HomeMy WebLinkAbout131JJEEFFFFEERRSSOONN CCOOUUNNTTYY
DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
___________________________________________________________________________________
Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning
STAFF REPORT
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Development Agreement
DATE: August ___, 2017
TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MLA08-00188/ZON08-00056: Development Agreement for Pleasant
Harbor Master Planned Resort
Project Description:
The request is for a proposed Development Agreement (DA) between Jefferson County and
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP to develop approximately 237.88-acres that was
previously approved as a Master Planned Resort (MPR) through a comprehensive plan
amendment as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 28, 2008 through
Ordinance 01-0128-08. A master planned resort shall require approval of a Development
Agreement as required by Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.15.126(2) and as authorized by
JCC 18.40.820 and RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210.
The Development Agreement ensures that the project will meet the goals and purposes for
which the development Agreement Laws were enacted, and determines that the agreement is in
the public interest, will serve a public use, will promote the health, safety, prosperity and general
welfare of the citizens of the County by, among other things, eliminating uncertainty in long-term
planning; provides for the orderly development of the Project on a comprehensive basis
consistent with the Growth Management Act; and effectively utilizes county resources.
To provide consistency in development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the Development
Agreement will vest the project for 25 years from the effective date or until one year after the
build-out is complete. The Development Agreement outlines the requirements for approval for
future project phases by providing certainty over time with respect to permitted densities,
amenities and uses, development standards, and other aspects of the development review
process.
Application Number: MLA08-00188/ZON08-00056
Date of Application: An application to amend the GMA Implementing regulations (Unified
Development Code – Jefferson County Code Titles 17 & 18) and a request for a Development
2
Agreement was submitted to DCD on April 16, 2008 consistent with JCC 18.45.090(1)(c), and
deemed complete on May 14, 2008 per JCC 18.40.110(4).
Type of Application: DA, Type V Legislative approval
Project Request: The request is for approval of a DA to develop the site for a period of 25
years or from the effective date or until one year after the build-out is complete.
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 502-153-002, 502-153-003, 502-153-023, 502-154-002, 502-
152-005, 502-152-014, 502-152-015, 502-152-016, 502-152-013, 502-152-012, 502-153-020,
502-153-021, & 502-153-022
Applicant and owner: Applicant’s Attorney:
Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP Houlihan Law
Garth Mann, President/CEO JT Cooke, Attorney
7370 Sierra Morena Blvd SW 100 N. 35th Street
Calgary, AB T3H 4H9 Canada Seattle, WA 98103
Project Location: The project site is located on the east side of Highway 101 and west of
Hood Canal approximately one and a half (1.5) miles south of the Brinnon Community and
south of Pleasant Harbor on the Black Point Peninsula.
Site Visits: Jefferson County staff have conducted several site visits; more recently June 2015,
October 3, 2016, and May 24, 2017.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designates
the subject parcels as Master Planned Resort (MPR). The purpose and intent of the MPR
designation is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to those
properties the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) determines are appropriate for
development as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and
RCW 36.70A.360. The BoCC re-designated the subject parcels to MPR from Rural Residential
on January 28, 2008, as approved by Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Background
The Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort is comprised of fourteen (14) parcels (one of which
is privately owned with an existing bed and breakfast; 502-152-017). The proposal consists of a
9-hole golf course with a 3-hole practice course, 890 residential units of which 52 are allocated
to staff housing and a ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences,
56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related amenities and 103-acres of natural
area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for the golf course grading.
Approximately 900 feet of the Pleasant Harbor public boat launch road will be moved
approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast along Black Point Road, all on Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owned property. The relocated road will create a
safer entrance to the marina and help alleviate congestion during the fishing and shellfish
seasons.
The Pleasant Harbor 300 slip marina, although within the boundaries of the master planned
resort, was not included in the analysis of the FSEIS because it was re-developed under an
Amended Binding Site Plan.
3
Site development will be conducted in the following phases:
Phase 1 consists of the construction of primary infrastructure needed to service initial
construction of the MPR including the large onsite septic system that will become the back-up
when the wastewater treatment plant is constructed and the first water storage tank and piping
distribution system will also be constructed. Phase 1 will also consist of developing 202
residential units.
