
8. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Preliminary Docket
on April 18, 2007.
9. The Planning Commission completed its recommendation on the Preliminary Docket on
April 18,2007, reconrmending that all twelve original CP amendment applications be
placed on the Final Docket.
10. The Department of Community Development @CD) issued a Review of Preliminary
Docket on May 7,2007, analyzing the proposals on the Preliminary Docket and offering
the following recommendation: that two of the three suggested amendments be eliminated
from the Final Docket due to limitations on staffresources.
11. The Board established the Final Docket on May 14,2007 as nine site-specific amendments
plus one suggested amendment.
12. The Department of Community Development @CD) issued an integrated StaffReport and
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum on September 5, 2007, analyzing the
proposals on the Final Docket and offering preliminary recommendations for each.
2
13.All of these amendments have been subject to a SEPA-driven analysis through the DCD
StaffReport and SEPA Addendum dated September 5,2OO7.In addition, a separak Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was published on this date pertaining to the site-specific
application analyzed in this ordinance, MLA06-87 (Statesman), wift an associated 45-day
public comment period ending at close of business on October 24,2007. An associated
addendum issued with the Final Environmental Impact Statement was published on
November 27,2007. For further analysis of the other five (5) amendments comprising the
2007 CP cycle, see Ordinance No.02-01-28-08
14. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) were undertaken and generated pursuant to the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) and a determination by the SEPA-responsible official that the
proposed amendment, MLA06-87, warranted a threshold "Determination of Significance"
(DS), and thus environmental review for any probable significant adverse environmental
impacts, although the environmental review at this stage was the review appropriate for a
non-project action as that term of art is defined in SEPA.
15. The FEIS was prepared in conformance with SEPA requirements and the amendment in
this ordinance is the alternative identified in the DEIS as "the proposal."
16. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on MLA06-87 (Statesman)
on October 3,2007. Oral public comment related to this proposed amendment was taken
during the public hearing, and written comments were accepted through the close of
business on October 24, 2007 .
17. The Planning Commission deliberated on MLA06-87 at special meetings on October 31,
2007, and on November 14,2007, reviewing the growttr management indicators, findings,
and conclusions relative to JCC 18.45, and completed recommendations on November 20,
2007.
18. The above statements indicate that the proposed CP amendment was and is the subject of
"early and continuous" public participation as is required by GMA.
19. The Planning Commission recommendations were transmitted to the Board through formal
memoranda dated November 2E,2007, and are part of the record for the legislative
decision.
3
4
20. The Planning Commission reconmended to the Board seven conditions be attached to
approval of this proposal, MLA06-87 [Statesman]. The conditions were included in the
Planning Commission recommendations specific to this proposal.
21. The FEIS and addendum associated with this proposal were published on November 27 ,
2007. Initial scoping identified probable significant adverse impacts. Public comments
elaborated on those concerns, and the final EIS included staffresponses to 17 different
categories covered in over 400 public comment letters, expressed orally and in writing by
the public and by various local and state agencies regarding this application during the
public comment period.
22. The FEIS detailed mitigating conditions resulting from these comment letters as specified
in Chapter 5, overall representing a meticulous and thorough response to the concerns of
the citizens and agencies, precisely what is intended by SEPA.
23. The Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on December 3,2007 and continued this
public hearing on December 6,2007, closing the public comment period on December 7,
2007. The Board did consider all public comments received.
24. The final DCD staffrecommendation was presented to the Board during the December 3,
2007 and December 6,2007 public sessions in which the Planning Commission
recommendations were also presented.
25. The final DCD staffrecommendation did not match the Planning Commission
recommendation for approval, having different proposed modifications attached.
26. On December 10, 2007, the Board signed Resolution No. I 13-07 extending the timeframe
for the legislative decision on the proposed amendment to January 14, 2008.
27. All procedural and substantive requirements ofthe GI\rIA have been satisfied.
28. The Board of County Commissioners deliberated and decided to approve the Statesman
proposal on January 14,2008.
29. DCD staflpresented to the Board a l4-step process for decision-making. Step l: It was
moved and seconded "to approve the Statesman proposal as revised with conditions, and to
amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on pages 3-23 and345.
Step 2: The Comprehensive Plan land use map designations on page 3-45 for this area
would be changed to reflect a Master Planned Resort as outlined in the November 27,2007
Final Environmental Impact Statement on page l-4." See Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance.
30. Step 3: The Board was required to apply criteria from JCC 18.45.080, generally referred
to as deliberations, findings and conclusions, and growttr management indicators.
