Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout114osoN coG w Rose Aim Carroll JEFFERSON COUNTY AUDITOR Brenda Huntingford—Chief Deputy PO Box 563,Port Townsend WA 98368 360)385-9118 9Sy1NG.O 360) 385-9358 bhuntingford@co.iefferson.wa.us carrollra@co.iefferson.wa.us Er11E©"FM-FD JUN 2 6 2018 JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MEMO To: Michael Haas, Prosecuting Attorney From: Brenda Huntingford, Chief Deputy Auditor Date: June 25, 2018 Subj: LAND USE PETITION The BRINNON GROUP, a Washington non-profit corporation, Petitioner/Plaintiff, vs. JEFFESON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Respondent/Defendant. And PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership, Additional Parties. The attached was received by hand at 3:55 pm, today, in this office and is being referred to you. CC: BOCC Accounting Elections Licensing Recording FAX 385-9121 385-9117 385-9115 385-9116 385-9228 1 2 3 4 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 FOR KITSAP COUNTY 8 9 The BRINNON GROUP, a Washington non-profit corporation, No. 10 Petitioner/Plaintiff, LAND USE PETITION 11 v. 12 JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdi' ision of the State of Washington, 13 Respondent/Defendant, 14 and 15 PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND 16 GOLF RESORT, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership, 17 Additional Parties. 18 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 Jefferson County plans under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A 22 RCW. "GMA"), and has adopted development regulations allowing for new "Master 23 Planned Resorts."1 These Master Planned Resorts ("MPR") are defined in Section 24 25 RCW 36.70A.362, Chapter 18. 15.115-135 of the Jefferson County Code ("JCC"). ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 1 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 18. 15.025 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC) as follows: 2 Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained 3 and fully integrated development with primary focus on resort destination 4 facilities that includes short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries 5 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 6 the on-site recreational nature of the resort. 7 As seen, the MPRs do not allow just another set of seaside condominiums, but 8 require self-contained, integrated facilities, focused on a range of recreational facilities. 9 Permanent residential units are allowed only if they support onsite recreation. 10 11 On June 4, 2018, the Jefferson County Commissioners approved a 12 "development agreement" and new zoning code provisions for the Pleasant Harbor 13 MPR, a large property (about 238 acres) with as many as 890 potential residential 14 units. These actions are challenged in this petition. 15 As will be described in this petition, actions by Jefferson County on the Pleasant 16 Harbor MPR are so vague and ephemeral that they do not meet minimum standards 17 for MPR approvals under either state law or previously adopted Jefferson County18 19 regulations. The plans approved are not really plans at all but a means of moving 20 planning approval down the road, leaving complete and utter discretion to be 21 exercised on a segment by segment basis. Importantly, the phasing plan, which 22 begins with the sale of a large number of private residential condominiums, does not 23 contain the provisions needed to assure the development will meet the mandatory 24 standards for an MPR if project development ends at its initial phase. 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 2 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 In addition, this Master Plan was approved before the environmental impacts of 2 3 the proposal had been fully evaluated. The Development Regulations adopted by the 4 County are vague to the point of being unenforceable, and the diagrams submitted by 5 the Developer showing the proposed construction are contradictory and incomplete. 6 Significantly, the Development Agreement between the County and Developer allows 7 the Developer a period of forty-five years in order to construct the MPR to the 8 regulations and standards in place today. 9 The Brinnon Group, a non-profit corporation made up of residents of the 10 11 communities nearby the proposed MPR, asks that the court invalidate both the 12 Ordinances (the Development Regulations and the Development Agreement) or 13 remand this matter for the County to repeal these Ordinances. 14 The Brinnon Group believes that this dispute may involve issues appropriately 15 under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board 16 and accordingly will be filing an appeal of the County's Ordinances before the Western 17 Growth Management Hearings Board. However, this appeal has been filed because 18 19 the Development Agreement signed by County and Developer includes language 20 asserting that "this Agreement constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RCW 21 36.70C.020."2 22 // 23 24 25 2 This appears as the final line on the first page of the Development Agreement, Ordinance No. 04- ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 3 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 I. LAND USE PETITION 2 1 . Identification of Petitioner. Petitioner Brinnon Group is a Washington3 4 non-profit corporation. Its address is PO Box 1097, Granite Falls, WA 98252. The 5 members are residents of the area who would be affected by development of the 6 proposed MPR as described herein. 7 2. Identification of Petitioner's Attorney. The attorney for the Petitioners is 8 J. Richard Aramburu, Aramburu & Eustis, LLP, 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, 9 WA, 98104, Telephone (206) 625-9515, Email Rick@Aramburu-Eustis.com. 10 11 3. Identification of Local Jurisdiction. The decision(s) of Jefferson County 12 are at issue in this appeal. Jefferson County's address is 1820 Jefferson Street, Port 13 Townsend, WA 98368. 14 4. Identification of Decision-maker and Land Use Decision.3 The Jefferson 15 County Board of Commissioners made the decisions at issue in this appeal, the 16 adoption of Ordinance 03-0604-18 (amending county development regulations for the 17 MPR) and Ordinance 04-0604-18 (adopting a Development Agreement). A copy of 18 19 the two Ordinances adopted by the County, as posted on the County's website, are 20 attached to this Petition and Complaint as Attachments A and B.4 21 5. Additional Parties to the Appeal. The owner of the property subject to 22 23 0604-18. 3 The Petitioner disputes that the Ordinances adopted by the County subject to this appeal are "land 24 use decisions"as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). However, the Ordinances are inter-related, and one Ordinance includes language stating that it is a"final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020." 25 (Ord. No. 04-0604-18, Development Agreement, 7th whereas, p. 1). Because of the length of the appendices to Ordinance 04-0604-18, they are not attached to this ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 4 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625 9515• Fax 206. 682.1376 1 this appeal is Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP (hereinafter the 2 Developer"), which is a Washington limited partnership. Its manager is M. Garth 3 4 Mann. Its address is 308913 US Hwy 101, Brinnon, WA 98320, according to its 5 letterhead, which lists the organization as "Pleasant Harbor Marina" and as "Pleasant 6 Harbor Marina & Recreation Community." Developer claims ownership of 237.88 7 acres of property (hereinafter the "Property"), located in Jefferson County, which is the 8 subject of this action. 9 6. Petitioner's Standing. Petitioner has standing pursuant to RCW 10 11 36.70C.060 because the Brinnon Group's members are persons aggrieved or 12 adversely affected by the County's decisions. Members of the Brinnon Group live 13 nearby the Pleasant Harbor MPR and will be materially injured and damaged by 14 impacts generated by the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR, including loss of aesthetic 15 and vsual resources, traffic, water quality, noise, impacts on rural communities and 16 character and similar impacts. Specifically, the County's decisions have prejudiced or 17 are likely to prejudice the Petitioners, and the Petitioner's interests are among those 18 19 that Jefferson County was required to consider when it made those decisions. 20 Petitioner, or its members, has provided comments during the continuing review 21 process and has exhausted all administrative remedies available to it. A judgment in 22 favor of the Petitioner would eliminate or substantially redress the prejudice to the 23 Brinnon Group. 24 25 petition but will be included in the record to be presented to the Court. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 5 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 7. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. There are no further or 2 additional appeals available under Jefferson County regulations. The Ordinances 3 4 adopted by the County are subject to appeal to the Growth Management Hearings 5 Board (GMHB) under RCW 36.70A.280 and Petitioners will file an appeal to the 6 GMHB prior to the appeal deadline. 7 8. Facts. 8 8.1 . Jefferson County plans under the Growth Management Act 9 GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, and on August 28, 1998 (Resolution 72-98), adopted a 10 11 GMA Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations (Title 18 to the 12 County's Code). 13 8.2. On January 2, 2008, the County approved a comprehensive plan 14 amendment in Ordinance No. 01-0128-08, establishing a potential Master Planned 15 Resort (MPR) on 237.88 acres, located on the Black Point Peninsula in the community 16 of Brinnon, Jefferson County, subject to regulations and approval criteria. This 17 ordinance also adopted multiple conditions for approval of an MPR at the Black Point 18 19 site, found in Paragraph 63 of that ordinance. This amendment was adopted after the 20 County issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the MPR. 21 8.3. In 2006, Jefferson County adopted regulations for new MPRs as 22 found in JCC 18. 15.115-.135. 23 8.4. Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 required that any future development 24 of this MPR must be consistent with "all GMA-derived development regulations relating 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 6 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel.206.625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 to GMA critical areas" and "all on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts ... 