HomeMy WebLinkAbout134JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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, (PH-MPR) the Development
Agreement will vest the project for 25 years from the effective date or five years after the
completion of all the phases. Build-out is defined as the completion of all proposed development
phases of the MPR as described in the Phasing Plan submitted by the Applicant/Property Owner
(Exhibit 1). The Development Agreement outlines the requirements for approval for all 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.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ........................................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE OF STAFF REPORT: ................................................................................................................. 3
Project Identification: ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Project Location: ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Site Visits:...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Comprehensive Plan Designation: ................................................................................................................ 3
SEPA: ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort: ..................................................................................................... 4
Applicable Jefferson County Ordinances: ..................................................................................................... 5
Proposed Action: ........................................................................................................................................... 5
COMPLIANCE WITH WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES: ..................................................................... 5
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: .................................................................................... 7
COMPLIANCE WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE: ............................... 11
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 01-0128-08: ............................................................................ 26
COMPLIANCE WITH 30 CONDITIONS IN ORDINANCE NO. 01-0128-08: .......................................... 27
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: .................................................................................................................... 35
CONDITIONS: ............................................................................................................................................. 35
3
PURPOSE OF STAFF REPORT:
The purpose of this staff report is to reference the history and background of MPR designation
and planning by Jefferson County. This staff report brings forward the proposed final development
agreement of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort as recommended by County staff
(staff). Staff is also forwarding a parallel report prepared separately on proposed development
regulations for the PH-MPR (Exhibit 2).
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
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
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
from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases.
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, and 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
4
parcels to MPR from Rural Residential on January 28, 2008, as approved by Ordinance 01-0128-
08.
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.
PLEASANT HARBOR MASTER PLANNED RESORT:
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 (W DFW) 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.
Site development will be conducted in the following phases:
Phase 1a consists of site clearing and grading for golf course, road network, building footprints, and Kettle
B. Commence road construction with services and begin implementation of the vegetation management
plan. Create construction materials processing location on golf course site.
Phase 1b consists of construction of the LOSS drainfield (wastewater treatment plant back up system),
water storage tank with distribution piping at Tee 5, transit stop, construct sanitary sewer pump stations,
Sea View Villas (170 units), Golf Vistas (32 units) and utility district.
Phase 2a consists of completion of the golf course and Half-way house (adjacent to fairway 5), develop the
second well, and construct a maintenance building with 52 units for staff quarters.
Phase 2b consists of construction of the Golf Terrace Recreation Center and Conference center/spa (208
units).
Phase 3a consists of construction of the Maritime Village building consisting of 66 units and 21,000 square
feet of commercial. Construct Highway 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements, reconstruct
Black Point Road and construct new access road to WDFW boat launch.
Phase 3b consists of construction of the Golf Terraces 2, 3, and 4 (330 units), construction of Sea View
Villas (14 units) and Golf Vistas (16 units). Complete utility district for the resort.
5
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 Statutes, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Unified
Development Code, and Ordinance 01-0128-08.
COMPLIANCE WITH WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES:
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 3), the proposal complies with 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) requires the Maritime Village be limited to rentals and timeshares; or at the very
least, each section keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and timeshares to permanent
residences. The Maritime Village will consist of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial
space. 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.”
6
RCW:
(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 Applicant, 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 Applicant entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with Jefferson Healthcare which signed the MOU on September 30,
2010 as well as a MOU with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, which Sheriff Stanko
signed on May 10, 2017 and the Brinnon Fire Department Chief was consulted on the MOU for
emergency services.
RCW:
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for
processing applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing
certificates of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place
of use for a water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing
water right.
All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters
90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise.
Staff Comment: Water rights have been granted for three (3) on-site wells by the Department of
Ecology under application number G2-30436. Approval of a Class A Water System by the
Department of Health is required prior to any County development permit approval per Ordinance
No. 01-0128-08 condition 63(n).
RCW:
(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 Comment: 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.
7
RCW:
(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 3, page 5 #34).
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
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, just north
of the Highway 101 and Black Point Road intersection, as the Maritime Village complex. The
preferred Alternative 3 as analyzed in the FSEIS meets the spirit and intent of this section as the
proposal still includes a golf course (reduced from 18-holes to 9-holes) restaurant, resort center
and community center, amenities and a ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and time-shares to
permanent residences, not to exceed a total of 890 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.
8
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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
9
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 65% to 35% of rental to time-shares to permanent housing shall be
maintained as well as a minimum of fifty 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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 4 of this report. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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
10
be urban in nature, not be used to serve development outside the resort areas, except at
appropriate rural densities, uses, and intensities.
Staff Comment: The FSEIS fully considered and suggested mitigation for transportation, water,
wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services. 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 Applicant. 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 (Exhibit 5). The proposal
is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 Applicant. The proposal is consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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 6 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.