31. Step 4: The Board entered an affirmative statement that consistency with the Growth
Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A.360(l) through (4), is achieve4 as each of the
pertinent criteria are met by this proposal.
32. With respect to RCW 36.70A.360(l), the Board hereby enters an affrmative statement that
the proposed Master Planned Resort would be 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 accommodatiorls."
33. With respect to RCW 36.70A.360(a) the Board hereby entsrs an affirmative statement that
its CP already includes policies to guide the development of new MPR, the CP and the
related development regulatiorur serve to preclude urban or suburban land uses in the
vicinity of the MP& the land at the site in question is better suited for an MPR than for the
commsrcial hawesting of timber or agricultural production, the MPR plan is and will be
consistent with all GMA-derived development regulations relating to GIvIA critical areas
and all on-site and off-site infrastucture and service impacts have been fully considered
and will be mitigated as the MPR is implemented first through a development agreeme,nt,
internal zoning map and internal zoning code, then through plat and permit review and
possible issuance of permits and, with all the prior items accomplished, finally with the
34. Step 5: The Board entered an affrmative statement that consistency with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan, specifically Land Use Policies24.l-24.13, has been achieved
by the applicant as each of the pertinent criteria are met by this proposal. By way of
example only, the Board's affirmative finding that the site of the proposed MPR is better
suited to become an MPR than it is to be the site of a commercial timber harvest serves to
satisfr the condition laid out in the CP at LNP 24.4, found at p. 3-65 of the CP. The area is
5
zoned Rural Residential and not Commercial Forest under the Growth Management Act,
and therefore this finding is not required within the proposal.
35. Step 6: The Board entered an affirmative statement that consistency with the Brinnon Sub-
Area Plan, adopted on May 1,2002, specifically Goals 1.0 and Policies 1.1-1.3, is
achieved, as each of the pertinent criteria are met by this proposal.
36. Step 7: With respect to JCC 18.15.126, the Board affirmed that only a Comprehensive
Plan amendment application was under consideration, and that the development agreement
and zoning code guiding MPRprojects will come before it in a subsequent process after
the adoption of this CP amendment. A subsequent development agreement and zoning
code shall be consistent with this CP amendment. This criterion applies to each of the
following code references contained within Step 7.
37. With respect to JCC 18.15.025 and JCC 18.15.1l5 on land use districts, the Board
concluded that new zoning code language will be developed at a later phase, describing a
second Master Planned Resort in Jefferson County, since Port Ludlow is the only MPR
currently designated under the CP.
38. The Board affirmed the appropriateness of the proposal with respect to JCC 18.15.120 on
purpose and intent, and consistency with RCW 36.70A.360. A new MPR is thus
appropriate at this location.
39. The Board further determined ttrat in accordance with JCC 18.15.123, a subsequent
development agreement and zoning code will ensrue consistency with said section.
40. The Board affirmed that the provisions of JCC 18.15.129 are applicable to this proposal,
pertaining to the nature of the application as a Type V legislative process, and include a
draft master plan (summarized in the FEIS), a site-specific CP amendment, and require a
development agreement at a later phase in the process.
41. Thc Board affirmed that decision-making authority is granted to the Board mder ICC
18.15.132, after ensuring the veracity of the planning commission process, and after
reviewing its recommendations. A development agreement and zoning code will be
developed in a subsequent phase.
6
42. With respect to 18.15.135, the Board concluded that the application to develop will take
place atproject-level phases subject to the development agreement and zoning code,
consistent with this approval of the CP amendment.
43. The Board determined that 18.15.138 shall be amended at a later date to include revisions
and/or additions to Title 17, in order to establish a zoning code for the Brinnon MPR. This
shall be accomplished through a T1rye V legislative process.
44. Step 8: With respect to the directives set forth in RCW 36.10, the Planning Enabling Act,
the Board concludes that all steps in the process were conducted properly, including the
application submittal; the public process, review, and recommendations by the Planning
Commission; the public process conducted by the Board; its own findings; and its position
as the sole decision-making authority wtrereby the Planning Commission's
recorlmendation is advisory only and the final determination always rests with the Board.
45. Steps 9-14: The Board determined that the procedual requirements of JCC Section
18.45.080(2Xc), in which for all adopted amendments the Board shall develop findings
and conclusions which consider the growttr management indicators set forth in a) JCC
Section 18.45.050(4Xb) (D through (vii, and b) items (i) through (iii) in JCC Section
18.45.080(lXb), have been met. Findings and growttr management indicators are further
explained below.
46. SEPA mitigations called out in Chapter 5 of the FEIS shall be adhered to through
development of a zoning code, development agreement, and any permit applications.
