HomeMy WebLinkAbout083DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Cornments
STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
Development Regulations and Development Agreement
May 21,2018
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
Patricia Charnas, Director
Jefferson County Dept. Community Development
SUBJECT:MLA08-001 88/ZON08-00056: Development Regulations and Development
Agreement for Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort
ATTACHMENT: Comments Matrix
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ln Staff Reports dated April 9, 2018, the Department of Community Development recommended
changes to the Planning Commission's proposed development regulations and recommended
acceptance of the draft development agreement by and between Jefferson County, Washington
and Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLC for the development commonly known as
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR). A public hearing notice was published on
February 7,2018 establishing a public comment period and advertising a public hearing which was
held on April 9, 2018. At that public hearing, the public comment period was extended to April 13,
2018. ln response to the public comments, Staff recommends further revisions to the proposed
development regulations and further negotiations with the applicant on changes to the
development ag reement.
PURPOSE OF RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:
This Staff Response to Public Comments addresses public comments received on the proposed
development regulations and the draft development agreement.
PROJEGT ! DENTI FICATION :
Application Number: MLA08-001 88/ZON08-00056
Date of Application: An application to amend the GMA lmplementing 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(1Xc) and
deemed complete on May 14,2008 perJCC 18.40.110(4).
Type of Application: Development Agreement, Type V Legislative approval
1
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
Proiect Request: In response to public comments, the request is for: (1) adoption of revised
development regulations to be provided to the BoCC by DCD Staff; and, (2) further negotiations
with the developer on issues discussed below for the development agreement.
Assessor's Parce! Numbers: 502-153-002,502-153-003, 502-153-023, 502-154-002,502- 152-
005, 502-1 52-014, 502-152-015, 502-152-016, 502-152-013, 502-152-012, 502-153-020, 502-153-
021, & 502-153-022
Applicant and owner:Applicant's Attorney:
Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort, LLP
Garth Mann, PresidenUCEO
7370 Sierra Morena Blvd SW
Calgary, AB T3H 4H9 Canada
Houlihan Law
JT Cooke, Attorney
100 N. 35th Street
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.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
Over three hundred individual comments were compiled in a matrix. This included all written
comments (282) received between the beginning of the public comment period on February 7,
2018 through to the close of the public comment period on April 13,2013 and verbal testimony
received at the public hearing on April 9.2018. ln the matrix, we assigned each comment a
comment record number and listed the name and town of the commenter's address, if provided.
The list of all comment records that are contained in the matrix -written and verbal-is available
for viewing HERE. The comments were analyzed in terms of the topics contained and generally fell
into the following topical areas:
AQA/VS-aquifer, water supply.
CA-critical areas including shoreline.
CR-tribal/cultural, archeology. or historic resources.
EC-local economy, jobs, tax revenues and expenditures
N-generally opposes MPR.
P-generally supports MPR.
PS-public services, facilities, recreation, amenities.
SH-shellfish.
SZ-size, scope.
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
2
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
TRtraffic and transportation.
WF-wildlife.
WQ-water quality.
ln the responses to public comments discussed below, topics that related strongly to one another
are combined.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS:
Most Public Comments Do Not Address the Proposed Development Reoulations or the Draft
Development Aqreement and Focus on lssues Alreadv Decided or to be Decided in the Future
The vast majority of the public comments were general in nature and did not specifically comment
on the proposed development regulations or the draft development agreement. Many of the public
comments also related to decisions already made by the BoCC or to permit decisions to be made
in the future.
The Pleasant Harbor MPR is a phased project in which broader review is followed by narrower
review at the appropriate scope and level of detail at meaningful points in the planning and
decision-making process. The current planning effort is not the end of the process-the County,
state and federal agencies must make future permitting decisions.
Decrsions Already Made
Many of the comments already were addressed in planning decisions made by the County years
ago. That is the nature of a complex development like the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
This project has a long planning history, including State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analyses
done in connection with the Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP). The BSAP of 2002 identified the
existing, yet idle NACO Campground on Black point (BSAP, page 45) as an ideal location for an
MPR. A pre-application conference for an MPR on Black Point was requested by The Statesman
Group of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and held on January 10, 2006. On March 1, 2006, The
Statesman Group submitted to Jefferson County an application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to re-zone a portion of Black Point from Rural Residential to MPR (MLA06-87).
lnitial Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS) scoping, conducted in May 2006, identified probable
significant adverse impacts. On October 2,2006, The Statesman Group, formally requested that
the EIS be changed from a permit-level, project EIS to a non-project, or programmatic ElS,
necessitating the need for a Supplemental or project level EIS (SEIS) prior to development. On
November 27 ,2007, a programmatic Final EIS (FEIS) was issued in association with a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to re-designate the subject 256 acres from rural
residentialto MPR.