2 will be mitigated as the MPR is implemented first through a development agreement, 3 4 internal zoning map and internal zoning code, then through plat and permit review and 5 possible issuance of permits, and with all the prior items accomplished, finally with the 6 issuance of building permits." 7 8.5. JCC 18. 15.115 provides that: 8 Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 9 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 10 required by JCC 18.45.080. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]. 11 JCC 18. 15.126 sets forth the "Requirements for master planned resorts" including 12 specific regulations for a Master Plan, Development Agreement, a Formal Site-Specific 13 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and provisions requiring self-contained 14 15 development. JCC 18.15.135 sets forth the criteria for approval of a new MPR in 16 Jefferson County. 17 8. 6. On January 6, 2016, the Jefferson County Planning Commission 18 held a public hearing to take testimony on development regulations that the County 19 claims were "published in the FSEIS." Additional public hearings followed. 20 8.7. On June 15, 2016, the Planning Commission forwarded to the 21 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BOC) the Planning Commission's 22 23 recommendation on the development regulations. 24 8.8. On August 14, 2017 and January 18, 2018, the BOC and Planning 25 Commission held joint meetings which included a review of the County staff's ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND IJSE PETITION - 7 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 proposed revisions to the MPR development regulations. Additional public hearings 2 followed, and the BOC accepted public comments on these documents, together with 3 4 a proposed development agreement between the County and the Developer. 5 8.9. On June 4, 2018, the BOC adopted Ordinance No. 03-0604-18, 6 which amended the County's development regulations and Ordinance No. 04-0604-18, 7 which authorized execution of the Development Agreement between the County and 8 Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort. 9 Included as Exhibits to the Development Agreement are Exhibit 2, the 10 11 "Alternative 3 Site Plan" with a date of November 19, 2015, and Exhibit 4, a "Phasing 12 Overall Plan." These maps are included as Attachments C and D to this petition. In 13 the Development Agreement, at Paragraph 3.2, these are described as two of several 14 "Master Plan Components." 15 9. Alleged Errors and Supporting Statements of Fact. 16 9.1. Failure to Consider the Proposed "Golf Terrace Recreation Center 17 and Conference Center/Spa 208 Units" during SEPA Review. 18 The 2015 FSEIS is inadequate for purposes of adoption of the MPR 19 Development Regulations and Development Agreement because it fails to address the 20 impacts of the proposed Recreation and Golf Center described below. The MPR 21 application was significantly revised after issuance of the FEIS, and now shows that 22 23 the Developer plans to construct a two-story, 158,000 square foot Recreation and 24 Conference Center. While the FSEIS did contemplate 36,000 square feet of 25 commercial space on the site, there was no mention of a Conference Center. The ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 8 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 environmental impacts of a number of new uses included in the Conference Center 2 were not analyzed in the FSEIS, including, but not limited to: 3 4 208 residential units, seven sports courts, including one with seating for 560 spectators, 5 a theater with 165 seats, 6 two swimming pools with seated viewing for more than 300 spectators, two large conference areas, 7 a grocery, bistro, 8 restaurant and lounge, 9 laser skeet shooting, 12-14 offices, 10 11 medical offices, a daycare, 11 a running track and 12 a chapel, 13 all as described in the "Pleasant Harbor Marina and Recreational Community: a Vision 14 for Investing in the Success of Puget Sound" ("Investment Proposal") submitted to 15 Jefferson County by the applicant Statesmen Group in August, 2016, and shown on 16 Exhibit 4 (Attachment D hereto) as part of Phase 2b as "Golf Terrace Recreation 17 Center & Conference Center/Spa 208 Units". The Investment Proposal is attached 18 hereto as Attachment E. This proposal requested public funds to construct the 19 20 Conference Center. Additional environmental review of all these uses and their 21 impacts should have been performed under SEPA to determine whether there are 22 probable significant adverse environmental impacts associated with these substantial 23 new uses and development, given the changes to the MPR. Chapter 43.21 C RCW; 24 WAC 197-11-158(3); 197-11-340(3)(ii); 197-11-600(3)(b)(i) and (ii). 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 9 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 As stated above, the County failed to perform SEPA Review of the new 2 Community Center proposal in the Development Regulations and Agreement. Then, 3 4 the County adopted JCC Section 17.80.030, which prohibits future review of these 5 unaddressed environmental impacts.5 6 SEPA allows the County to use its existing development regulations, 7 comprehensive plan and environmental documents to determine whether or not 8 additional mitigation will be required when reviewing applications for development. 9 WAC 197-11-158. However, the County must perform SEPA when an application 10 11 presents "project specific impacts that have not been adequately addressed" in the 12 previous plans and documents. WAC 197-11-158(3). Instead of implementing SEPA, 13 the County adopted 17.80.030, which requires the County to rely upon " Prior EISs" for 14 "compliance" with SEPA -- even though the prior EIS did not consider the multiple 15 environmental impacts from the various structures and uses that have been newly 16 proposed for the MPR, including but not limited to the Community Center. 17 The Jefferson County Commissioners engaged in unlawful procedure or failed 18 19 to follow a prescribed process under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a) for failing to revise the 20 prior environmental documents. 21 9.2 The Proposed Master Plans, Development Agreement and Development Regulations Do Not Comply with Existing Provisions of MPR Master 22 Plan Provisions of the Jefferson County code and Ordinance 01-0128-08. 23 In Ordinance 01-0128-08, JCC 18.15.126 and JCC 18.15.132, Jefferson County 24 25 5 This language also appears in the Development Agreement, Sec. 9. 2. 4, p. 11. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 10 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 has set forth requirements for approval of future MPR Master Plans and Development 2 Agreements. The newly adopted ordinances 03-0604-18 and 04-0604-18 do not 3 4 comply with the terms of Jefferson County's ordinances, codes or state law, for the 5 following reasons. 6 9.2.1 Inadequate Description of Facilities under JCC 18.15.126(1)(b). 7 JCC 18. 15.126(1)(b)requires the MPR applicant to provide 8 b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short- 9 term visitor accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site recreational opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's 10 services, and commercial and supportive services provided. 11 Exhibits 2 and 4 (Attachments C and D), the supposed Master Plans, fail to meet this 12 requirement as they do not describe where short-term visitor accommodations will be 13 provided, where the on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities are offered or 14 15 where commercial and support services will be provided. Where described on the site 16 plan, descriptions are vague and indefinite. Moreover the Master Plan and Phasing 17 Plans are contradictory, showing different configurations and development plans. By 18 example, Exhibit 4, the "Phasing Plan" (Attachment D) shows the proposed Phase 2(b) 19 with 208 residential units while Exhibit 2, the "Master Plan," shows "Golf Terraces and 20 Conference Center with 520 Units." Exhibit 2 shows several recreational uses 21 including a Zipline, Amphitheater, Pool, Driving Range and Putting Green, but these 22 23 uses are missing from Exhibit 4, the Phasing Plan. The Phase 2 recreational uses are 24 not shown in any detail or scale to allow for an assessment of whether they are 25 sufficient to meet code criteria. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 11 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 In addition, there is no description of the "destination resort facilities of the 2 MPR, including short-term visitor accommodations . . ." No designation is made as to 3 4 which of the residential units described in Exhibits 2 and 4 are short term, as opposed 5 to permanent residences. Nor do the adopted Development Regulations or 6 Development Agreement provide a definition or criteria for what type of 7 accommodations are considered short term as opposed to permanent. On information 8 and belief, it appears that the first 202 residences proposed in Phase 1 are not short 9 term accommodations, but rather will be permanent residence condominiums. 10 11 9. 2.2. Failure to Comply with Section 63(m) of Ordinance 01-0128-08. 12 Ordinance 01-0128-08, Section 63(m), requires as a condition that "no 13 deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water rights 14 and an adequate water supply." Exhibit 4 allows extensive site grading in Phase 1 a, 15 but provides for water storage and distribution only later in Phase 1 b, violating the 16 foregoing condition. 17 9.2.3 Failure to Provide Maps Sufficient to Meet the Criteria of JCC 18 18.15.126(1)(d). 19 JCC 18.15.126(1)(d) requires the master plan contain the following: 20 d) A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, 21 showing the full extent and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential and nonresidential development 22 types and location. 23 The land use maps provided at Exhibits 2 and 4 do not meet these criteria. They are 24 contradictory, showing different uses in different locations and features that are not 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 12 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206 625.9515• Fax 206.682 1376 1 reconcilable. Facilities and services are not shown, or if shown provide insufficient 2 3 detail to ascertain their consistency with the requirements of this section. 4 9.2.4. Failure to Provide Maps Sufficient to Meet the Criteria of JCC 18.15.126(1)(e). 5 JCC 18. 