47. Further conditions of approval are identified in item # 63 (below). The Board directed
staffto prepare this ordinance, provide for legal review, and prepare a record identiffing
all components of this CP application process.
48. Further, the Board voted unanimously to amend the CP.
49. JCC Section 18.45.080(l)(c), which contains eight criteria from which the Board must
generate findings, is applicable only to site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments.
50. Inquiry into the growth management indicators referenced above was begun for the 2007
Docket through the DCD integrated StaffReport and SEPA Addendum of September 5,
2007. The Board's findings and conclusions with respect to the growth management
7
indicators are augmented by the September 5,2007 stafffindings and conclusions, except
when and as noted below.
51. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4XbXi), which asks whether assumptions regarding
growth and development have changed since the initial CP adoption, the Board concludes
that census data indicates that the population growttr rate in this county has slowed in the
last two to four years, and is slower than projected.
52. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(bxii), which asks whether the capacity of the
County to provide adequate services has diminished or increased, the Board concludes that
this CP amendment as conditioned will not impact the ability ofthe County to provide
services.
53. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4xbxiii), which asks if suffrcient urban land is or
has been designated within the County, the Board concludes that this proposal may
constitute additional urban lands (as allowed under RCW 36.70A.360) to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan amendments made effective by adoption of this Ordinance.
54. With respect to JCC Section 1E.45.050(4)(bXw), which asks if any of the assumptions on
which the initial CP was based have become invali4 the Board concludes that the
assumptions upon which the CP is based have generally not changed.
55. With respect to JCC Section 1E.45.050(a)OXv), which asks if any of the countywide
attitudes upon which the CP was based have change4 the Board concludes that the
countywide attitudes have not generally changed since this CP amendment was submitted.
56. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(v), which asks if there has been a change in
circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment, the Board concludes that a
conceptual Brinnon MPR was identified in the Brinnon Sub-Area Plan adopted into the
County's CP on May l, 2002, and that there have not been any overarching or countywide
changes in circumstances that would dictate or require a shift in the policies reflected in
the CP with respect to MPR designations.
57. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(a)@)(vii), which asks if inconsistencies have arisen
between the CP, the GIvIA and the Countywide Planning Policies, the Board concludes that
these amendments do not reflect any such inconsistency, since a variety of rural residential
densities is maintained even after adoption of this CP amendment.
8
5E.
59
60
Ptrsuant to JCC Sections 18.45.080(2Xc) and 18.45.080(l)O), the Board finds that:
(l) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based
continue to be valid.
(3) Based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment may reflect current widely
held values of the residents of Jefferson County.
In addition to the required findings set forth in JCC Section 18.45.080(1)O), in order to
recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
the Board must also make eight (8) findings as specified in Section 1E.45.080(lXcXi)
through (viii).
Pursuant to JCC Section 18.45.080(l)(c), the Board enters the following findings:
(i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for
fansportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other
public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire, and emergency medical services, parks,
fire flow, and general govemmental services).
(ii) The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and
implementation sftategies of the various elements ofthe Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
(iii) The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant
adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigate4 and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities.
(iv) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to the following:
a. Access
b. Provision of utilities; and
c. Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
9
(v) The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole.
(vi) The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and
population growttr projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
(vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities
and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA.
(vii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growttr Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, applicable inter-
jruisdictional policies and agreements, and local, state and federal laws.
61. Master Planned Resorts are governed under a distinct statutory provision within the GlvIA.
They are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural
Development (LAMIRDs). Instead, RCW 36.70A.360 provides that new MPRS "...may
constitute urban growttr outside of urban growttr areas as limited by this section."
62. MLA06-87 is submitted by Statesman Group of Companies, LTD. The application is for
a Master Planned Resort (NeR) designation. (See Extribit A for the complete legal
description and Exhibit B for a map.)
63. In consideration of the public interest, and pursuant to the authority that is granted the
County legislative authority under SEPA by RCW 43.21C.060, WAC 197-ll-660 and
Jefferson County Code 18.40.770,the Board enters certain of the following conditions for
approval of the CP amendment MLA06-87, recognizing that certain of the conditions
listed here are imposed not in reliance upon SEPA but instead pursuant to the Board's
general police power as a legislative body [arising from Article XI, $ 11 of the State
Constitution and RCW 36.32.120(7)1, particularly conditions 4 e, f, g, v, & 08 and bb:
a) Any analysis of environmental impacts is to be based on science and data pertinent to
the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoffprojections, and potential
impacts on Hood Canal.
r0
b) All applications will be given an automatic SEPA threshold determination of
Determination of Significance (DS) at the project level except where the SEPA-
responsible official determines that the application results in only minor construction.
c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOII) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public
health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development
agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer
and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding
marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking.
d) A list of required amenities shall be in the development agreement along with
conditions for public access.
e) Statesman shall advertise and give wriuen notice at libraries and post offices in East
Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and
employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and
competitive in terms of pricing.