The BoCC previously approved the project location as a MPR through a Comprehensive Plan
amendment on January 28,2008 through Ordinance 01-0128-08, stipulating thirty conditions for
any subsequent project level action, and that such action would require a Supplemental EIS
(sErs).
3
a
a
o
$taff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resont Public Comments
There was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment-
including the 2007 FEIS-that ended in 2011. The Growth Management Hearings Board reviewed
the FEIS in its 2008 decision, approving it under SEPA:
[The Brinnon Group] alleges that the SEPA analysis is inadequate with respect to
stormwater management to be able to determine if it might be possible to reach zero
discharge from the golf course site. Further, they allege that the FEIS fails to analyze
water quality impacts of the anticipated traffic associated with the development.l
The Growth Management Hearings Board decided as to the FEIS: "The environmental impacts of
this project were studied at an appropriate level of detail, with provision for further environmental
review at the project level stages of development."2 The Thurston County Superior Court and the
Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 20't 1.
Since the adoption of Ordinance 01-0128-08 on January 28,2008, the then proposed marina
development has changed due to the required 1S0-foot shoreline buffer under the new Shoreline
Master Program. The proposed additional residential and commercial development was moved
out of the marina area and up to and abutting Highway 101 as the Maritime Village complex.
ln April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC) Text
Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08-00188) to implement the MPR. A public
"Scoping Meeting" was held at the Brinnon School house on October 28th, 2009, and on March
31, 2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining the scope of the SEIS. DCD issued
a revised Scoping Memo on October 12,2011 to address applicant-initiated changes to the
alternatives of the project due to the adoption of new Shoreline regulations. On July 3,2012, DCD
informed the applicant that it would be hiring a third-party consultant to draft the SEIS. On
February 11,2013, DCD signed a contract with EA Blumen (now EA Engineering) to author the
SEIS.
On November 19, 2014, Jefferson County issued a Draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public and agency
review with a 45-day comment period that ended on January 5,2015. Re-development and
renovation of the Marina under an existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was
completed in April 2015. ln July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new
preferred alternative #3, which reduced the size of the golf course from 18 to t holes with a 3-hole
practice course. This change necessitated re-review of some of the environmental elements. A
Final SEIS (FSEIS) was issued on December 9, 2015.
The County must abide by the decisions that the BoCC, as the County legislative body, made in
the past related to the MPR. Simply put, those decisions are law that cannot be violated to satisfy
either the applicant, project opponents, or project supporters.
1 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and
Pleasant Harbor, lntervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at*20 (2008).
2 Brinnon Group and Brinnon MPR Opposition, Petitioners v. Jefferson County, Respondent and
Pleasant Harbor, !ntervenor, 2008 WL 4618460, at*26 (2008).
4
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
Decisions to be Made
The Comprehensive Plan amendment on January 28,2008 (reflected in Ordinance 01-0128-08)
decided the broad question at a non-project levelwhether an MPR should be authorized at Black
Point in Brinnon and, if so, under what conditions. The current planning effort involves an
evaluation of the broad requirements at a project level for the MPR, including whether the
proposed development regulations and draft development agreement satisfy the conditions for an
MPR required in Ordinance 01-0128-08.
The development standards contained in the draft development agreement (Section 8 of the draft
development agreement) concerning permitted uses, density standards, stormwater management,
critical areas, land division, shorelines, and site development, among others, rely on existing
adopted code and the specific conditions contained in Ordinance 01-0128-08 and constitute the
development standards. However, in considering public comments, staff recommends revising the
development regulations to clarify the applicability of the development standards.
The current planning effort does not involve decisions about whether requirements in the proposed
development regulations or the draft development agreement, if later approved by the BoCC, have
been met. Those decisions necessarily must be made in the future, when applications for required
permits are submitted, analyzed against code requirements and requirements contained in the
Ordinance, the ElSs are addressed.
Many of the future decisions will involve applying standards dictated by local, state, or federal law.
Without repeating all the details of all these local, state, or federal requirements, the proposed
development regulations, and the draft development agreement (and its attachments) refers to
most, if not all, of them. Even if all the local, state, or federal requirements are not specifically
referenced, the applicant must follow the law. ln general, the County is not the enforcer of state or
federal law.