Phase 2 involves initial development of the central resort facilities. Golf course construction will
commence with the Golf Terrace Recreation and Conference Center consisting of 208
residential units and 36,000 square feet of commercial space will be constructed. The Maritime
Village building consisting of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial space will also be
constructed. Phase 2 also involves construction of the State Route 101 intersection
improvements, wastewater treatment plant, development of a second water well, electric power
infrastructure and construction of stormwater facilities. A 52 unit building for staff quarters and
maintenance will also be constructed.
Phase 3 involves reconstructing Black Point Road, relocating the WDFW access road,
constructing the sanitary sewer pump stations and force main, and constructing the majority of
the residential units including Golf Terrace 2, 3 and 4, Sea View Villas and Golf Terrace
buildings, comprising 360 total units.
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.
Applicable Jefferson County Ordinances:
Jefferson County Code (JCC), Title 18, Unified Development Code, as amended
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, as amended
Proposed Action: This section constitutes staff’s findings and conclusions regarding the
applicant’s consistency with Washington State Statue, the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan, Jefferson County Unified Development Code, and Ordinance 01-0128-08.
1. RCW 36.70A.360 Master Planned Resorts: The proposed development is subject to the
following criteria and requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
(1) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master
planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as
limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully
integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with
primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor
accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor
recreational facilities.
Staff comment: As reviewed, approved and conditioned under Ordinance 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 each section to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and
4
timeshares to permanent residences. Proposed amenities include a 9-hole golf course, spa
services, amphitheater, pool, sports courts, (Need updated list of amenities)
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.”
(2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, storm
water, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be
limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and
services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers,
including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated
with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master
planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service
providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided
that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth
areas.
Staff Comment: The resort will be completely self-contained in terms of water, waste water
and stormwater treatment. Buildings will require sprinkler systems be installed and 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 Brinnon Fire District and Jefferson Healthcare.
Consistent with Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(c), the developer entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Jefferson Healthcare who signed the MOU on
September 30, 2010 as well as a MOU with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department of which
Sheriff Stanko signed on May 10, 2017 and the Brinnon Fire Department Chief was consulted
on the MOU for emergency 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.
5
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).
(3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but
only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature
of the resort.
Staff Report: No more than 35% of residential units shall be for permanent use. Fifty two (52)
residential units 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:
(a) 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).
(b) 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
(page 5 #33 of said Ordinance) that the comprehensive plan already includes policies to guide
the development of new MPR and the related development regulations serve to preclude urban
or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR.
(c) 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 stating “the land at the site in question is better suited for an MPR than for
the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production. The parcels were previously
zoned as rural residential prior to the re-zone of the MPR. (See Exhibit A, page 5 #33 & 34).
(d) 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.
6
(e) 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), Memoranda 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 BoCC response to this intent is addressed in the 30 conditions of
Ordinance 01-0128-08 imposed on the developer and specifically condition 63(c) which requires
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with service providers.
2. 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 on January 28, 2008, the
then proposed marina development has changed due to the required 150 foot shoreline buffer
under the new Shoreline Master Program. The proposed 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
237.88 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Black Point areas. The
Marina area is existing and was further developed to include additional commercial and
7
residential uses such as townhouses and villasredeveloped under a legally permitted Amended
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 - 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. A maximum of 890 residential units and 56,608 square feet of commercial space is
allowed in addition to many resort amenities. Several amenities will be available to the general
public for their use and enjoyment.
Policy 24.2 - Owners of sites where MPRs are proposed to be located must obtain an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, giving the site a master planned resort
designation prior to, or concurrent with an application for master plan review. The
comprehensive plan amendment process should evaluate all of the probable significant adverse
environmental impacts from the entire proposal, even if the proposal is to be developed in
phases, and these impacts shall be considered in determining whether any particular location is
suitable for a master planned resort.
Staff Comment: Through Ordinance 01-0128-08, the subject parcels were re-zoned from rural
residential to Master Planned Resort. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
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.