0 Statesman will prioritize the soucing of constnrction materials from within Jefferson
County.
B) The developer shall commission a study of the number ofjobs expected to be created
as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
average median income (AM). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.g.,
no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly
proportional to the number ofjobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
AMI. The developer may satis$ this condition through dedication of land, payment of
in lieu fee, or onsite housing development.
h) The possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for
use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved.
D Any study done at the project level pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) shall include a
distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the impacts to the
hydrology and hydrogeology of the MPR location of the developer's intention to use
l1
one of the existing kettles for water storage. Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a
second scientist mutually chosen by the developer and the county. The developer will
bear the financial cost of these reports.
j) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle
preserved as a culfural resource.
k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit
or approval of any preliminary pla! there shall be executed or recorded with the
County Auditor a document reflecting the developer's written understanding with and
among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of
Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a culfural resources
management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of
the subject property prior to issuing permits; and during constnrction to maintain site
integrity, provide procedures regarding future ground-disttubing activity, assure
taditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to provide for
community education opporhrnities.
l) A wildlife management plan focused on non-lethal strategies shall be developed in the
public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local
tibes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub-
Area Plan (e.g., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the
potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway l0l, to reduce the conflicts resulting
from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources,
to reduce the dangers to predators attacted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce
any danger to humans.
m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water
rights and an adequate water supply.
n) Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health, and
approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecolory shall be required
prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development.
o) Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that water
quantity and water quahty issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is
L2
based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU) for the development using a standard of 175 gallons per day (gpd). The goal of
the development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on
the standard of 175 pd.
p) A Neighborhood Water Policy shall be established that requires Statesman to provide
access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an
issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for additional recharge
wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or carse
mounding.
q) Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero discharge
into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and
installing stormwater management infrastructures and techniques that allow no
stormwater run-offinto Hood Canal, Statesman shall prepare a soil study ofthe soils
present at the MPR location. Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended
infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. Marina discharge shall
be treated by a system that reduces contamination to the greatest possible extent.
r) A County-based comprehensive water quallty monitoring plan specific to Pleasant
Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and
approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site-specific
action, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring
plan shall be funded by a yearly reserye, paid for by Statesman, that will include
regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition
to any onsite monitoring regime.
s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway
l0l and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation
easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200-foot
riparian buffer along the steep bluffalong the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature
hees between U.S. Highway l0l and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland
buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the
property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these
l3
easements to include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting
to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101.
0 The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory
regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with
the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate,
minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to
Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village.
u) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in
order to satisff the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
lE.l5.135(l),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained
as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities
so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to
incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic
sites, and public views." In keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9,
the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the
maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent
rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible.
Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous Eees and shnrbs.
v) In keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisff the
intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the
buildings should be conskucted and placed in such a way that they will blend into the
terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings.
w) Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that stives to
preserve trees that have a diameter of l0 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An
arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and
surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent
possible, trees of significant size (i.e., l0 inches or more in diameter at breast height
(dbh)) that are removed during construotion shall be made available with their root
wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery projects.
t4
x) Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and
"Green Built" green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to
commercial and residential dwellings respectively, "promote design and constnrction
practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts
of buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being."
y) There shall be included as a best management practice for the operation and
maintenance of a golf course within the MPR that requires the developer to maintain a
log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this information
will be made available to the public.
z) Statesman shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-l standards
for the MPR. These standards are recommended for "areas with intrinsically dark
landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential
areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited.
aa)In fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting totuism, the housing
units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the
very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 650/o
to 35Yo of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2).
bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from
the Mason County Public Utility District.
cc) Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) to
calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MP& and identiff
techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable
methods.
dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to
identi$ and advertise job opportunities for local students.
15
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIhiED as follows:
Section One: Under MLA06-87 [Statesman], the map of Comprehensive Land Use Designations
is hereby amended to reflect that the parcels of property located in Brinnon, Washington, and
found in the legal description (see Exhibit A to this Ordinance) accompanying this CP
application, shall be given in their entirety an underlying land use designation of Master Planned
Resort.