Some of the decisions related to the project to be made in the future involve state or federal
agencies, not Jefferson County. The County cannot prejudge future decisions related to
development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR by state or federal agencies.
Comments About the Economv and Public Services
Of those comments that indicated general support for the MPR, the majority commented that the
MPR would bring jobs, support local services (such as law enforcement, fire, and emergency
services) and would generally provide for an improved economy at the local and countywide
scales. Often cited was the belief that the MPR would bring not only benefits to local workforce and
to local services but also supply recreational opportunities not currently available and needed by
area school-age children. Commenters believed that the MPR would provide important job
experiences for area young adults not otherwise available in the area. Several commenters linked
the economic benefits of the MPR to addressing the affordable housing crisis. There were very few
if any comments from general MPR supporters that specifically addressed the proposed
development regulations or more specifically the draft development agreement with respect to
required conditions of the Ordinance on economic and public services issues.
Of those comments that indicated general objection to the MPR, the majority expressed concerns
that the project would substantially harm the economy at the local and countywide scales. Many
comments raised the concern also about the financial stability of the MPR or the likelihood of its
5
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
predicted financial success and ability to deliver amenities. Commenters shared concerns about
unforeseen and unforeseeable costs to County resources if the MPR is not economically
successful in the long term. Many comments requested that the MPR project be required to be
bonded or otherwise required to assure financial success. Comments objected to the notion that
any jobs created by the project would pay family wages or otherwise support local workforce
development and sustainability. Comments were also directed to the costs to local services and
diminishment of the quality of those services that the MPR would cause.
SIAFF RESPONSE
The proposed development is subject to the following criteria and requirements of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.360 for MPRs:
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.
As reviewed, approved and conditioned under Ordinance 01-0128-08_the proposal complies this
criterion. Subsequent development shall comply with the conditions of approval under the thirty
conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08, namely Conditions 63 (a) thru (dd), and specifically Condition
63 (aa) that requires each section to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and timeshares to
permanent residences. Proposed amenities include a 9-hole golf course, spa services,
amphitheater, pool, sports courts, and other resort related facilities.
Ordinance 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:
ln 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. ln 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 ElS. As
the Board has not found any area of noncompliance, there is no basis for a finding of
invalidity.
6
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
The proposed development also is subject to the following criteria and requirements of RCW
36.70A.360 for MPRs:
Capitalfacilities, 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.
The MPR 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
personnelwill be provided on-site by the developer, along with a 500 square foot room dedicated
to law enforcement. Fire and emergency medicalwill be provided by the Brinnon Fire District and
Jefferson Healthcare.
Condition 63 (c) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOU) or
memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon school, fire
district, Emergency medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public health, parks and
recreation and transit prior to approval of the draft development agreement. Such
agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer and the Pleasant Tides
Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding marina use, costs, dock
access, loading and unloading, and parking.
The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (c) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. Memoranda of
understanding forthe Brinnon School, Brinnon Fire District, housing, police, public health, parks
and recreation and transit have been secured as addressed in the draft development agreement
under Section 8.
The proposed development also is subject to the following criteria and requirements of
RCW 36.70A.360 for MPRs:
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.
No more than 350/o 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
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
The proposed development also is subject to the following criteria and requirements of
RCW 36.704.360 for MPRs:
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;
Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural element goal LNG 24.0 and policies LNP 24.1
thru24.13 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 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement to satisfy this criterion.
(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;
Under Ordinance 01-0128-08, the BoCC made an affirmative statement (page 5 #33 of
said Ordinance) that the Comprehensive Plan already includes policies to guide the
development of new MPR and the related development regulations serve to preclude urban
or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the MPR.
(c) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is
better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort
than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located
on land that otherwise would be designated as forest land or agricultural land
under RCW 36.70A.170;
Under Ordinance 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.
Goal 24.0 of the Land Use and Rural Element states:
Provide for the siting of Master Planned Resorts (MPRs) pursuant to the adoption of
development regulations consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A.360), in locations that are appropriate from both an economic and
environmental perspective.
The proposal is consistent with this goal since Ordinance 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.
8
Statf Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
Policy 24.1 of the Land Use and Rural Element states:
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 36.704.360.
The proposal is consistent with this policy as approved under Ordinance 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 public for their
use and enjoyment. Condition 63 (0 of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "Statesman will
prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from within Jefferson County." The
proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (f) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 and is addressed in
the draft development agreement under section 8.