15.126(1)(e) provides the master plan contain the following: 6 7 e) A description, with supportive information and maps, of the design and functional features that provide for a unified development, superior site design 8 and protection of natural amenities, and which further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This shall address how landscaping, screening, and 9 open space, recreational facilities, road and parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the project site. 10 11 Under JCC 18. 15.135(9): 12 9) The master Plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the character of the resort. 13 In adceition, Subsections u) and v) of Paragraph 63 of Ordinance 01-0128-08 (page 14) 14 15 require landscaping and buffering in to blend into the natural setting and buffer the 16 resort. 17 However, there is no description of how the facilities provide for a "unified 18 development." No "site design" is included that provides any architectural plans or 19 details for any buildings, much less how "superior site design" will be achieved. There 20 is no written description or site plan that describes landscaping, screening, 21 recreational facilities or how they "are integrated into the project site," nor is 22 23 landscaping, screening and location of open space shown on the master plan maps, 24 Exhibits 2 and 4. 25 While the staff report indicates that 103 acres of the site will be included within ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 13 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625 9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 natural, undisturbed open space, the site plans presented do not show where such 2 3 open space might be located, or when such open space might be set aside. 4 9. 2. 5. Failure to Provide Maps and Descriptions Sufficient to Meet the Criteria of JCC 18.15.126(1)(i) and JCC 18. 15.135. 5 JCC 18.15.126(1)(i) requires the following in the Master Plan submission: 6 7 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 8 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 9 prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other 10 commitments should development cease before all phases are completed. 11 JCC 18.15.135 provides: 12 3) If an MPR will be phased, each phase contains adequate infrastructure, 13 open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. 14 15 ( Emphasis supplied.) These requirements are not met in the current ordinance or 16 Development Agreement for the following reasons. 17 a) Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Development Agreement do not provide "sufficient 18 detail" for the phases contemplated because they are internally inconsistent. In 19 addition to the examples provided above, Exhibit 2 to the Development Agreement 20 shows a "Control Gate" at the northeast entrance to the project, indicating that a 21 gated community" is contemplated, but that feature is missing from the later Phasing 22 23 Plan, Exhibit 4. 24 b) Phase 1 a on the Phasing Plan (Exhibit 4) is site clearing and grading, with 25 the potential that many valuable natural features and conditions will be removed ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 14 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel 206.625.9515• Fax 206 682 1376 1 before improvements, possible landscaping and mitigation are provided. No plans or 2 3 drawings are provided, in the Master Plans or otherwise, that show the extent of the 4 possible clearing and grading, especially where Exhibits 2 and 4 show substantially 5 different buildings, features, uses and configurations of the proposed nine-hole golf 6 course. 7 c) There is no discussion as to "how the project may operate successfully" and 8 meet the goals for MPRs "should development cease before all phases are 9 completed." No guarantees or promises as to how the proposal will function if 10 11 development ceases with the construction of the first or later stages. Paragraph 10.1.2 12 of the Development Agreement only requires the bonding of "necessary infrastructure," 13 not open space, recreational facilities, landscaping or other necessary elements to 14 make the proposal a conforming MPR. 15 d) Exhibit 4 calls for the construction of 202 residential units in "Sea View Villas" 16 170 Units) and "Golf Vistas" (32 Units) in Phase 1 a. The locations of such buildings 17 are not shown on Exhibit 4. A reference to "Sea View Villas" is found on Exhibit 2, but 18 19 apparently in a whole different location and configuration than on Exhibit 4. "Golf 20 Vistas" are identified on Exhibit 4 as a "phase" but their location is not disclosed. No 21 "Golf Vistas" are shown on Exhibit 2. 22 e) The proposed golf course, the central recreational feature of the site, is not 23 proposed to be constructed until Phase 2, which means that the sole "recreational 24 development" will not be available if development ceases in Phase 1, where 202 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 15 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel 206 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 permanent residences will be sold (though the location of these residences remains 2 3 unknown). In addition, the golf course layout is significantly different in Exhibits 2 and 4 4, with Exhibit 4, the Phasing Plan showing a distance of 1,200 feet between the 5 second green and the third tee and approximately the same distance between the 6 sixth green and the seventh tee. 7 f) Serious questions are raised concerning the ability of the Developer to 8 complete all phases of this project when the developer is requesting $37,750,000 from 9 Jefferson County and the state of Washington to construct portions of Pleasant 10 11 Harbor's proposed MPR. See Paragraph 9.1 of this Petition above and "Pleasant 12 Harbor Marina and Recreational Community: a Vision for Investing in the Success of 13 Puget Sound" submitted to Jefferson County by the applicant Statesmen Group in 14 August, 2016, attached hereto as Attachment E. 15 g) In particular, neither Exhibit 2 nor 4, nor other materials, indicate which of 16 the residential units described in the Development Agreement (or in Exhibits 2 and 4) 17 will be short term visitor accommodations as opposed to permanent residences. JCC 18 19 18.15.123(2) requires that such short term accommodations "shall be no less than 65 20 percent of the total resort accommodation units." 21 h) Contradictory and vague Master Plans means there is essentially no criteria 22 provided or established for location or design of features and buildings that might be 23 proposed in various phases of the project. It is impossible for determine, without a 24 definitive site plan, whether the proposal meets the criteria of Comprehensive Plan 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 16 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625 9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 Land Use Policy 24.9, which requires that "the site plan for the MPR shall 'be designed 2 to blend with the natural setting and, to the maximum extent possible, screen the 3 4 development and its impacts for the adjacent rural areas" as referenced in Ordinance 5 01-0128-08, page 14, Subsection u). 6 9.2.6. Failure to Provide "development standards applicable" to the 7 Proposed Development Under JCC 18.15.126(2). 8 JCC 18. 15.126(2) requires that development agreements for MPRs must 9 include development standards applicable to the project under JCC 18.40.840. These 10 standards include "permitted uses, residential and nonresidential densities, scale and 11 intensity of uses, and/or building sizes." However, the plans presented in Exhibits 2 12 and 4 provide no consistent plans for such uses and are internally inconsistent. For 13 example, as described above, the recreational facilities and buildings shown on the 14 15 conflicting plans vary in location and function, and no building sizes are provided 16 except for line drawings. 17 9.2.7 Failure to Demonstrate that Sufficient "urban-level commercial and other services" are Provided Onsite in the MPR Under JCC 18.15.126(5). 18 19 JCC 18.15.126(5) provides as follows: 20 5) Self-Contained Development. All necessary supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other services should be 21 contained within the boundaries of the MPR, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. New urban or suburban development and 22 land uses are prohibited outside the boundaries of a master planned 23 resort, except in areas otherwise designated as urban growth areas in compliance with RCW 36.70A.110. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] 24 JCC 18. 15.135(5) requires that 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 17 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel 206. 625 9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary 2 supportive and accessory on-site urban-level commercial and other 3 services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the MPR. 4 Though the application for the MPR proposes the construction of some 890 residential 5 units, there are no provisions found in the master plan or other regulations that "all 6 necessary supportive and accessory urban-level commercial services" are contained, 7 or even attempted to be contained, with the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR. Again, 8 the Master Plans presented are wholly contradictory on the provision of services, and 9 neither Exhibits 2 nor 4 show any detail as to provision for commercial facilities, such 10 11 as grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, and recreational facilities to be 12 constructed as support services to meet the needs of 890 new residential units. 13 9.2.8 Failure to Provide a List of Required Amenities and Conditions of Public Access. 14 15 Ordinance 01-0128-08 requires that any development agreement provide "a list 16 of required amenities . . . along with conditions for public access." See Paragraph 17 63(d). Paragraph 10.3 of the Development Agreement addresses public amenities 18 and access, but does not indicate whether the MPR will be open to the public. The 19 public amenities to be provided under Paragraph 10.3 are only vaguely defined; e.g., 20 what is included within "spa services" and "sports courts"? In any event, these 21 amenities would be available "to members of the general public for a fee to be 22 23 established by the Developer," meaning the public could be priced out of use of these 24 facilities. 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 18 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel 206 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 9.2.9. Failure to Provide in the Site Plans nor the Development 2 Agreement a "Community Center." 