Section Two: The Comprehensive Plan narrative on page 3-23 would be amended to add
language below the last paragraph that would read:
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 resi-dential uses such as
townhouses and villas. The B1ack 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.
Section Three: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid
pursuant to the Growth Management Act, then the development regulations and/or underlying
zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of the non-compliant or
invalid section of this Ordinance shall be applicable to that parcel or parcels.
Section Four: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid pursuant
to the Growth Management Act, such a flrnding of non-compliance or invalidity shall not nulliff
or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance.
Section Five: The map and legal description are hereby incorporated by attachment.
16
Section Six: In consideration of the weather emergency situations of December 2007, and within
the overall public interest, the Board extended the decision date on these CP amendments to
January 14, 2008 by Resolution No. I 13-07. The Board's adoption of the motion approving the
MPR for Black Point met the legislative intent of Resolution 113-07 as the decision date for the
legislative decision. This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed.
APPROVED A]tlD ADOPTED this 28th day of ,Ianuary 2008.
Y tor JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
a,\ta
,G
a.
ATTEST;
Phir
CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Approved as to form:
David Alvarez, Deputy
3)zm8
Attomey
t7
a.'
,?S0\
ErhibitA Ondjnance No. 01-0128-08
The Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort at Black Point shall consist of the properties
described below, excluding only that potion of any parcel lying westerly of US l0l,
and together with DNR leased tidelands supporting the Pleasant Harbor Marina"
PARCEL A:
Thc NorEhcasE tlA of Ehc gouthrctt Lll oQ gccEion 15, TotrarhiD 25NorEh, RrBga 2 ll.rt. W.M., ln ilcffcrroD Courrty, lilaahingt,on;
TOGETEER 9!ITII autlllEy purpoa€s
proPel-Eys
BcAlnnlng at Chc gouthGast. carner ol Eha southEcat 1/{ of Eht
NorEhwBBt L/A of eald SesEion 15rthcnce run lgcst,, along the tlouEh linc of aaid gouthvcsE L/4 ofthe Northuest 1/{. approximaCely rZ5 lees Eo Ehe SouEherly Ilneof Blask Polnt County Eoad;ghence NoruheaeEarly, along eald Southcrly 1tnr, to a polnt 30focE North o{ eald South llne rhea mcasured aE righc rnglrr;thcncc BasE, parallcl Eo aald gouth lins, Eo tho Batb llnc o!eald EouthrregE, 1/4 of, the North,rreac 1,/{,.
Ehcnce 9ouEb 30 [seE, Eo the potnt of bcglnnlngt
AlilD ovgr and acrocE the Weat 30 f,qoE of lbc SouEh 30 tcat of
Oovcrrrment lrot { In said 6cct,ion 15.
SlEuaE,q io Ehc CounEy of Jcf,fcr3on, gt,aEo of Washj.ngt,on.
PARCEL B:
?he Eaet LlZ of chc IsorEhwcsts 114 of che Soutshwggt t/4 of Sectlon15, Townrbip 25 Noretr, Range 2 $ast, f,l ,l,l .. i.n Jalferaon eouiEy,i{aahingEoa;
axcEEFT Ehae porElon Ehareof, lylng wlEhtn I strlp of landconveyed tso Ehc sEate ol Ilashlngc@, tot SEete Road No. 9,
Duckabuch Rlvca-NorEh Sectlon, by dacd dacod August 28. 1933, andrecorded under Audltor'e f1le No. ?OS1?, :3ecorde of Jef,fcreonCounty, llashingtoa.
Sltuat,a tn thc County of rleffercon, 6taEe of gfaohingCon.
per;rctual oon-excluglvc)r:(agemrng lor road andthrougth. ecrois arrd ovcr EhG fgllowlrg dcrcrlbcd
99999 97 7 4(LEG AL I 3 Et9965. I
PARCEI, C:
Ehose portions of SceElons 15 ond 22, boEh ln Townehip 25 Norch,
Range 2 ffese, W.M., ileffereon CounEy, Washingcon, deserlbcd ag
f,oIlows:
The SouEhwesE, L/q ot the gouthcaet 1/{ and Government IJot, 7 ot,
said Seetlon 15, and Government Lflt,a 2 and 3 of, eaid Section 22;
E(CEPT those Boreions thereof l.ying EaEt of, ths Weet line of Ehe
Eaet 695.00 Eect. of said Southwcat, Ll4 of tbe SoutheasE t/1, and
East of the goutherly prolongaEion oE eaid West llne;
AJ.ISO EXCEPT tlhaE portlou of, the Weat 100.0o feaE of said
GovernmenE IJot 7, lylng gout,herly of Ehe Noruh 539,00 feeL
thereof,.