Condition 63 (g) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
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 (AMl). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.9., no more than
30o/o 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 AMl. The developer
may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of in lieu fee, or onsite
housing development.
An analysis was completed and included in the SEIS, Appendix N. The developer is
providing 52 onsite staff housing. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (g) of
Ordinance 01-0128-08 and is addressed in the draft development agreement under section
8.
Condition 63 (aa) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "ln 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 650/o to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.1 5.1 23(2)."
This is addressed in the proposed development regulations. The proposal is consistent with
Condition 63 (aa) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (bb) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "Verification of the ability to provide
adequate electrical power shall be obtained from the Mason County Public Utility District."
ln 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.
The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (aa) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
I
Staff Responses to Fleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
Condition 63 (dd) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work
with community apprentice groups to identify and advertise job opportunities for local students."
The developer is currently exercising this suggestion. This is at the discretion of the developer.
The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (dd) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comments About Water Qualitv and Shellfish
Of those comments that indicated general support for the MPR project, comments regarding water
quality and shellfish included observations that the planned wastewater treatment facility appeared
to be a highly value-added aspect of the project. Other comments noted that the zero runoff and
zero discharge land development plan for resort construction and operation appeared sound and
would likely avoid impacts to Hood Canal and marine shellfish resources. Many commenters noted
how the developer was able to gain measurable improvements in the harbor marina water quality
when the Pleasant Harbor marina was redeveloped. Commenters noted that since the marina's
redevelopment, substantial re-establishment and recovery of shellfish resources were observed,
especially oysters. Those commenters linked the success of marina water quality improvements
and shellfish recovery to likely success of the planned design of the MPR expressing trust in the
project's ability similarly to protect Hood Canal.
Of those comments that indicated general objection to the MPR, the majority noted substantial
concerns about the MPR project posing risk to Hood Canal marine water quality, shellfish, and
marine environment. Comments included calls for additional and greater monitoring, especially
water chemistry and that the risks of the project to the marine water quality environments were
unacceptable. Members of area tribes noted that the project is in an area of high shellfish
abundance that serve subsistence and commercial purposes. Comments on shellfish and from
area tribes pointed to the vulnerability of shellfish resources to not only perceived impacts from
pollution but also from increased harvest pressures from MPR visitors.
SIAFF RESPONSEj
The FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation measures for water, wastewater, solid waste,
and stormwater.
Condition 63 (a) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "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." The proposal is
consistent with this section of the ordinance. Site specific data that included rainfall
projects, runoff projections and potential impacts on Hood Canal were analyzed in the SEIS
and FSEIS Appendix F. The proposal is consistent with this Condition 63 (a) of Ordinance
01-0128-08.
a
a Condition 63 (h) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "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. The proposal is consistent with this
Condition 63 (h) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (i) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
10
a
$taff Responses to Fleasant l"'lanbor fVlaster Planned Resort Fublic Comnrents
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.
An aquifer test was conducted by Subsurface Group in 2008 and subsequent analysis by
the Pacific Groundwater Group was performed in 2009. These analyses, which were
incorporated into the SEIS, were confirmed by the Department of Ecology in 2010 and
incorporated into the FSEIS Appendix F. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (i) of
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comments About Aquifer/Water Supplv and Cultural Resources
Of those comments that indicated general support for the MPR project, comments regarding area
aquifers and groundwater supplies, were complimentary of planned water supply management.
Some commenters expressed support to the developer helping to ensure adequate water supplies
over the long term. Most comments in support of the MPR noted that they believed that the
conditions in the implementing ordinance, environmental impacts statements and other reports
showed due diligence and met or exceeded requirements. This included comments regarding the
planned use of the one kettle for on-site storage of Class A treated wastewater, rainwater and
surface water runoff and the long-term management of that one kettle to replenish water supplies
and provide for fire flow and irrigation. Commenters in support of the project noted that throughout
the history of the MPR project planning and environmental analyses, that outreach to and
consultation with area tribes was sufficient and well-documented.
Of those comments that indicated general objection to the MPR, many expressed concerns that
groundwater supplies, particularly those that area households rely upon near the MPR project,
would become contaminated especially through perceived expected uses and applications of
herbicides and fertilizers and through other sources of contamination from building, construction,
and traffic. Many comments in objection to the project noted that because of an area tribe's
contention that the kettles are places of sacred and ancestral importance to their history, the
kettles must be protected, not used for water storage and that the project has not sufficiently
addressed this concern. Comments included observations that the kettles are also geologically
unique and therefore merit protection.