3 The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan at page 16 and Ordinance 01-0128- 4 08 require that an MPR include a "community center" and a "resort center." However, 5 the site plans, Exhibits 2 and 4 only include a "conference center" or a "rec center," but 6 7 no community center. Paragraph 10.3 of the Development Agreement discusses 8 public amenities but does not include a "community center." Failure to provide a 9 "community center" is inconsistent with the terms of the Jefferson County 10 Comprehensive Plan, making the proposal inconsistent with JCC 18.15.135(2). 11 9.2.10. Proposal Inconsistent with Provisions of RCW 36.70A.360. 12 Under the Growth Management Act, a MPR must meet the following criteria: 13 A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated planned 14 unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus 15 on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational 16 facilities. 17 RCW 36.70A.360(1). In addition, any MPR must meet the following criteria: 18 3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its 19 boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort. 20 RCW 36.70A.360(3). 21 The proposed master plan and ordinances do not meet the criteria above 22 23 because the proposal, as currently described, is not a "self-contained and fully 24 integrated planned unit development" and does not have its "primary focus on 25 destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations." See ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 19Seattle,WA 98104 Tel 206 625 9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 Paragraphs 9.2.1 to 9. 2. 9 of this petition. 2 3 In addition, the current plan includes other residential uses in the form of 4 permanent residential uses but they are not "integrated into and [do not] support the 5 on-site recreational nature of the resort." See Paragraphs 9. 2.1 to 9.2. 8 of this 6 petition. 7 The decision and adoption of the ordinances in question were erroneous 8 interpretations of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction 9 of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise under RCW 36.700.130(1)(b); were not 10 11 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 12 under RCW 36.700.130(1)(c); and were clearly erroneous applications of the law to 13 the facts under RCW 36.700.130(1)(d). 14 9.3 The Proposed Development Regulations Provide No Meaningful 15 Regulation of the MPR. 16 The Development Agreement includes the adoption of a "Golf Resort" or MPR- 17 GR Zone in Chapter 17.65 of the Jefferson County Code purporting to regulate the18 19 activities and uses within the MPR, including permitted use provisions, height 20 restrictions, setback requirements and discussion of critical areas. However, "other 21 similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the 22 Department of Community Development" may be allowed, essentially by 23 administrative fiat. See JCC 17.65. 24 Similarly, though nominal height restrictions in JCC 17.65.030 reference thirty- 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 20 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625 9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 five feet, additional height (without any limit) is allowed if the local Fire District and 2 Department of Community Development allow it. Setback requirements within the3 4 development are only 10 feet. Usual regulations found in zoning for the regulation of 5 parking locations and quantity are missing. Significantly, there are no design 6 standards or other criteria that require consistency with the standards for MPRs or with 7 individual phases of the development, nor to show how "superior design" of the MPR 8 will be achieved. For example, Ordinance 01-0128-08 at Condition 63(v) requires that 9 buildings should be constructed and placed in a way that they will blend into the 10 1 terrain and landscape with park-like greenbelts between the buildings." Neither of the 12 Master Plan maps show any "park-like greenbelts between the buildings." By allowing 13 all uses and unlimited height, anywhere on the site, these regulations are 14 unenforceable and meaningless. 15 The decision and adoption of the ordinances in question were erroneous 16 interpretations of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction 17 of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b); were not 18 19 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 20 before the court under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); and were clearly erroneous 21 applications of the law to the facts under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d). 22 /// 23 // 24 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 21 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 9.4 The Proposed Development Agreement is Inconsistent with Local and 2 3 State Regulations. 4 9.4.1. A Development Agreement "shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by the local government planning under IGMA-1." 5 RCW 36.70B.170(1). 6 As described in the foregoing sections of this petition, the Development 7 Agreement for the Pleasant Harbor development is not consistent with standards for 8 approval of a MPR under previously adopted JCC chap. 18.15.15-.138, as described 9 above. 10 11 9.4.2. Under the Jefferson County Code, a Development Agreement Shall Include Certain Controls and Conditions as Found in JCC 18.40.840(1). 12 The Development Agreement for Pleasant Harbor does not comply with JCC 13 18.40.840(1) because it fails to address the following: scale and intensity of uses14 15 and/or building sizes; design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage 16 and water quality requirements; screening and landscaping and other development 17 features; affordable housing; and open space preservation. 18 The decision and adoption of the ordinances in question were erroneous 19 interpretations of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction 20 of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b); were not 21 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record22 23 before the court under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); and were clearly erroneous 24 applications of the law to the facts under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d). 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 22 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625 9515• Fax 206.682 1376 1 9.5. Development Regulations and Vesting Provisions in the 2 Development Agreement are Contrary to Law. 3 While the County may execute a development agreement with a property 4 owner, the "development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development 5 regulations adopted by a local government planning under [GMA]." RCW 6 7 36.70B.170(1) (emphasis added). Here, the adopted Development Agreement is 8 inconsistent with the County's adopted development regulations and existing state law 9 in a number of ways. 10 9.5.1 In Section 4.1.1, Jefferson County has allowed the Developer to 11 vest6 to the County's existing storm water regulations, for up to forty-five years,' 12 contrary to Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346, 13 365-66, 386 P.3d 1064 (2016). Also, in Section 8.3.2 of the Development Agreement, 14 15 the County has agreed to enforce the stormwater regulations in existence today, on 16 any existing infrastructure within the Pleasant Harbor MPR, for the next forty-five 17 years. This is contrary to RCW 36.70B.170(3)(i) and constitutes an unlawful 18 delegation of the County's responsibility to adopt and enforce police power regulations 19 addressing public health and safety. 20 9. 5. 2 In Section 8. 2, the Development Agreement purports to vest "all 21 22 6 The vested rights doctrine allows a local government to review applications for a building permit 23 (RCW 19.27.095(1), a short plat or preliminary plat (RCW 58.17.033(1), under the zoning and land use control ordinances in effect at the time a complete application has been submitted. RCW 24 36.70B.170(3)((i) allows a local government and a property owner to enter into a development agreement which states a"build-out period or vesting period for applicable standards." (Emphasis 25 added.) 7 See, Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement, Ord. No. 04-0604-18. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 23 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206 625.9515• Pax 206.682.1376 future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR" to the planning goals adopted by the 2 3 County in the Comprehensive Plan adopted as of June 4, 2018. However, the vested 4 rights doctrine does not extend to comprehensive plan policies, 8 and this language is 5 also contrary to law (RCW 36.70B.180 specifically provides that a development 6 agreement may only be vested to a "zoning ordinance or development standard"). 7 9.5.3 In Sections 8.5 and 9.1 of the Development Agreement, the 8 County has agreed to allow the Developer to vest not to development standards, but to 9 permit processing procedures. This is contrary to RCW 36.706.170(3)(i), which allows 10 11 a development agreement to include a "build-out or vesting period for applicable 12 standards." (Emphasis added.) The Washington courts have also determined that 13 permit processing procedures are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Graham 14 Neighborhood v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wash. App. 98, 116, 252 P.3d 898 (2011). 15 9.5.4 In Sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.3 of the Development Agreement, the 16 parties have agreed to allow the Developer to vest to anything that isn't mentioned by 17 the Development Agreement. This is contrary to RCW 36.706.170(1), which provides 18 19 that "the development agreement must set forth the development standards and other 20 provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use and mitigation 21 of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement." 22 Nothing allows the parties to simply agree to extend the vested rights doctrine to 23 24 25 8 See, footnote 7 above and Graham Neighborhood v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wash. App. 98, 116, 252 P.3d 898 (2011). ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 24 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625.9515• Fax 206.682. 1376 l anything that was overlooked or specifically omitted in order to avoid public 2 3 controversy/appeals. 