8
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 parcels were previously zoned as rural residential prior to their re-
designation to master planned resort in 2008. Some logging of the site occurred around 1980
from previous owners. The proposal is consistent with this policy as 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: A ratio of 64% to 35% of rental to time-shares to permanent housing shall be
maintained as well as a minimum of f ifty two (52) residential units dedicated to staff housing as
required under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition (g) and (aa). Both uses are integrated into
and support the recreational nature of the resort. The proposal includes suggested
development and zoning regulations that deviate from those found in other zoning districts. 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: The applicant is proposing a 9 hole golf course, swimming pool, indoor
recreation court, amphitheater, spa and beauty salon, restaurant and professional services just
to name a few. Additionally, Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(d) requires the applicant
provide a list of amenities that identifies which services 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.
9
Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation,
water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services.
Additionally, 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 237.88 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 17.60.060 of the development
regulations allow Title 15 (building code) and Title 18 (Unified Development Code) to
supplement the proposed new development regulations for the resort, including JCC 18.22
Critical Areas. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Policy 24.11 - Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development Agreements,
as authorized by RCW 36.7013.170, to implement these policies.
10
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). 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.
3. 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 Findings 1 and 2 above, the proposal is consistent with this
description as a land use district. The resort includes a large on-site sewage treatment facility,
stormwater facilities, public water supply, internal roadways, utilities, pedestrian paths and an
assortment of recreational opportunities including a the Pleasant Harbor Marina, 9-hole golf
course, swimming pool, spa and beauty salon services just to name a few. Housing will
maintain a ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences consistent
with Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(aa). Additionally, a maintenance building including 52
staff housing units will also be provided.
The following is the applicant’s proposed new subsection (2) to this section of Code, to follow
subsection (1) describing Port Ludlow as the first Master Planned Resort. 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
11
is designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.360 as a new master planned resort and is
subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17 Article II. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is characterized by
a golf course resort facility with associated residential uses south of Black Point Road, and a
300 slip marina at Pleasant Harbor, / and a Maritime Village mixed use recreation center with
and associated housing north of Black Point Road. The resort is predominately designed to
serve resort and recreation uses and has only limited full-time occupancy. The resort is served
located within 2 miles by 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 – Designated – “Master planned resort” (MPR) is a land use designation
established under the Comprehensive Plan. The only existing officially designated master
planned resort in the county is the Port Ludlow MPR, provisions for which are codified in JCC
Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70.A.362 regarding designation
of existing master planned resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-
specific amendment to the comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required
by JCC 18.45.080.
Staff Comment: The Applicant’s proposed changes to the above language in 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 as
finalized on January 28, 2008.
Proposed JCC 18.15.115 – Designation - "Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use
designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The only existing officially designated
master planned resorts in the county areis the Port Ludlow MPR and the Pleasant Harbor MPR,
provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts. Pleasant Harbor
MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 pertaining to new Master Planned Resorts.
Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires
compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-specific amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required by JCC 18.45.080.
JCC 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.
12
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
13
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: The proposed zoning regulations, along with the conditions and requirements
of Ordinance 01-0128-08 and FSEIS, maps, mitigation measures, phasing plan and the
Development Agreement constitute the “master plan”.
(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:
14
(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 as signed by the
Board of County Commissioners on January 28, 2008.
(4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the county, a
master planned resort project may be designated by the county as a planned
action pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 and
197-11-168.
Staff Comment: The proposal is not a Planned Action.
(5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site
urban-level commercial and other services should be contained within the
boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR.
New urban or suburban development and land uses are prohibited outside the
boundaries of a master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated as
urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110.
Staff Comment: 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
15
modifications can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the
application shall be denied.
(1) The master plan is consistent with the requirements of this article and Article VI-
D of this chapter (Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA)).
Staff Comment: The 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.
(2) The MPR is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, and complies with all other
applicable sections of this code and all other codes and policies of the county.
Staff Comment: As stated above in the applicable sections of this report, the proposal
complies with this criterion. No new resort development shall take place within the Shoreline
jurisdiction.
(3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, open
space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR
sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed.
Staff Comment: As detailed in the Master Plan requirement under JCC 18.15.126(1)(i), the
proposal is consistent with this criterion.