TOGET{*ER I{ITH Eidel.ands of Ehe Second CLase, as corlveycd by thestate of Washington, sltuate in front of,, ad.jacent to and
abuttlng ulron the WeEt L/2 Ln wldth of, gaid Government llot 2, ln
sald Sect,ion 22.
Situate in the County of JefferBon, gtatc of WaehingEon.
PARCEL Dr
Thau portion of, ehe Northurst 1/4 of the SoutheaeL ll4 in SccElon
15, Townahlp 25 North, Range 2 tlcst [I.M., Iytng Southerly of the
alach Polnt Road eE eonve)red to rfcffereon Courty try deed recortlad
under AudiEor'g Fl1e llas 223427, records of eald Counry;
EBCEPT thaE portton dceeribcd ac follows:
Thac port,lon of the Norchwest 1l{ of ehe $outheasL L/4 of EecEion
15, Townehlp 25 NorEh, kngc 2 WceE, ll,M., described as folloca:
BcalnnJ.ng at the polne of lneerseeElon of Eh€ EasE line of the
Northwegt L/4 of thr Southeaet 1/4 and the goutharly margin ofthe BLaek Polnt Road;
theaee Soueh a3.ong Bhe eald Easu llne, a dieEance of 300 feet;
Ehence lfeeL 350 fcet, i
Ehence North to ehe Polnl of lnterseetion wleh. Ehe Southsrly
margln of Ehe Blaek Polnt Road;thence East.erly along sald SouEherly margin Eo the Point of
Beginning.
SlbuaEe In the CounEy of rleffsrlon, State of lilashingEon.
9999p. -97 7 4|LEGAL I 3 E t9965. I
PAX,CEL E:
That porcion ef Ehc SouEhrrese 1/4 of thc NorEhrrrar l/4 of Scction15, Townehlp 25 t{orth, Range 2 ]loat, l{.M., ae followa:
A Bt,rlp of land 250 fe€E wide }ying Eaecerly of and parallcl ro
Ehc souEhcaaterly rlght-of-way of, gtaEe Hlghway t01l
E:KCEPt Ehrr right of r.ay for Black PolnE Road aa conveyad to
'Jctf,craon County by daed reeordod under Audi.tor's Flle No. 223421
and 410339, resordg of ,Joff,arsoa County, Warhington.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM t,he foll.ortng deccrl.bed traeE;
aaglnnlng. at E,he SflrEh$rest corncr of OorrcrnnranE toE 3,tshInce N6rth ego 23, o?r TfegE 308.14 fecE Eo Eho SouthcaatcrlyrighE-of-uay of SEat€ Hi.ghwly No, I0L, atrd Ehe TRUE POfNf OP
BEGIINNINg,thence Southwesterly along eald fllghway. Il7 teeE,
rhencc South 88- 23' o?' EaaE, tso a poinE 1?5 lcet $eEE of uhehlgh Eide line;
Ehence Northeaetarly bo a point on thc North lina of Ehe
Southwest l/4 ot uhe Northwcct l/4,100 leee gleec ol aatd hlghtide line;
chence Norch 88 0 23', O7n neEE to the TRUE Porlm oP BEGINNING ofEhis exception.
giuuate ln the County of Jctfergon, StaC€ ol lla;hingron.
PAITCSL P:
l,oc 1. of t{ag€rtouch short Plat, as recorded ln Volume 2 of Short,Place, pageg 205 and 206, records of.fef,tcreon County,!{ashlngton, being a port,lou of Soctlon 15, Townehlp 25 NorEh,
Range 2 Woat, 91.M., ,feftereon CouJtEy, TfashlngEon.
SLtuat€ i.n the County of rfcff,crlon, SEat€ of $laetrLn9ton...
PARCEL Gt
ler, 2 0f waEert,otroh short Plar, as recorded ln volume 2 sf, shcrgPlaEs. pagcs ?Oi and 205, recorde of Jefferuon Countwaehington, betnE fl porelon of geeElon 15, townahlp 25 Nart
Range 2 We6t, W.M., ilef,farsofi CounEy, wtshington.
Sltuate ln t,he County of Jeffereon, StaEE of tfaahingEoa.
Y,h,
99ry99 -97 7 4 TLEOAL I 3889965. I
PARCBL H:
L(,B 3 of, waEertouch thort PIat. ar rrcordcd in Vo1ume 2 of thortPIaEs, E,aEeE 2os and 206 t rceorda of ,Ieffercon CounEy,
Ifaahlngton, beirrg a portion of Scctlon 15, Tornship 25 North,
Range 2 west, W.l{., rTafErraon CounEy, Ilashingbon.