4 The decision and adoption of the ordinances in question were an erroneous 5 interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of 6 a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise under RCW 36.700.130(1)(b); were not 7 supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record 8 before the court under RCW 36.700.130(1)(c); were clearly erroneous applications of 9 the law to the facts under RCW 36.700.130(1)(d) and the Jefferson County 10 11 Commissioners engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed 12 process; RCW 36.700.130(1)(a). 13 9.6. The Designation of the County Actions as a Final Land Use Decis on is Outside the Authority or Jurisdiction of the County Commissioners. 14 15 The Development Agreement states that "this Agreement constitutes a final 16 land use action pursuant to RCW 36.700.020."9 However, RCW 36.70B.200 provides 17 that "if the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the 18 provisions of chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the 19 development agreement." The definition of "project permit" in RCW 36.706.020(4) is: 20 any land use or environmental permit or license required for a project 21 action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline 22 substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals 23 required by critical area ordinances, site specific rezones authorized by the comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption or 24 25 9 Last"whereas,"page 1 of the Development Agreement. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 25 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206 682 1376 1 amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan or development 2 regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. 3 (Emphasis added.) Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 consists of the development 4 regulations which adopt new chapters 17.60-17.80 of the Jefferson County Code, and 5 which amend certain sections in Title 18. Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 approves a 6 7 development agreement which simply duplicates much of what is contained in the 8 development regulations (see Sections 8.1 through 10.3) and unlawfully allows these 9 development regulations to vest for up to 45 years. The remainder of the development 10 agreement includes contract language, such as indemnifications, clauses relating to 11 assignment, recording, etc. Therefore, the Development Agreement is not a "project 12 permit" and is not subject to appeal under chapter 36.70C RCW. 13 The County has no authority to execute agreements dictating the jurisdiction of 14 15 the superior courts with regard to appeals. See, City of Spokane v. J-R Distributors, 16 Inc., 90 Wash.2d 722, 727, 585 P.2d 784 (1978) (a municipality's police power does 17 not extend to matters of judicial practice and procedure). Even so, the 18 Petitioner/Plaintiffs have filed this Petition under LUPA in Superior Court to eliminate 19 any question of jurisdiction. 20 9. 7 Standards for Granting Relief Based on Errors Described are Met. 21 As described herein, the decision of the county to approve the Development 22 23 Agreement and Ordinance is illegal because: a) the Jefferson County Commissioners 24 failed to follow the prescribed process for approval of an MPR, b) the decision is an 25 erroneous interpretation of the law, c) the decision is not supported by evidence that is ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue.Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 26 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206.625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 substantial in light the whole record, and d) the decision is a clearly erroneous 2 3 application of the law to the facts. 4 9.8 The Court Should Grant a Stay of Proceedings While Petitioner Pursues an Appeal before the Growth Management Hearings Board. 5 As described herein, Petitioner believes that the issues herein should be heard 6 7 before the Growth Management Hearings Board rather than this court and will be filing 8 an appeal before that body shortly. The Court should enter a stay of proceedings to 9 allow >.he Growth Management Hearings Board to determine whether it has jurisdiction 10 to determine the validity of the ordinances at issue herein. 11 10. Petitioners pray for the following relief: 12 A. For an Order Invalidating Ordinance No. 03-0604-18 13 Development Regulations) and Ordinance No. 04-0604-18 (Development 14 15 Agreement); 16 B. In the alternative, for a remand of these Ordinances to the BOCC 17 or other relief consistent with RCW 36.70C.130; 18 C. In the alternative, for a determination and declaration that 19 Ordinances No. 03-0604-18 (Development Regulations) and No. 04-0604-18 20 Development Agreement) are not "land use decisions" subject to LUPA, but are 21 subject to review by the Growth Management Hearings Board; 22 23 D. Enter a stay of proceedings in this matter while Petitioner 24 proceeds with an appeal of ordinances in question before the Growth Management 25 Hearings Board. ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue.Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION - 27 Seattle,WA 98104 Tel. 206. 625.9515• Fax 206.682.1376 1 E. For the ability to conduct pretrial discovery per RCW 36.70C.120; 2 F. For an award of Petitioner's attorney fees and costs against the3 4 County; 5 G. For permission to amend this Petition to the proof; and 6 H. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 7 equitable. 8 Respectfully submitted on this/- day of June, 2018. 9 ARAMBURU&EUSTIS, LLP 10 11 12 J. (CHARD ARAMBURU, SBA# 466 13 Attorney for the Brinnon Group 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ARAMBURU & EUSTIS, LLP 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 LAND USE PETITION- 28 Seattle,WA 98104 1el.206.625.9515 Fax 206.682. 1376 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson An Ordinance Amending Jefferson County) Code Title 17 adding a Chapter and ORDINANCE NO. 03-0604-18 entitling it `Master Planned Resorts' and ) Amending Title 18 `Unified Development ) Code' regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 36.70A. et seq., the Growth Management Act("GMA")requires that counties planning under the GMA to adopt development regulations that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County,a municipal corporation of the State of Washington("the Board") constitutes the legislative body for Jefferson County the County"); and WHEREAS, the County adopted a GMA-derived comprehensive plan on August 28, 1998 via Resolution 72-98 and adopted GMA implementing regulations codified at Jefferson County Code("JCC")Title 18 on December 18, 2000; and WHEREAS,JCC Title 18 provides guidance on the process and procedures for amending the JCC; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2008 the Board approved and adopted a site-specific comprehensive plan amendment, Ordinance 01-0128-08 establishing a Master Planned Resort on 237.88 acres located on a portion of the Black Point Peninsula in the community of Brinnon, Jefferson County. The Board finding consistency with the comprehensive plan, the Brinnon Subarea Plan and with the GMA implementing regulations codified at Title 18 JCC, affirmed that the Master Planned Resort("MPR")would be"a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations;" and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 was adopted after a programmatic environmental impact statement was issued on November 27, 2007 as Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon(also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board which determined that: "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;"and WHEREAS, an appeal of the decision of the Growth Management Hearings Board ended in 2011, after it was first affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court and,then the Court of Appeals; and 1 LUP Att. A WHEREAS, Ordinance 01-0128-08 included a finding that any future site planning,building and development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR will be consistent with"all GMA-derived development regulations relating to GMA critical areas and all on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts ... will be mitigated as the MPR is implemented first through a development agreement, internal zoning map and internal zoning code, then through plat and permit review and possible issuance of permits and,with all the prior items accomplished, finally with the issuance of building permits;" and WHEREAS, all of the findings, conclusions and the conditions listed in paragraph 63 of Ordinance 01-0128-08 are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS,the purpose of this Ordinance is to specifically adopt the development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR and incorporate the record supporting code text amendments and all other related Pleasant Harbor MPR reports, findings, conclusions, items of record, internal zoning map and mitigation measures, as analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement("FSEIS")published on December 9, 2015; and WHEREAS,the Jefferson County Planning Commission("Planning Commission"), following timely and effective public notice,held a public hearing on January 6, 2016 to take public testimony and allowed the hearing record to remain open until February 3, 2016 to receive written comments on the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR development regulations published in the FSEIS; and WHEREAS, approximately 114 individual written comments were received by the Planning Commission on the environmental impact analyses, development regulations, and draft development agreement, as analyzed in the FSEIS; and WHEREAS,beginning in February 2016 and continuing until June 2016, following timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held seven deliberation meetings on the proposed development regulations as published in the FSEIS; and WHEREAS, On June 15, 2016, following timely and effective public notice and in accordance with JCC 18.45.090,the Planning Commission forwarded to the Board recommended development regulations amending JCC Title 17 and Title 18, along with associated findings and conclusions regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR zoning code; and WHEREAS, on numerous dates during 2017, Jefferson County representatives conducted government-to-government consultations with representatives of the Point No Point Treaty Council, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and the Skokomish Tribe concerning the proposed development regulations amending JCC Title 17 and Title 18; and