SIAFF RESPONSEj
The FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation measures for water, wastewater, solid waste,
and stormwater and for appropriate management of cultural resources.
As previously noted, Condition 63 (h) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "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, inigation, groundwater recharge, and wetlands. The applicant
plans to preserve, enhance, and enlarge Kettle C and its associated wetland. The proposal
is consistent with this Condition 63 (h) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
a
Condition 63 (i) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
11
a
a
a
Staff Responses to Fleasant Flarbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
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.
An aquifer test was conducted by Subsurface Group in 2008 and subsequent analysis by
the Pacific Groundwater Group was performed in 2009. These analyses, which were
incorporated into the SEIS, were confirmed by the Department of Ecology in 2010 and
incorporated into the FSEIS Appendix F. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (i) of
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
ln addition, Condition 63 (j) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "Tribes should be consulted
regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle preserved as a cultural resource."
The consultant who drafted the Cultural Resources Management Plan sent letters to six
localtribes including the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST) requesting consultation on
identifying cultural resources on-site. Additionally, the developer's representative, Don
Coleman, sent a letter with the Cultural Resources Management Plan attached on May 1 1,
2012to Josh Wisniewski, Ph.D. of the PGST of which no response was received. The only
Tribe to respond was the Skokomish Tribe. 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.
The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (i) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (k) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
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, localtribes, 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 traditionaltribal access to cultural
properties and activities, and to provide for community education opportunities.
Monitoring results would be reviewed with DAHP staff and tribal representatives
prior to any adjustment of the monitoring schedule. This is addressed in the draft
development agreement under section 8. The proposal is consistent with Condition
63 (k) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. During on-going government-to-government
consultations between the County and tribes with treaty rights in the project area, it
was revealed that one tribe, the Skokomish Tribe, provided documentation with
respect to primacy regarding oral and written histories, ancestral villages and towns
and established tribal culture in the Black Point Peninsula. This documentation
conflicts with correspondence from another tribe with treaty rights in the Hood
Canal, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (PGST), that maintains they have oral and
written history including sacred and ancestral history with respect to the kettles on
the project site.
12
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
During the comment period on the proposed development regulations and draft
development agreement, the County received a letter from the DAHP that
acknowledged that the PGST was pursuing formal designation of the kettles as
traditional cultural places for potential listing on the National Register of Historic
Places as authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The letter also
discusses what DAHP believes is hereto-fore not identified nor discussed geologic
uniqueness of the kettles. However, the kettles are not geologically unique. As the
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) points out, kettles are
formed as a result of glaciation. "Glacial kettles are depressions that form when a
retreating glacier leaves a bit of ice behind which then becomes buried by sediment
shed from glacial streams. When the block of ice melts, the sediment collapses,
forming a kettle. Kettles can be dry or filled with water, depending on their depth
and the level of groundwater in the area."3 Kettles are found wherever glaciation
occurs. The entire Hood Canal area was impacted by Puget Lobe lce Sheet.a Just
north of the Hood Canal, on Whidbey lsland, the Ebey's Reserve features the
Kettles Trail System.s WDNR's GM-58, Geologic Map shows kettles on Whidbey
lsland:6
Another example of nearby kettles is the Budd lnlet Kettle Train, just south of
Olympia, where there is a cluster of kettles where many ice blocks were buried by
sediment from the receding glacier.T On Black Point alone, six kettles have been
3 httos://www.dnr.wa.qov/proorams-and-services/qeoloqv/qlaciers#qlacial-landforms
a https://www.dnr.wa.qov/proqrams-and-servicesiqeoloqv/explore-oooular-qeoloqv/qeoloqic-provinces-
washinqton/olympic#oeoloqic-historv. See also Washington Geologic Society, Bulletin No. 8, Plate XXll
(1e13).
s https://www.islandcountywa.oov/PublicWorks/Parks/Paqes/kettlestrails.aspx. See also:
httos://www.nos.qov/ebla/planyourvisiUupload/050514trails-map.odf and
httos://washinqtonlandscape.bloqspot.com/2012112lkettles-and-dunes-on-whidbev.html.
6 htto://www.dnr.wa.oov/Publications/oer qm58 qeol map coupeville 24k.pdf.
7 https://www.dnr.wa.qov/qeoloqv-qlossary#qeoloqic-features.45.
13
charurels
I
2 'ribs
I
)
v
llo
dnuulinization
0.5 .1
I
uorth-sonth
dnuulinization
I
kettles
\
\J
x
a,-J.