SituaEe j.n Ehe County of, ,Jeffarson, SEaEe of lfashlngton"
PARCEII I:
LoE 1, PleaaauE Harbor Martna ShorE PIat, ar per plat recorded ln
Volurne 2 of ShorE Plarr, palrea 221 to 223 and amended ln Volume3 of Short PIaEs, pagEa I Eo 10, rocords of 'Jeffer6on Cannty,
?laahington, EIKCEP? thaE, porLlon of, LoE 1 dcacribcd aa foll,oua:
ThaE porEion of GovcrnmenE llot 3 abutEing 2nd claeg Bldelands in
Section 15, Township 25 NorEh. RaJEe 2 west, W.!1., ,Ieffergon
CounEy, washLngEon, belng more parLlcrlarly described ac followsr
Commcncing aE Ehe North U{ corner of Sect,ioa 15, Tmnrship 25
NorEh, Ranga 2 HFEE, W.M., Jeffereon County, Irfaehington;
thence South 88- 13' 42,, Eaat along Ehe NorEh .Llne of 6aid
SecEion 15 for a distance of 36{.50 feeE Eo thc point of
beglnning;
thence cSnfinuing souEh 88o 13' 42, EacB 238.75 feec Eo Bhe llncof nrean high Eide;
thcnce souEh et' iz' o0r rlest along Ehc Llne of mean high tide
3rl. ?8 feet;
Ehance Norttr 4oo {1, 5{'r Hest along the line of mean high Elde
3 . 31 f,eet;
Ehence SouEh 62" 36, 19n WcgE along Ehe line of mean hlgh tide
26.83 feeE; -
Eheace Souch 8zo
thcnce North 21
bcAinnlng.
AND ALSO EXCEPTING Sccond Claes Eidcland as coflvey€d by the St,at,eof ?lashingE,on. in front of , adJaccnt go and abutclng Ehe abovedeecribed excepEed upJ.ande.
SiEuaEe in Ehe County of .Tefferson, SEatG of t{aehlngEon.
^5{' 36'r l{eat 155,65 fcct;! zt' O5't ttesE 43 . Oo fceu to Ehc point of
9999p -97 1 4 TLEGAL I 3 E 8965. I
PARCEL Jr SOZI€ZaIZ (
IJ'E 2, PleaeanB llarbor ltarlna Shorg PlaE, aE lr.r plats rccordcd in
Volume 2 of Short, Plator plgGr 221 Ehrough 223, and amcndcd ln
volunrs 3 of, ShorE D1.E., pagqr I Ehrough 10, rccordg ot.feftcrgon
courlEy, wa.EhtnEton.
?OOEII{ER ll'fTH second clase Eidelanda, aE soovoycd by th. staE,e ofllashl.ngrton, Bltsuate ln front, of , adJacent Eo and abuCting
Ehcreon.
SLtulEe t-n the County of Oefterdon, gttte of WrshtDgton.
PARCETT K: ,oelf,s*o gpN
Thoee portions of Ebc Sout,hwort Lll ol Ehe gouEhcasE Lll otsectlon 15, and Govcrnnrent Lou 2 of SGcElon 22, both ln Towachlp25 $ortb, Rangc 2 Wcat, ll ,M., dlcffergon Cgunuy, PashingrEon,deecrlbed ag tollowg:
The BaaE 345.00 fceE of eaid Southvest 2.ll of EhG SouEhcart, l/{,
aE mGaBured elong Ehc North l1rc thcreof,.
TOGETIIER [{ITH EhaE, porBlon of eald Gorrernment I6E 2 lylng East of,th€ SouEherly prol.ongaElon of Ehr $crt, flne of oald EaBt 3{5.00
feetrr.
SlEuate in t,he CounEy of Jefferson, 8tsaEe ol Warhtngcon.
PARCBTT rrr gozlf*l Joot MtttP#
Those porEion8 oE. Ehc EouthHeBE ll4 of, the SouthrarE Lll otSestlon 15, and Ciqvsrnmsnt IJot Z o! SsctLon 22, both ln To,rnrhtp25 NorEh, Range 2 WerE, lf ,!1., JeEtcraen CounEy, wathlr€Eofr,deecrlbed ag followr:
Tha East 520.00 facE lcss ehc East 345.00 fccc of, aaid SouEhrraetLll of tshe SouE,treaet 1/4, as meaaurcd alonE Chc XoEEh llnc
EhcrEof
TOSTIHER f{fml that, DotEion of gald Gloverrmants IJot 2 lying BalEof the Southerly prolongatlon ol Ehe tfsst llnc ol rrld 8rri520.00 f,pce and Wset of thc EouLh:rly prolongrtlon of Eh6 Ef6EIlne of eald EarE t{8.00 !.1t.
sltu{rEc ln Eha qounty ot trcttcrron, gt,aEa of, tfrrhlngftor.