WHEREAS, on August 14,2017 and January 18, 2018, the Board and the Planning Commission held a joint meeting that included a review and discussion of staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission recommended development regulations for Pleasant Harbor MPR; and 2 WHEREAS, on February 5,2018, the Board approved a hearing notice published on February 7, 14 and 28, 2018, setting a public hearing on April 9, 2018 on the staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission recommended development regulations for Pleasant Harbor MPR and establishing a public comment period beginning February 7,2018 accepting written public comments up and through the end of the public hearing; and WHEREAS,on April 9, 2018, following timely and effective public notice and in accordance with JCC 18.45.090, the Board held a public hearing on staff-proposed revisions to the Planning Commission recommended development regulations during which seventy-five(75)verbal comments were received and after which the Board made a motion to extend the public comment period to accept written public comments t until 4:30 pm on April 13, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Board received public testimony and began deliberations on the hearing record, including 282 pieces of written testimony and verbal testimony from 75 members of the public; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2018, following timely and effective public notice, a staff report was presented to the Board to assist the Board's deliberations that included a matrix that documented of the 282 written comments and 75 verbal comments received during the Board public comment period and based on the record, the Board gave staff direction to incorporate further refinements to the staff proposed revisions to the Planning Commissions recommended development regulations for the Pleasant Harbor MPR to improve clarity for the Board's continued deliberations; and WHEREAS, in accordance with specific conditions implementing the Pleasant Harbor MPR contained in Ordinance 01-0128-08 and in recognition of the Board's desire to establish and maintain good working relationships with area tribes and in recognition of Washington Governor's Office of Indian Affairs guidelines on government-to-government consultations between federally recognized Indian tribes and the State of Washington in order to respect the sovereign status of the parties, enhance and improve communications, and facilitate the resolution of issues, the County consulted with affected tribes seeking to substantially address and,to the maximum extent practicable resolve,tribal concerns regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR; and WHEREAS,government-to-government consultations related to the environmental review, planning, development standards and development agreement of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and tribal issues regarding usual and accustomed hunting and fishing rights and regarding tribal cultural resources go back at least as far as 1996, concerning the Brinnon Subarea Plan and have continued through to the present,the documentation of which is hereby incorporated into the record; and WHEREAS,the Board finds that opportunities provided for government-to-government consultations and for citizen participation used in the preparation of these proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 JCC are consistent with the requirements of the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs guidelines, GMA,the State Environmental Policy Act and Ordinance 01-0128-08; and 3 WHEREAS,the Board has considered and makes the findings that the proposed amendments to Titles 17 and 18 JCC are consistent with and support other comprehensive plan elements, Ordinance 01-0128-08 and/or development regulations, and will correct certain deficiencies and insert desirable changes to development regulations; and WHEREAS,the Board finds that it is in the best interest of the public health, welfare, and safety to enact the proposed amendments to Titles 17 and 18 JCC. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained: Section 1. Adoption of the Record and Supporting Code Text Amendments. The preceding Whereas" statements are hereby adopted as findings, and the record supporting code text amendments and all other related Pleasant Harbor MPR reports, findings, conclusions, items of record, internal zoning map and mitigation measures, as analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement("FSEIS")published on December 9, 2015, are hereby incorporated, and the Pleasant Harbor MPR internal zoning code is hereby adopted as follows. Section 2. Amendment to Jefferson County Code. JCC Title 17 "Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort"is changed to "Master Planned Resorts," an Article heading titled"Article I Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort"is inserted before Chapter 17.05 "General Provisions"to encompass Chapters 17.05-17.50;the Code Reviser is instructed to find within Article I Chapters 17.05- 17.50 all references to "this title" and replace that term with"this article," and all references to MPR code" and replace that term with"Port Ludlow MPR code;" and a new Article titled Article II Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort"is added to Title 17 as set forth in Attachment 1 and incorporated herein and by this reference is hereby adopted. Section 3. Amendment to Jefferson County Code. JCC Title 18 "Unified Development Code" Sections 18.15.025"Master planned resort," 18.15.115 "Designation," 18.15.120"Purpose and intent," 18. 15.123 "Allowable uses," 18.15.126 "Requirements for master planned resorts," 18. 15.129 "Application requirements and approval process," 18.15.132 "Decision-making authority," 18. 15.135 "Criteria for approval,"and 18. 15.138 "Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort" are amended as set forth in Attachment 2 and incorporated herein and by this reference are hereby adopted. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption. Section 5. Explicit Action. Should any amendment to JCC Title 17 and Title 18 that was passed by the Board during its deliberations be inadvertently left out upon publication,the explicit action of the Board as discussed and passed shall prevail upon subsequent review and verification by the Board. Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person, entity, or circumstance is for any reason held invalid,the remainder of the ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons, entities,or circumstance,is not affected. 4 APPROd-ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 2018. C.. M4, 4 kr'_ • 'J JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF s COMMISSI• RS a/ David Sullivan, Chair ji,,s:.!...".-11 ; S i j 4.,,,, l' XeA'c ". .), \-. s • A Aft . • a / i•Q'°'' . ` Kathlee Member 4' allC 71 te r Carolyn away I Kate Dean, Member Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form only: O• /< 6/Y/ e Philip C. Hunsucker Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 5 Attachment 1. Title 17 MASTER PLANNED RESORTS Article II Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Chapters 17.60-17.80 Chapter 17.60 General Provisions 17.60.010 Authority. This Article is adopted pursuant to Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW, and Title 18 JCC. 17.60.020 Title. The regulations set forth in this Article shall be known as the"Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Code"or by the short title"Pleasant Harbor MPR Code." Citations to these regulations shall be made using the applicable JCC section number. 17.60.030 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the Pleasant Harbor MPR code is to set forth development regulations that are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future development within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort("MPR"). The Pleasant Harbor MPR provides a mixture of visitor-oriented transient accommodations, secondary homes, recreational facilities, and supporting commercial facilities. 17.60.040 Master Plan. For the purposes of this Article, the Master Plan for future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR consists of: the regulations set forth in this Article, along with: the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; the conditions and requirements published in two environmental impact statements,the November 27,2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon(also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort, and the December 2015 Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Impact Statement, including maps,mitigation measures,phasing plan; and any Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer. 17.60.050 Applicability. The provisions of this Article shall apply to all regulated land use or development activity and siting of infrastructure including over water or in-water work to be conducted within the boundary of the Pleasant Harbor MPR as depicted on the official land use map for Jefferson County, Washington. 1- 17.60.060 Requirements. In addition to the requirements of this Article,the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code, as currently enacted or as hereafter amended or as may be vested, shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must also comply with the applicable development standards and requirements of: 1) Conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; 2) The mitigation measures required in the November 27, 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon(also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort( 2007 FEIS),and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort,Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS); and 3) The terms and conditions of any Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the Developer. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this Article and other applicable code provisions, applicable mitigation measures, or applicable provisions of a Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer,the more restrictive shall apply. 17.60.070 Resort Cap and Residential Use Restrictions. Pursuant to Ordinance 01-0128-8-08, the Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of up to 890 residential units provided, however, short-term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units shall constitute not less than 65 percent of the total units including,but not limited to hotels, motels, lodges, and any residential uses allowed under each zone. Short-term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units shall be construed to mean occupancies equal to or less than 30 days. The Pleasant Harbor MPR in total shall have a development cap of 56,608 square feet of resort commercial,retail, restaurant, and conference space. 