Comprehensive Plan:
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
(Exhibit 7 and a Development Agreement (Exhibit 8 of this report) that regulate how development
11
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.
Comprehensive Plan:
Policy 24.11 - Master planned resorts shall include existing or new Development
Agreements, as authorized by RCW 36.7013.170, to implement these policies.
Staff Comment: The Development Agreement is a contract between the County and Applicant
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 8 of this report. The proposal is
consistent with this policy.
Comprehensive Plan:
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. See the
separate staff report on the development regulations for a discussion.
Comprehensive Plan:
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE:
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.
12
Staff Comment: As previously described 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 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
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 below. 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. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
Proposed JCC 18.15.115 – Designated - "Master planned resort" (MPR) is a land use
designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The officially designated master
planned resorts in the county are the Port Ludlow MPR and the Pleasant Harbor MPR,
provisions for which are codified in JCC Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts.
Pleasant Harbor MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 pertaining to new Master
13
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:
JCC 18.15.120 Purpose and intent - Jefferson County has a wide range of natural
features, including climate, vegetation, water, natural resources, scenic qualities, cultural,
and geological features, which are desirable for a wide range of recreational users to
enjoy. New master planned resorts authorized by RCW 36.70A.360 offer an opportunity
to utilize these special features for enjoyment and recreational use, while bringing
significant economic diversification and benefits to rural communities. The purpose of this
article is to establish a master planned resort land use district to be applied to those
properties the board of county commissioners determines are appropriate for development
as a master planned resort consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and RCW
36.70A.360.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this purpose and intent.
JCC:
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.
14
(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 4 of this report). Uses
and amenities not listed there but allowed here, may be established at a future date, or deemed
allowable by the Administrator if they are consistent with the purpose and intent of this section,
the Development Agreement and Development Regulations.
JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts - An applicant for an MPR
project must meet the following requirements:
(1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project
and provide a framework for project development and operation. This shall include:
(a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that the MPR is being
situated to use and enjoy, and the particular natural and recreational
features that will attract people to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-
term visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational
facilities, off-site recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of
the resort's services, and commercial and supportive services provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and
intensities of use of the MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their
distribution meet the needs of the resort and its users.
(d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development,
showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and
its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential
development types and location.
(e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and
functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site
design and protection of natural amenities, and which further the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how landscaping,
screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and parking design,
capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the project site.
(f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the
measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent
to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management
Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed
public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master
Program.
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how
its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote
compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the
development.
(h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be
necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will
be available, and that concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan will be met.
15
(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”. The proposal is consistent with this
criterion.
JCC 18.15.126 Requirements for Master Planned Resorts
(2) Development Agreement. A master planned resort shall require approval of a
development agreement as authorized by Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC
(Development Agreements), and RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210.
Consistent with JCC 18.40.830(3) and RCW 36.70B.170, the development
agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and must set forth the development
standards applicable to the development of a specific master planned resort, which
may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Permitted uses, densities and intensities of uses, and building sizes;
(b) Phasing of development, if requested by the applicant;
(c) Procedures for review of site-specific development plans;
(d) Provisions for required open space, public access to shorelines (if
applicable), visitor-oriented accommodations, short-term visitor
accommodations, on-site recreational facilities, and on-site
retail/commercial services;
(e) Mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the State Environmental Policy
Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and other development conditions; and
(f) Other development standards including those identified in JCC 18.40.840
and RCW 36.70B.170(3).
Staff Comment: A proposed Development Agreement meeting the required elements of this
section is attached in Exhibit 8 of this report. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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.
16
Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 established the boundary and siting of the master
planned resort through the formal site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment process as
signed by the Board of County Commissioners on January 28, 2008. The proposal is consistent
with this criterion.
(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 to 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. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC 18.15.135 – Criteria for Approval
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as an MPR may be approved, or approved
with modifications, if it meets all of the criteria below. If no reasonable conditions or modifications
can be imposed to ensure that the application meets these criteria, then the application shall be
denied.
(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 using the State protection
standards, but those standards are consistent with standards under JCC 18.22. The proposal is
consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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.
17
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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 (from 31-acres of natural area preserved
for Alternative 1 to 103-acres of natural area preserved for the preferred Alternative 3); the
proposed infrastructure improvements to Black Point Road, the DNR boat ramp, shuttle service
to and from the resort and SeaTac Airport, shuttle service between the golf resort and the marina,
and the MOUs for public service; all demonstrate compliance with this criterion.
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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.
Staff Comment: As described in the Master Plan as required under JCC 18.15.126(1)(e), the
proposal complies with this criterion.
JCC:
(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. The applicant is
required to reconstruct the Highway 101 and Black Point Road intersection, relocate a portion of
the WDFW boat launch road and reconstruct it, and construct a power substation for the MPR.