I
\
,ra-fr
F
\
outwash chamels
dnunlin
LK
a
$taff Responses to Fleasant l{arhor Master Planneci Resort Fuhlic Cclmrr-rents
identified. The DAHP letter did not consider nor reference the Skokomish's Tribe
court-affirmed primacy and documented history which ostensibly a department with
state oversight on tribal cultural significance would do. As of the writing of this
report, there has been discussed the need for follow up correspondence from the
County which will point to previous approved cultural resources tribal consultations,
review and comment of management plans as published in the FEIS and FSEIS.
Condition 63 (n) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "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." Water rights permit G2-30436 granted for (3) wells on
the Pleasant Harbor site - (1) year round domestic & commercial, (2) summer irrigation -
total of 300 gallons per minute. Proof of potable water is required at time of permit
application and will be reviewed by County public health programs, state health, and
environmental agencies. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (n) of Ordinance 01-
0128-08.
Condition 63 (o) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
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.
Water quantity issues were addressed in the FSEIS Section 3.16 and 3.2. Water rights
approval was received by the state and is based on 175 gallons per day per equivalent
residential unit. See Appendix F of FSEIS. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (o)
of Ordinance 01 -01 28-08.
Condition 63 (p) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
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.
A Neighborhood Water Policy Plan has been developed and is also addressed in the draft
development agreement in Appendix O. lf salt water intrusion becomes an issue for
neighboring wells on Black Point as proven as a result from the development of the MPR,
the developer shall provide access to the Class A water system that serves the master
planned resort. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (p) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
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
a
a
a
14
a
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Flanned Resort Fublic Cornments
amendment. Marina discharge shall be treated by a system that reduces
contamination to the greatest possible extent.
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 draft development agreement
under section 8. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (q) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (r) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
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.
A comprehensive water quality monitoring plan has been developed and is addressed in the draft
development agreement under Section 8 and in Appendix N. The proposal is consistent with
Condition 63 (r) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. However, considering substantive public comments on
the subject of water quality, staff recommends further negotiations with the developer on water
quality.
Comments About Wildlife and Critical Areas includinq Shorelines
Of those comments that indicated general support for the MPR project, comments generally voiced
support for how the project's planned development considered and adequately addressed the
protection of critical areas and their buffers and provided for protection and preservation of
shoreline bluffs. Commenters in support noted how reports, studies and mitigation plans appeared
to be responsive to wildlife management needs and habitat protections. Several comment
indicated support for the project meeting requirements for establishing permanent conservation
easements and having to meet all requirements of all other aspects and standards contained in
existing Jefferson County Unified Development code regarding wetlands, streams, geologically
hazardous areas, Hood Canal shorelines, fish habitat and stormwater management.
Of those comments that indicated general objection to the MPR, many believe the proposed MPR
development will destroy, degrade, and irreparably impact critical areas. Commenters noted that
impacts to critical areas, shorelines and wildlife habitat had not been adequately avoided or
mitigated. Commenters believed that it appeared that the MPR did not have to comply with critical
area ordinance standards and that would not be able to comply over time. Commenters shared the
area's value to wildlife and the importance to maintain that value. Commenters noted that tribal
treaty rights regarding wildlife, especially elk, had not been adequately addressed and that the
wildlife management plan needed improvement.
SIAFF RESPONSE
Ordinance 01-0128-09, the FEIS and the FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation
measures for shorelines, wetlands, and wildlife management.
15
$taff Responses l* Fteasant [4anbr:r f\llaster Flanned Resort F*bIic eonrrnents
Natural open space, pervious and impervious surface area calculations are contained in Table 2-3
(page 2-35) of the FSEIS. Alternative 3, the Applicant's preferred alternative, preserves 103 acres
of natural undisturbed open space from a total site acreage of 237 .88 acres - 45o/o or nearly half of
the total site area. Except for 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 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 proposed development regulations and a draft development
agreement that regulate how development will occur, and address vested, legal non-conforming
rights and uses, as well as development permit review and approval for the resort. All existing
development standards of Jefferson County unified development code apply to the Pleasant
Harbor MPR and all land use, stormwater and building permits are required.
The FSEIS technical reports analyzed the proposal under current regulations contained in the
County's CriticalArea Ordinance - JCC Chapter 18.22. The FSEIS, along with its published
mitigation measures, concluded that the proposal would not result in significant adverse
environmental impacts, and would comply with JCC 18.22 as it pertains to Geologically Hazardous
Areas, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas, and Wetlands. Also, CriticalAquifer Recharge and
Saltwater lntrusion Protection Zones were further analyzed under by the Department of Ecology
use State protection standard, and those standards are consistent with standards under JCC
18.22.