17.60.080 Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Section 18.20.260 of the Jefferson County Code, as currently enacted or as hereafter amended, applies to all existing nonconforming uses or structures in all zones of the MPR. 17.60.090 Reserved. 17.60.100 Exemptions. The exemptions contained in Chapter 15.05 of the Jefferson County Code, as currently enacted or as hereafter amended, apply in all zones of the MPR. 17.60.110 Enforcement. 2- The enforcement provisions codified in Chapter 18.50 Enforcement of Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code, as currently enacted or as hereafter amended, shall apply to any alleged violation of Title 17, Article II,more commonly known as the"Pleasant Harbor MPR Code." Chapter 17.65 Golf Resort(MPR-GR Zone) 17.65.010 Purpose. The MPR-GR zone allows residential and recreational facilities, as well as commercial amenities and services associated with the resort and surrounding community. 17.65.020 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the MPR-GR zone: 1) Residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, lofts, villas, time-share and other fractionally owned accommodations, short-term visitor accommodation units and short-term rental units with occupancies equal to or less than 30 days. 2) Visitor oriented amenities, including,but not limited to: a) Conference and meeting facilities; b) Restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, pubs,taverns and entertainment associated with such uses; c) On-site retail services and businesses typically found in destination resorts and designed to serve the convenience needs of users and employees of master planned resort; and d) Recreation business and facilities; 3) Cultural and informational facilities of all kinds including, but not limited to, interpretative displays of local Native American ties to and uses of the area, art galleries, and indoor or outdoor theaters; 4) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities, including but not limited to tennis courts, swimming pools, spa services,hiking trails,bicycle paths,ropes courses, amphitheater, and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resort; 5) New public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10.160,but only as a conditional use if not part of a platting, development review process or one-time expansion; and 6) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of this zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development. 3- 17.65.030 Height restrictions. No buildings within the MPR-GR zone shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by IBC standards except with approval of the director of the Department of Community Development and the local Fire District. Underground or embedded parking shall not be included in any height calculations. 17.65.040 Setback requirements. 1) All structures shall be set back at least 20 feet from the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary lines and adjacent MPR zones. Minimum building setback from State Route 101 right-of- way is 35 feet. Minimum setback from Black Point Road right-of-way is 20 feet. 2) All buildings not attached or having common walls shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet,as measured from foundation to foundation. 17.65.050 Critical Areas. All provisions of existing Jefferson County Code regarding critical areas and their buffers apply, and wetland buffers once determined are to be placed in a permanent conservation easement. Chapter 17.70 Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR) 17.70.010 Purpose. The purpose of the MPR-OSR zone is to provide for a non-clearing permanently forested native vegetation buffer between the resort development and the waters of Hood Canal. The MPR-OSR zone shall extend landward as measured 200 feet horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal as measured in accordance with local and state code. Buffers and setbacks as required under this Article or under Title 18 Jefferson County Code apply to the MPR-OSR zone. Chapter 17.75 Marina-Maritime Village (MPR-MV) 17.75.010 Purpose. The MPR-MV zone provides mixed use amenities and services associated with the marina and maritime village portion of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and surrounding community, and provides support to the marina operations. 17.75.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the MPR-MV zone: 1) Marina as approved through the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program and associated regulations Chapter 18.25 JCC; 2) Residential uses including single-family and multifamily structures, condominiums,time- share and fractionally owned accommodations of all kinds, short-term visitor 4- accommodation units and short-term rental units with occupancies equal to or less than 30 days; 3) The Marina and Maritime Village related upland mixed use, commercial and service facilities, including open parking lots,restaurants and shops, as well as marine service facilities, marina office, yacht club and recreation facilities serving the resort and the Marina; 4) Accessory uses and structures, such as garages, carports, storage buildings and similar structures supporting marina and maritime village uses, fuel service and parking; 5) Indoor and outdoor resort-related recreational facilities, including but not limited to tennis courts, swimming pools, marinas,hiking trails,bicycle paths,ropes courses, game center and other recreational uses consistent with the nature of master planned resort; 6) New public facilities and services as defined in JCC 18.10.160,but only as a conditional use if not part of a platting, development review process or one-time expansion; and, 7) Other similar uses consistent with the purpose of the zone and MPR as determined by the Department of Community Development and consistent with 18.25 JCC. 17.75.030 Prohibited Uses. Float planes and float plane docks are prohibited. Aerial access is limited to helicopters for emergency purposes only. 17.75.040 Height restrictions. No buildings within the MPR-MV zone shall be erected, enlarged or structurally modified to exceed 35 feet in height as measured by IBC standards except with approval of the director of the Department of Community Development and the local Fire District. Underground or embedded parking shall not be included in any height calculations. 17.75.050 Setback requirements. 1) Minimum building setback from Highway 101 right-of-way shall be 35 feet. Minimum building setback from Black Point Road right-of-way shall be 20 feet. 2) All new structures located within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with the setback requirements of Jefferson County's Shoreline Master Program as codified under JCC 18.25. 5- Chapter 17.80 Pleasant Harbor Resort Development 17.80.010 Resort development. This chapter describes development and operations mitigation measures for facilities located in the Pleasant Harbor MPR, consistent with the"Master Plan"defined by 17.60.040, describes how SEPA is used, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the Master Plan. These provisions apply to all development and operations within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. 17.80.020 Required Mitigation Measures During Development and Operations. The mitigation measures required in the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort), Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS), and the terms and conditions of the Ordinance 01-0128-08 and the mitigation measures contained in the Development Agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the Developer are required for the Pleasant Harbor-MPR.Listed for reference are those mitigation measures,which include but are not limited to: 1) Shoreline Mitigation: The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal will be put into a permanent conservation easement from the ordinary high water mark to 200 feet landward. Property ownership and responsibility for the permanent conservation easement shall be set forth in any development agreement. 2) Water Quality Mitigation: a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be required to perform water quality monitoring and to supply that data from the state water quality sampling station and other stations in Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to Jefferson County. b) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall comply with a County-approved comprehensive water quality monitoring plan requiring at least monthly water collection and testing developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve,paid for by the Pleasant Harbor MPR that will include regular off-site sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring regime. c) In the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, Jefferson County shall consult with the owners and operators of the resort, the local residents, and the State (both Washington State Department of Health and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)concerning the source of the change. d) Pertinent permits for the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor MPR. 6- 3) Marina Mitigation: a) As a condition for permitting, all stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated to the most current edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington before discharge. b) There shall be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina. c) Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times. d) Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the marina. e) The Project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines. f) The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel at any time. g) The marina shall develop and manage an active boater education program appropriate to the marina setting to supplement any Jefferson County program developed as part of the shellfish protection district. h) New or significant expansions to existing fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats,docks, piers, and storage lockers. No storage of oily rags, open paints, or other flammable or environmentally hazardous materials except emergency equipment as approved in the Emergency Service MOU shall be permitted on the docks. j) Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be limited to minor repairs when in the water,which do not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor. k) Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier that prevents debris from entering the marine waters. 