Stormwater facilities will be constructed on-site and designed to prevent any discharge into Hood
Canal. Additionally, a LOSS will be constructed to serve the master planned resort and a total
of 3 on-site wells will serve the master planned resort with an approved Class A water system
(G2-30436). Security services will be provided by the resort and a 500 square foot office is
reserved for a county deputy. Several MOU’s have been negotiated with Jefferson Transit, Fire
District 4, Jefferson Healthcare, and the Jefferson County Sheriff.
18
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-
term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or
production of agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent
agricultural or forest resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 contained findings per the RCW that satisfy this
criterion.
JCC 18.15.138 - Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code (JCC Title 17), as may be amended to be
consistent with the provisions of this UDC, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of
this UDC.
Staff Comment: The strikethrough in the section above is the recommended change to this
section in order to reflect the addition of Pleasant Harbor as the second MPR in Jefferson County,
should the amendment be approved.
JCC 18.20.190 – Golf Courses
(1) Applications for a golf course must be accompanied by a design plan and best
management practices plan. The design plan shall minimize the use of pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers, and groundwater by the type and placement of appropriate
vegetative materials and other means. The use of pesticides, herbicides, or
fertilizers that are known to leach into groundwater are prohibited. The design plan
shall also demonstrate that an adequate water supply shall be provided without
diminishing the level of service for system users or others dependent upon the
resource. The best management practices plan shall include monitoring
procedures and an integrated management plan. Once approved by the county,
the management plan shall be a condition of project approval and failure to comply
with the approved plan shall be grounds for revocation of the permit.
19
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 1a and 2a of the overall resort development. The proposal is consistent with
this criterion.
JCC:
(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 proposed development
regulations (17.65) for the resort. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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 proposed
development regulations (17.65) for the resort. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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 proposed
development regulations (17.65) for the resort. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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 proposed
development regulations (17.65) for the resort. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
20
JCC Chapter 18.40 Article XI – Development Agreements
18.40.820 Purpose.
This article establishes the mechanism under which Jefferson County may enter into development
agreements as authorized by RCW 36.70B.170. A decision to enter into a development
agreement shall be made on a case-by-case basis. A development agreement may be
appropriate for large, complex or phased projects, or projects which were not contemplated by
existing development regulations or existing application procedures. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
18.40.830 General requirements.
(1) Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an
optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the county, except a
development agreement shall be required for applications for master planned
resorts in accordance with JCC 18.15.126 and major industrial developments in
accordance with JCC 18.15.605.
Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted a draft Development Agreement as part of their
Type V application for a Master Planned Resort. That draft is provided in Exhibit 8 of this report.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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 proposed development agreement shall take
place prior to approval of any project permits for development of the property. The proposal is
consistent with this criterion.
21
JCC:
(5) Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and
conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the
applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code,
except in the case of a master planned resort (which requires a site-specific
Comprehensive Plan amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by
the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project
impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements
related to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Article VI-D of
Chapter 18.15 JCC may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement.
[Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: Development standards as proposed are consistent with Title 17 and as a
Master Planned Resort. Mitigation measures listed in the FSEIS shall be required as part of the
development agreement and Section 17.80.020 of the proposed development regulations.
Additional requirements of the development regulations ensures that environmentally sensitive
areas under JCC 18.22 would apply to any resort development. The proposal is consistent with
this criterion.
JCC:
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 proposed development regulations Title
17 Article II as adopted under Section 7 Development Standards of the proposed development
agreement. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(c) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water
quality requirements, screening and landscaping and other development
features;
22
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.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(d) Roads, water, sewer, storm drainage and other infrastructure
requirements;
Staff Comment: These standards are addressed in Section 7 of the proposed development
agreement. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(e) Affordable housing;
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the MOU for housing attached as Exhibit 9 of this report.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(f) Recreational uses and open space preservation;
Staff Comment: Recreational uses are identified in Sections 9.3 and 7.8.7 of the proposed
development agreement, consistent with Condition 63(s) that 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. The proposal is
consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(g) Phasing;
Staff Comment: This is addressed in Section 9 of the proposed development agreement. The
proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(i) Other appropriate development requirements or procedures.
Staff Comment: Addressed in Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the proposed development agreement.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
23
(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. There never
was a requirement for funding of infrastructure or other facilities. The proposal is consistent with
this criterion.
JCC:
(3) Development agreements shall:
(a) Establish a process for amending the agreement;
Staff Comment: This is addressed in Section 11.9 of the proposed development agreement.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(b) Specify a termination date upon which the agreement expires;
Staff Comment: Addressed in Section 2.2 of the proposed development agreement. The
proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(c) Establish a vesting period for applicable standards; and
Staff Comment: This is addressed in Section 8.3.2 of the proposed development agreement.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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 Sections 6.2 and 8.3.3 of the proposed development agreement.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
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 on April 16, 2008 satisfies this
requirement. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
24
JCC:
(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 proposed development agreement was required as part of the application
to implement a master planned resort as approved under Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. The
proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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.