Development along the south bluff is setback at least 200 feet from Ordinary High-Water Mark and
permanently protected in a conservation easement, and south beach access is decommissioned
and avoids and minimizes 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). Geologically hazardous areas would be required to be identified and protective
buffers and setbacks established on unstable bluff areas alongside and in addition to the shoreline
conservation easement. Siting of buildings and recreational activities were designed to be buffered
from adjacent properties.
Condition 63 (l) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
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.9.,
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.
The Wildlife Management Plan was prepared in consultation with WDFW and localtribes that
focused on non-lethal strategies to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife. The wildlife
management plan contains additional language on fencing specific to elk. This is addressed in the
Appendix P of draft development agreement and in section 8. The proposal is consistent with
16
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
Condition 63 (l) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. However, considering public comments from the Point
No Point Treaty Council, Staff recommends further negotiations with the developer on Appendix P
Condition 63 (m) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "No deforestation or grading will be permitted
prior to establishing adequate water rights and an adequate water supply." Adequate water supply
has been determined to be available. A total of three wells will be drilled. State oversight agency
issued a water right approvalon June 16, 2010 under permit G2-30436. The proposal is consistent
with Condition 63 (m) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
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 naturalforest 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.
A conservation easement as well as a vegetation management plan have been developed and are
addressed in the draft development agreement under Section 8 and as appendices. However,
due to re-development of the marina under a separate amended binding site plan process due to
the new shoreline regulations of 2014, the Maritime Village has been re-located to the area just
north of the Black Point Road and Highway 101 intersection. A Jefferson Transit stop and parking
area will be located just south of Black Point Road adjacent to Highway 101. Some revegetation
will occur, but site distance is a state requirement for ingress and egress, therefore this area may
not be fully vegetated. Wetlands and their associated buffers will be permanently preserved as well
as the 200-foot riparian buffer adjacent to the south shoreline bluff in recorded conservation
easements. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (s) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
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.
The developer has worked with WDFW to try to 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. ln 2007 , approximately 40o/o 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 WDF1 / guidance. ln early 2009,
the D-dock was replaced and in early 2013 E and F-docks and the head walk that connects them
to the D-dock were also replaced. The only docks left to replace are l, J, and K. There is also
17
Condition 63 (t) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
Staff Responses to Fleasant Harbor Master Flanned Resort Public Comments
another existing smaller marina just to the north of Pleasant Harbor called Home Port Marina. A
tunicate agreement has been developed in conjunction with WDFW and is addressed in the draft
development agreement under section 8. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (t) of
Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (u) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
ln 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." ln 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.
This is addressed in the draft development agreement under Section 8 and the proposed
development regulations. The conservation easement has been prepared and will be recorded
with the county Auditor. The applicant has also prepared a vegetation management plan and will
preserve approximately 103 acres of the site as vegetated. The proposal is consistent with
Condition 63 (u) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (v) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "ln 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." 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 1O1to 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. The proposal is consistent
with Condition 63 (v) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
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
18
Condition 63(w) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states:
Staff Responses to Fleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
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.
A vegetation management plan has been prepared to address conditions 63 (s), (u), (v) and (w).
lndividual 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. The
proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (w) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (x) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
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 residentialdwellings respectively, "promote design and construction
practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts of
buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being."
Appendix K of the FSEIS is a narrative demonstrating compliance with the intent of LEED
standards. This is addressed in the draft development agreement under section 8. The proposal is
consistent with Condition 63 (x) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (y) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "There shall be included as a best management
practice for the operation and maintenance of a golf course within the MPR that requires the
developer to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this
information will be made available to the public." This is addressed in the proposed development
regulations and in other areas of code that establish standards for golf course best management
practices. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (y) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Condition 63 (z) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states
Statesman shall use the lnternational Dark Sky Association (!DA) 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.
General guidelines that would be followed to minimize potential light and glare impacts include the
following:
o lllumination would be to the minimum practical level.
o The affected area of illumination would be as confined to specific areas as practical.
. The duration of illumination would be as short as practicalfor Resident Safety.
. lllumination technology would minimize the amount of blue spectrum in the light.
o Technology would utilize High Efficiency Lighting Standards (Energy Star Guidelines)
19
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
This is addressed in the draft development agreement under section 8 and in the proposed
development regulations. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (z) of Ordinance 01-0128-
08.