(4) The MPR will provide active recreational uses, adequate open space, and
sufficient services such as transportation access, public safety, and social and
health services, to adequately meet the needs of the guests and residents of the
MPR.
Staff Comment: The list of available resort and recreational amenities; the increase in
undisturbed open space between Alternatives 1 and 3; 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.
(5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and
accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services
shall be oriented to serve the MPR.
Staff Comment: As stated in the FSEIS and Master Plan, the proposal complies with this
criterion.
(6) Environmental considerations are employed in the design, placement and
screening of facilities and amenities so that all uses within the MPR are
harmonious with each other, and in order to incorporate and retain, as much as
feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic sites, and public views.
16
Staff Comment: As described in the Master Plan as required under JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), the
proposal complies with this criterion.
(7) All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully
considered and mitigated.
Staff Comment: Per the FSEIS, the proposal complies with this criterion.
(8) Improvements and activities are located and designed in such a manner as to
avoid or minimize adverse effects of the MPR on surrounding lands and property.
Staff Comment: Development along the south bluff is setback at least 200 feet from Ordinary
High Water Mark, and south beach access is prohibited specifically to avoid any impacts to the
marine waters of Hood Canal. Also, the stormwater system is designed to prevent any
discharge into Hood Canal per Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63(q). Siting of buildings and
recreational activities were designed to be buffered from adjacent properties.
(9) The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance
the character of the resort.
Staff Comment: The master plan contains zoning and development standards specific to each
zone in order to maintain the specific character of each zone, such as golf course, marina and
mixed use recreational (Maritime Village) as different aspects of the overall resort.
(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 strik ethrough 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
17
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
18
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 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 proposed development agreement is between Jefferson County and the
Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP. 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 proposed development agreement 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: Approval and recording 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]
19
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 17.80.020. 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 7 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 7 of the proposed development agreement addresses development
standards as well as several conditions imposed by Ordinance 01-0128-08. The development
regulations Section 17.80.020 addresses mitigation measures as well as development
conditions for each specific zone within the MPR.
(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 7 of the proposed development
agreement and also within the specific zones identified in the proposed development
regulations.
(d) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure
requirements;
Staff Comment: These standards are addressed in Section 7 of the proposed development
agreement.
(e) Affordable housing;
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the MOU for housing attached as Exhibit G of this report.
(f) Recreational uses and open space preservation;
Staff Comment: Recreational uses are identified in Section 9.3 of the development agreement
and Section 7.8.7, consistent with Condition 63(s), requires a conservation easement be
recorded for natural greenbelts and buffers. Additionally, a vegetation management plan was
prepared and will become Appendix L to the proposed development agreement.
(g) Phasing;
20
Staff Comment: This is addressed in Section 9 of the proposed development agreement.
(h) Development review procedures, processes and standards for
implementing decisions, including methods of reimbursement to the
county for review processes;
Staff Comment: These are addressed in Sections 8 and 9 of the proposed development
agreement.
(i) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures.
Staff Comment: Addressed in Sections 7, 8, and 9 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:
(a) Establish a process for amending the agreement;
Staff Comment: Addressed in Section 11.9 of the proposed development agreement.
(b) Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires;
Staff Comment: Addressed in Section 2.2 of the DA.
(c) Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and
Staff Comment: addressed in Section 8.3.2 of the proposed development agreement.
(d) 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 6.2 and 8.3.3 of the proposed development agreement.
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.
21
(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 development agreement 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 development agreement 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 development agreement. RCW 36.70C does not apply since an appeal of the development
agreement 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 11.2 of the proposed development agreement.
(2) A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the
agreement.
22
Staff Comment: Addressed in Section 11.8???? of the proposed development agreement.
(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 11.1 of the proposed development agreement.
(4) Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement
shall be consistent with the agreement.
Staff Comment: Addressed in Section 8.1 and 8.2.4???? of the proposed development
agreement.
(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]
Staff Comment: No impact fees have been applied to the project. The development is subject
to several MOU’s as conditioned by Ordinance 01-0128-08 and are identified in the proposed
development agreement under section 7.8. Within the MPR boundary, there is an “open space”
zone adjacent to the south shoreline bluff. This area will be included in a conservation
easement.
4. Compliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08
The project is subject to 30 conditions imposed under Ordinance 01-0128-08. These conditions
are discussed below.
Condition 63 (a): Any analysis of environmental impacts is to be based on science and data
pertinent to the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoff projections, and potential
impacts on Hood Canal.
Staff Comment: Site specific data that included rainfall projects, runoff projections and
potential impacts on Hood Canal were analyzed in the SEIS and FSEIS Appendix F.
Condition 63 (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.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed Development Agreement, Section 8.2.4.
Condition 63 (c): The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of
understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the
Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health,
parks and recreation and transit prior to approval of the development agreement. Such
23
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.
Staff Comment: Memoranda of understanding for the Brinnon School, Brinnon Fire District,
housing, police, public health, parks and recreation and transit have been secured as addressed
in the Development Agreement under Section 7.11.
Condition 63 (d): A list of required amenities shall be in the development agreement along
with conditions for public access.
Staff Comment: Addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 9.3.
Condition 63 (e): Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices
in East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and employment,
and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and competitive in terms of
pricing.
Staff Comment: Addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 7.8.1.
Condition 63 (f): Statesman will prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from within
Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 7.8.2.
Condition 63 (g): The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to
be created as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
average median income (AMI). 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 of jobs created that earn 80 % or less of the Brinnon area AMI. The developer may
satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite housing
development.
Staff Comment: An analysis was completed and included in the SEIS, Appendix N. The
developer is providing 52 onsite staff housing. Addressed in the proposed development
agreement under section 7.11.6.
Condition 63 (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.
Staff Comment: The 2012 Grading and Drainage Report includes an analysis of the
interconnection between stormwater, water storage, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and
wetlands. The applicant plans to preserve, enhance, and enlarge Kettle C and its associated
wetland.
Condition 63 (i): 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
hydrogeology of the MPR location of the developer’s intention to use one of the existing kettles
for water storage. Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a second scientist mutually chosen by
the developer and the county. The developer will bear the financial cost of these reports.
24
Staff Comment: An aquifer test was conducted by Subsurface Group in 2008 and subsequent
analysis by the Pacific Groundwater Group was performed in 2009. These analysis, which were
incorporated into the SEIS, were confirmed by the Department of Ecology in 2010 and also
incorporated into the FSEIS Appendix F.
Condition 63 (j): Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one
kettle preserved as a cultural resource.
Staff Comment: The consultant who drafted the Cultural Resources Management Plan sent
letters to six local tribes including the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (PGST) requesting
consultation on identifying cultural resources on-site. Additionally, the developer’s
representative, Don Coleman, sent a letter with the Cultural Resources Management Plan
attached on May 11, 2012 to Josh Wisniewski, Ph.D. of the PGST of which no response was
received. The only Tribe to respond was the Skokomish. The Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP) sent a letter to DCD dated January 14, 2013 stating three tribes
concurred with the plan and three did not comment. The PGST was a recipient of the 2013
DAHP letter. Kettle C will be preserved, enhanced, and enlarged as a part of the proposal.
Condition 63 (k): As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any
shoreline permit or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the
County Auditor a document reflecting the developer’s written understanding with and among the
following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of Archaeology and Historical
preservation that includes a cultural resources management plan to assure archaeological
investigations and systematic monitoring of the subject property prior to issuing permits; and
during construction to maintain site integrity, provided procedures regarding future ground-
disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to
provide for community education opportunities.
Staff Comment: Monitoring results would be reviewed with DAHP staff and tribal
representatives prior to any adjustment of the monitoring schedule. This is addressed in the
proposed development agreement under section 7.8.3
Condition 63 (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 tribes, 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 101, to reduce the conflicts resulting from wildlife foraging
on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources, to reduce the dangers to
predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce any danger to humans.
Staff Comment: The Wildlife Management Plan was prepared in consultation with WDFW and
local tribes that focused on non-lethal strategies to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife. This
is addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 7.8.4.
Condition 63 (m): No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate
water rights and an adequate water supply.
Staff Comment: Adequate water supply has been determined to be available. A total of three
wells will be drilled. DOE issued a water right approval on June 16, 2010 under permit G2-
30436.