JCC:
(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 apply. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(6) An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with
the county auditor. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Staff Comment: This is addressed as a recommended condition of approval. The proposal is
consistent with this criterion.
25
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: This is addressed in Section 11.2 of the proposed development agreement.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(2) A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the
agreement.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in Section 11.8 of the proposed development agreement.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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: This is addressed in Section 11.1 of the proposed development agreement. The
proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(4) Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement
shall be consistent with the agreement.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in Sections 8.1 and 8.2.4 of the proposed development
agreement. The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
JCC:
(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.
The proposal is consistent with this criterion.
26
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 01-0128-08:
RCW 36.70A.360
(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.
RCW 36.70A.360
(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 3 page 5 #33 & 34).
RCW 36.70A.360
(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.
RCW 36.70A.360
(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.]
RCW 36.70A.360
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
27
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 Applicant and specifically condition 63(c) which requires Memoranda
of Understanding (MOUs) with service providers.
COMPLIANCE WITH 30 CONDITIONS IN ORDINANCE NO. 01-0128-08:
The project is subject to 30 conditions (63(a) through 63(dd)) imposed under Ordinance 01-0128-
08. These conditions are discussed below.
Ordinance:
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.
Ordinance:
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 under Section
8.2.4.
Ordinance:
Condition 63(c): The Applicant will be required to negotiate memoranda of
understanding (MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for
the Brinnon school, fire district, Emergency medical Services (EMS), housing, police,
public health, parks and recreation and transit prior to approval of the development
agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the Applicant 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.
Ordinance:
Condition 63(d): A list of required amenities shall be in the development agreement
along with conditions for public access.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section 9.3.
28
Ordinance:
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: This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section 7.8.1.
Ordinance:
Condition 63(f): Statesman will prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from
within Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section 7.8.2.
Ordinance:
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
Applicant is providing 52 onsite staff housing. This is addressed in the proposed development
agreement under Section 7.11.6.
Ordinance:
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.
Ordinance:
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.
29
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.
Ordinance:
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 Applicant’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.
Ordinance:
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 8.8.3.
Ordinance:
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.
30
Ordinance:
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.
Ordinance:
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 and 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
Environmental Health, Department of Health and Department of Ecology.
Ordinance:
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 as referenced in Appendix F of FSEIS.
Ordinance:
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 Applicant 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.
Ordinance:
31
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.
Ordinance:
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.
Staff Comment: A comprehensive water quality monitoring plan has been developed and is
addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section 8.6.
Ordinance:
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 proposed development agreement under Section 7.8.7.
The conservation easement preserves and protects the natural greenbelts adjacent to the
shoreline bluff and the strip of mature trees adjacent to Highway 101 where the proposed Maritime
Village was originally to be located. The conservation easement will be in perpetuity (Exhibit 10).
Additionally, at time of permit application, the Applicant shall submit updated wetland rating forms
and updated wetland delineation for determination of the wetland classifications and their
applicable associated buffers. Once these buffers have been established and surveyed (for the
metes and bounds legal description) a second conservation easement, specific to the wetlands
and their associated buffers will be prepared and recorded with the County Auditor prior to
approval or issuance of the permit. The conservation easement for the wetlands and buffers will
also be in perpetuity.
32
Ordinance:
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 Applicant 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 for Pleasant Harbor Marina has been developed
in conjunction with WDFW and is addressed in the proposed development agreement under
Section 7.8.8.
Ordinance:
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 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 proposed development regulations under Section 17.70.010. The conservation easement
for the strip of mature trees adjacent to Highway 101 and the 200-foot riparian buffer adjacent to
the shoreline bluff has been prepared and will be recorded with the county Auditor. A second
conservation easement will be recorded that pertains to the wetlands and their associated buffers.
Both conservation easements will be in perpetuity and at the expense of the Applicant, will be
maintained. 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.
Ordinance:
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.
33
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 proposed development regulations under Section
17.80.020(6).
Ordinance:
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.
Ordinance:
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.”
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.
Ordinance:
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 Applicant to
maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this
information will be made available to the public.
34
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed development regulations under Section
17.80.020(4)(d). See the separate staff report on the development regulations (Exhibit 2).
Ordinance:
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).
Staff Comment: This is addressed in the proposed development agreement under Section
7.8.10 and the proposed development regulations under section 17.80.020(6)(c). See the
separate staff report on the development regulations.
Ordinance:
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 proposed development regulations under Section
17.65.020(2).
Ordinance:
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.
Ordinance:
35
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. This is addressed in the proposed development regulations under Section 17.80.010(5).
Ordinance:
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 Applicant 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 Applicant.
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 Ordinances.
3. An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County Auditor at the Applicant’s expense.