99989.977 4tLEcALl3E8965. t
PARCET., M:' foZt€9oZZ Chopt6 flleprc{
thoac Dortions of, thc Southwegt L/4 of the gouthcast L/4 ofSectlon 15, and Ctsyepnnront I,ot 2 of SccElon 22, both ln Townahip25 NoqEh.r., RlrBge Z ..Weitr. W,M.. \rsff,erEon OCuCny, WaebingEon,
The EasE 695.00 f..til""ls,Eh€ BaeE 520.00 fcec of said Southwcetl/4 o! ehc gouthelet Lltr og meaaured along thc Nortb 1lnethereof.
TOGE$IER IIITE tbaE portion of gaid Gorrcrnrncnt Irot 2 lylng EalC of
Eha SouEherly prolorrgaui.an of the flert llnc of sal,d BaaE 595.00fect, and, Itagt of the goutherly prolongatLon of tha Eart llnt ofsaid EasE 520.0O fcce.
Sltuate Ln-the CounCy.of :JeffersoD, SEatG of, IgashlngEon.
Parcel N: 502152017
Lot 4 of Watertouch Short Plat, as recorded in Volurre 2 of Short Plats, pages 205 and
206, records of Jefferson County, Washinglon, being a portion of Section 15, Township
25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washinglon.
i
i
:
;
:
i.
I
,.
t.
I
Rqoords c:crn1rud 10, 2006, qt E:OO A.M.
:.:i.::i.. i-,r.il,
t. r,r: ,?l i
99999 -97 7 4|LEGAL I 3 889965. I
Ordinance Number:0l_-01_28-08
Exhibit B
MLA06-87 Map: BoCC-Adopted Boundary, Brirmon MPR
Brinnon MPR
BOCC Adopted Bound^ry
January14,2008
DNR Lease
I
I
I
I
Legend
i:= MPR Boundary
*
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
lrlrlrrrl Figure 8
NOTICE OFADOPTION BY TIIE
JETTPNSON COUNTY BOARD OT COMIIfiSSIONERS
OT' COMPREIIENSTYE PLAN AMENDMENTS
NOTICE IS ffiREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for Jefferson Cormty
enacted Ordinance #[Replace with number] on January 28, 2008, thereby adopting the Brinnon MPR
Comprehensive Plan amendment associated with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle; the
decision having been made on January 14, 2008, following the schedule outlined in Resolution #ll3-07,
siped on December 10,2007,
The Adopting Ordinance was enacted during the rcgular Consent Agenda at 9:30 AM in the BOCC
Chambers, Jeffenon County Courthouse, l82l Jefferson St., Port Townsend. Following is a brief
description of this amendment to the Comprehcnsivc Plan. This casc has a Master Land Use Application
(MLA) file number for reference and is a site-specific amendment.
MLA0G87: The Statesman proposal was approved as revised with conditions, to amend the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan on psges 3-23 and3-45. The comprchensive plan narmtive on page 3-23
would be amended to add language below the last paragraph to read:
*Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new master planned resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new
master planned resoft is 256 acres in size and includos the Ploasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The
Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include additional commersial 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 rcstaurant, a rcsort @nt€tr, tovmhouseg villas, staffhousing, and a community
center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 toal units."
The comprehensive plan land use map desigrrations on page 3-45 for this area would be changed to reflect
a master planned resort as outlined in the November 27,2007 final environmental impact stat€m€nt on
page l-4.
Five additional site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments forthe 2007 amendment cycle are enacted in
a separale Adoption Ordinance.
Aveitability of Infomadon: Copies ofthe adopted ordinance arp available atthe Jefferson County
Courthouse, 1821 Jefferson St,, Port Townsend WA 9E368, (360) 385-9100. A copy of the full text of
the ordinance will be mailed out upon rcquest. Background information is available at the Dept. of
Community Development 621 Sheridan Steet, Port Townsend and on the DCD web pages:
www.cojefferson.wauVcommdwelopment" Contact lGren Barrows for more infonnation: (360)379482
or h_banows@o j efferson.waus