25
Condition 63 (n): Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of
Health, and approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be
required prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development.
Staff Comment: Water rights permit G2-30436 granted for (3) wells on the Pleasant Harbor
site – (1) year round domestic & commercial, (2) summer irrigation – total of 300 gallons per
minute. Proof of potable water is required at time of permit application and will be reviewed by
EH, DOH and DOE.
Condition 63 (o): Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEPA analysis to ensure that
water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is
based on a daily residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units (ERU)
for the development using a standard of 175 gallons per day (gpd). The goal of the
development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on the
standard of 175 gpd.
Staff Comment: Water quantity issues were addressed in SEIS Section 3.16 and 3.2. Water
rights approval based on 175 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. See page 8 of
DOE report or reference in Appendix F of FSEIS.
Condition 63 (p): A Neighborhood Water Policy (NWP) shall be established that requires
Statesman to provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater
intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for
additional recharge wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause
mounding.
Staff Comment: If salt water intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point
as proven a result from the development of the master planned resort, the developer shall
provide access to the Class A water system that serves the master planned resort. Additionally,
a Neighborhood Water Policy Plan has been developed and is also addressed in the proposed
development agreement under section 7.8.5.
Condition 63 (q): Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero
discharge into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and
installing stormwater management infrastructures and techniques that allow no stormwater run-
off into Hood Canal, Statesman shall prepare a soil study of the soils present at the MPR
location. Sols 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.
Staff Comment: A soil study was completed by Subsurface Group LLC and the infiltration
rates to be used for final design of stormwater facilities are presented in the 2012 Grading and
Drainage Report (Appendix E of FSEIS). This is addressed in the proposed development
agreement under section 7.3.
Condition 63 (r): A County-based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to
Pleasant Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and
approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site-specific action,
utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be
funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman that will include regular offsite sampling of
pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring regime.
26
Staff Comment: A comprehensive water quality monitoring plan has been developed and is
addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section s.8.6.
Condition 63 (s): The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on
U.S. Highway 101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation
easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not limited to, a 200-foot riparian
buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature tees between
U.S Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland buffers. Easements shall be
perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the property as natural forest land buffers.
Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to include removing, when
appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the
development from Highway 101.
Staff Comment: A conservation easement as well as a vegetation management plan have
been developed and are addressed in the Development Agreement under Section 7.8.7.
However, due to re-development of the marina under a separate amended binding site plan
process due to the new shoreline regulations of 2014, the Maritime Village has been re-located
to the area just north of the Black Point Road and Highway 101 intersection. A Jefferson Transit
stop and parking area will be located just south of Black Point Road adjacent to Highway 101.
Some revegetation will occur, but site distance is a requirement from DOT for ingress and
egress, therefore this area may not be fully vegetated. Wetlands and their associated buffers
will be maintained as well as the 200 foot riparian buffer adjacent to the south shoreline bluff.
Condition 63 (t): The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an
inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate
with the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize,
and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the
Maritime Village.
Staff Comment: The developer has worked with WDFW to try and eradicate tunicates from the
marina. WDFW has determined that power-washing vessels and concrete docks are a more
effective removal process than hand picking them. In 2007, approximately 40% of the docks in
the Pleasant Harbor marina were wooden or have Styrofoam billets which are not conducive to
power washing. The marina has embarked on a program of dock replacement consistent with
WDFW guidance. In early 2009, the D-dock was replaced and in early 2013 E and F-docks and
the headwalk that connects them to the D-dock were also replaced. The only docks left to
replace are I, J, and K. There is also another existing smaller marina just to the north of
Pleasant Harbor called Home Port Marina. A tunicate agreement has been developed in
conjunction with WDFW and is addressed in the proposed development agreement under
section 7.8.8.
Condition 63 (u): In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural
amenities, and in order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained as they
currently exist in order to provide for the “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 the 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
27
should remain as undisturbed as possible. Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with
indigenous trees and shrubs.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section
7.8.7 and the development regulations under section 17.70.010. The conservation easement
has been prepared and will be recorded with the county Auditor. The applicant has also
prepared a vegetation management plan and will preserve approximately 103 acres of the site
as vegetated. Once land disturbing activity occurs, an on-site nursery is proposed in order to
retain as many trees as possible. The trees will be replanted in new locations to allow for
development of buildings and infrastructure.