Condition 63 (cc) of Ordinance 01-0128-08 states: "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." 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. The proposal is consistent with Condition 63 (cc) of Ordinance 01-0128-08.
Comments About Traffic and Proiect Size
Of those comments that indicated general support for the MPR project, commenters noted and
supported that the final preferred MPR project reduced the size of the project's golf course from
18-holes to 9-holes and cut the number of overall short and longterm rental, permanent and
worker housing units to 890 from over 1,000. Comments voiced support for the planned
improvements at the project's intersection with the state highway and noted overall acceptability in
any increases in visitors that the project would attract.
Of those comments that indicated general objection to the MPR, many commented that the project
is too large and too impactful due to its size and perceived unacceptable increases in traffic and
the attendant increases in traffic accidents that may occur. Objections by commenters point to the
project not being reduced further and inadequately addressing impacts associated with number of
units, increases in people and the impacts to the area's quality of life from new visitors and
residences and traffic.
SIAFF RESPONSE:
The proposed development is subject to the following criteria and requirements of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.360 for MPRs:
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 shortterm visitor accommodations associated
with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.
As reviewed, approved and conditioned under Ordinance 01-0128-08_the proposal complies this
criterion. Subsequent development shall comply with the conditions of approval under the thirty
conditions of Ordinance 01-0128-08, namely Conditions 63 (a) thru (dd), and specifically Condition
63 (aa) that requires each section to keep the ratio of 65% to 35% of rental and timeshares to
permanent residences. Proposed amenities include a 9-hole golf course, spa services,
amphitheater, pool, sports courts, and other resort related facilities. Ordinance 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:
ln 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
20
Staff Responses to Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Comments
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. ln 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 ElS. As
the Board has not found any area of noncompliance, there is no basis for a finding of
invalidity.
The FSEIS fully considered and published mitigation measures for transportation, water,
wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, telecommunications and public services. Additionally, under
Ordinance 01-0128-08 condition 63 (c), Memoranda of Understanding are required for all public
service providers to ensure that those infrastructure and services required by the resort, are
contained within the resort and fully paid for by the developer. No resort infrastructure or services
are to be provided to areas outside the resort, with the exception of water service to those
residential uses under the Neighborhood Water Supply Program (appendix O to the draft
development agreement). One commenter suggested that Jefferson County had not adequately
addressed traffic concurrency issues, claiming Jefferson County had no traffic concurrency
ordinance. Staff disagrees. Traffic concuirency is addressed n JCC 18.30.020(5) which states:
All land use activities shall be served by appropriate transportation facilities. Transportation
facilities shall be adequate to meet the level of service standards adopted in the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and the appropriate design standards referenced in JCC
18.30.080(1)(a). !f transportation facilities would become inadequate, the applicant shall be
required to provide necessary improvements and/or implement alternative measures such
as transportation demand management (TDM), project phasing, or other measures
acceptable to Jefferson County that will maintain the adopted level of service standards
and meet design standards. lf transportation facilities are not adequate, Jefferson County
shall not approve the proposed development. Transportation facilities shall be deemed
adequate if necessary improvements are planned and designated funding is secured in the
Jefferson Cou nty Six-Year Transportation I m provement Prog ram.
However, Highway 101 is identified as a highway of state significance from Sheldon to SR 104.8
Per RCW 36.70A.070(6XaXiiiXC), the concurrency requirements do not apply to highways of state
significance, except in island counties.s Through the SEPA process, Jefferson County Public
Works Department and the Washington State Department of Transportation WSDOT) reviewed
the Pleasant Harbor MPR proposal. As a result, the developer is required to make intersection
improvements to Highway 101 at Black Point Road.
Comments About Build Out Period
Commenters objected to proposed build out period which most in objection to the project and to
the build out period observed as "perpetual." Considering these public comments, staff
8 See: RCW 47.05.022 and transportation commission resolution number 660, which can be located at
https://www.wsdot.wa.oov/sites/defaulUfiles/2006/03/'16/HSSlist2009mod2.odf.
e 'The concurrency requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and
services of statewide significance except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the
mainland are state highways or ferry routes."
21
Staff Responses to Fleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Public Cornments
recommends further negotiations with the developer on a build-out period that provides more
specificity in terms of timeframe and benchmarks of the project phasing.
Comments About Sequence of Adoption
Several comments were directed to the sequence of County adoption of the development
regulations and development agreement. Staff recommends that the BoCC follow proper
sequencing in making decisions regarding adoption of the development regulations and
development agreement.
22