Condition 63 (v): In keeping with the approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to
satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the Maritime Village, the
buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way that they will blend into the terrain
and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings.
Staff Comment: The Maritime Village building will be built into the existing slope to blend in
with the terrain and landscape with two stories visible from Highway 101 to the west and three
stories visible internal to the site. A vegetation management plan was prepared that addresses
Conditions 63(s), (u), (v), and (w). Areas of disturbance would include transplanted healthy
vegetation from the site, as well as native and low water consumption plants. The landscape
plan for the single Marina Village Building will provide native vegetation plantings islands in the
parking area and along the Hwy 101 and Black Point Road rights-of-ways, while providing
adequate visual access from the highway as needed for the retail/commercial structure. The
building will be placed near the rear property line and adjacent to the stream buffer to take
advantage of the sloped area of the site. The stream buffer vegetation will be enhanced after
removing invasive plant species. Building architecture will share similar features to those at the
marina and within the golf resort. This is addressed in the development regulations under
section 17.80.020(6).
Condition 63 (w): Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives
to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An
arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and
surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible,
trees of significant size (i.e., 10 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh) that are
removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use
in salmon recovery projects.
Staff Comment: A vegetation management plan has been prepared to address conditions
63(s), (u), (v) and (w). Individual trees will be inventoried to account for size and health prior to
construction for viability of transplanting. The vegetation management plan addressed
individual trees for health and size and viable trees within proposed development areas that can
be transplanted would be relocated on a temporary basis to an on-site nursery located in the
western edge of the development. These trees would be irrigated and cultivated until replanting
is possible within designated areas of the development.
Condition 63 (x): Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) and “Green Built” green building rating system standards. These standards applicable
to commercial and residential dwellings respectively, “promote design and construction
practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of
buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being.”
28
Staff Comment: Appendix K of the FSEIS is a narrative demonstrating compliance with the
intent of LEED standards. This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under
section 7.8.9.
Condition 63 (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.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the development regulations under section
17.80.020(4)(d).
Condition 63 (z): Statesman shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1
standards for the MPR. These standards are recommended for “areas with intrinsically dark
landscapes” such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential areas
where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited.
Staff Comment: General guidelines that would be followed to minimize potential light and glare
impacts include the following:
• Illumination would be to the minimum practical level.
• The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical.
• The duration of illumination would be as short as practical for Resident Safety.
• Illumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light.
• Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines).
This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under section 7.8.10 and the
development regulations under section 17.80.020(6)(c).
Condition 63(aa): In fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism,
the housing units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the
very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep a ratio of 65% to 35% of
rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2).
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the development regulations under section 17.65.020(2).
Condition 63(bb): Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be
obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District.
Staff Comment: In a letter dated November 18, 2013 from Mason County PUD, it states the
PUD is ready and able to meet the total capacity needs of the project at full build-out. A
phased-in approach is planned and the first requirement would be to add cooling fans on the
power transformer in the Duckabush Substation. Beyond the installation of cooling fans in the
Duckabush substation, Mason County PUD will need to perform additional engineering studies
and designs to accommodate the remaining stages/phases of the development. To serve the
full build-out, a new substation and associated distribution feeders is required.
29
Condition 63(cc): Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate action Committee
(CAC) to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify
techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods.
Staff Comment: A greenhouse gas emissions report was prepared that reviewed and analyzed
the source GHG emissions for the first five year construction period of development as well as
the annual emission profile when in full operation. The report is included in Appendix M of the
FSEIS. Addressed in the development regulations under section 17.80.010(5).
Condition 63(dd): Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice
groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students.
Staff Comment: The developer is currently exercising this suggestion at the Marina and is
presumed to continue this practice at the resort. However, this is at the discretion of the
developer.
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
1. Adopt FSEIS Alternative #3 as the “preferred alternative” or “proposed action” under
SEPA WAC 197-11-440(5).
2. 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.
3. An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County Auditor at the Applicant’s expense.
4. 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. (??????)