1) Shellfish harvesting notices and information will be available at the resort at specific locations, such as the marina, Maritime Village and at the Conference Center. m) The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements consistent with Jefferson County's Shellfish Protection Plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan. n) The marina operations shall collect water quality data(from State sources so long as available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate 7- with Jefferson County in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize,and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or Maritime Village. o) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with Jefferson 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. 4) Golf Course Mitigation: a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall ensure that golf course operations comply with the best practice standards of the King County Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation (1993), or their substantial equivalent, including,but not limited to, American Golf Association standards. b) The golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by Jefferson County,as a result of the water quality monitoring program required by JCC 17.080.020(2)and any changes caused by the resort operations. c) 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 shall be used. d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall implement as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of the golf course a requirement to maintain a log of fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides used on the Pleasant Harbor MPR site,and this information shall be made available to the public. 5) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall collaborate at least annually with the Climate Action Committee or its successor to calculate greenhouse gas emissions GHGs)associated with the Pleasant Harbor MPR,and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods. 6) Blending of Buildings, Light Mitigation, Greenbelts and Buffer Management: a) In keeping with an 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 they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like green belts between buildings. b) Construction of buildings within the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundaries shall strive 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 8- 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. c) All development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall, at its expense, incur all costs for stewardship of the conservation easements including but not limited to removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101. 17.80.030 SEPA Compliance Required. 1) Compliance with JCC Title 18, inclusive of all SEPA implementation policies and procedures is required. 2) Use of Prior Environmental Impact Statements. a) Potential environmental impacts from future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR have been assessed and addressed in prior environmental documents. The prior reviews were published in the following documents: i. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort(September 5, 2007) (DEIS); ii. Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007)(FEIS); iii. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort November 19,2014 (DSEIS); iv. Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (FSEIS). b) The DEIS,FEIS,DSEIS and FSEIS are referred to collectively as the"Prior EISs." Development shall substantially comply with the express mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the Prior EISs. c) The Prior EISs shall constitute compliance to the fullest extent possible under SEPA, as well as Condition 63(b) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all subsequent approvals or permits to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR including,but not limited to, plats, short plats, binding site plans, boundary line adjustments, development permits,grading permits and building permits for development and impacts that are consistent with the level and range analyzed in the Prior EISs. Upon compliance with the mitigation measures required by the Prior EISs, and compliance with 9- applicable regulations and compliance with any Development Agreement between Jefferson County and the Developer, no additional substantive SEPA mitigation measures are required for approvals or permits that authorize development, provided the development and its impacts are consistent with level and range of development analyzed in the Prior EISs. d) Additional environmental analysis may be required for a new or modified proposal that materially exceeds the level and range of development and impacts reviewed in the Prior EISs. For any such new or modified proposal, relevant information from Prior EISs shall be used to the fullest extent possible in future SEPA review. The scope of environmental review shall be limited to considering how or whether the proposal differs from or exceeds the scope of the Prior EISs and if so, whether such modification results in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the Prior EISs. 17.80.040 Revisions to Master Plan. 1) Any proposed revision of size or scope to the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary or zone changes within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and related zoning action. Such changes are outside the scope of the revision processes described below and in JCC 17.80.050 and 17.80.060. Jefferson County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act(Chapter 36.70A RCW)are fulfilled. 2) Jefferson County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent with the Master Plan. A revision to the existing Master Plan shall be submitted to Jefferson County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the Master Plan set forth in this Article. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent with the revised Master Plan and development regulations. 3) Proposed revisions to the Master Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development(DCD) and the DCD director will determine whether the proposal constitutes a major or minor revision. Upon making a determination,the proposed revision shall follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in JCC 17.80.050 and 17.80.060. 17.80.050 Minor revisions. 1) Minor Revisions. The Master Plan may require minor changes to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand. Minor revisions are those that do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the Master Plan and do not have a significantly great impact on the environment than that addressed in previous environmental documents. The following nonexclusive list of changes are examples of a minor revision for purposes of this section: a) An increase in the overall gross commercial square footage of the Master Plan that does not cumulatively exceed five(5)percent; 10- b) Addition of uses that do not modify the recreational nature and intent of the resort. c) Minor shifting of the location or orientation of buildings; d) Minor shifting of the location or orientation of parking areas; e) Minor changes to landscaping; f) Minor shifting of the location, design or orientation of public facilities; and g) Timing of approved development. A change to the Master Plan not specifically identified above may still qualify as a minor revision under this section despite its failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions(a) through(g) of this section if not specifically mentioned above if the change does not otherwise qualify as a major revision. 2) Minor Revision Approval Process. Applications for minor revisions shall be submitted to, and reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development(DCD) to determine if the revisions are consistent with the existing Master Plan, the 2007 FEIS,the 2015 FSEIS, subsequent environmental impact statements,the Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance 01-0128-08, and other pertinent documents. Those proposals that satisfy the above-referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be administratively approved(as a Type II decision under the land use procedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Development Code)by the director of the department of community development. Public notice of the application, the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons or agencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Development Code. Those revisions that do not comply with the provisions contained within this section shall be deemed a major revision, subject to the provisions outlined in JCC 17.80.060. 17.80.060 Major revisions. Revisions to the Master Plan that will result in a substantial change to the resort including: changes in use, increase in the intensity of use, or in the size, scale,or density of development; or changes which may have substantial impacts on the environment beyond those reviewed in previous environmental documents, are major revisions and will require application for a revised Master Plan. 1) Application for a Major Revision to the Master Plan. An application shall be prepared describing the proposed revision in relation to the approved Master Plan and providing a framework for review, analysis and mitigation of the revised development activity proposed. The Master Plan revision proposal shall include the following information: a) A description of how the revised Master Plan would further the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; 11- b) A description of how the Master Plan revision complements the existing resort facilities of the Pleasant Harbor MPR; c) A description of the design and functional features of the Master Plan revision, setting out how the revision provides for unified development, integrated site design and protection of natural amenities; d) A listing of proposed additional uses and/or proposed changes to density and intensity of uses within the resort, and a discussion of how these changes meet the needs of residents of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and patrons of the resort; e) A completed SEPA environmental checklist with description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision, including an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the proposed revision and the approved Master Plan, and their effects on surrounding properties and/or public facilities; f) A description of how the proposed Master Plan revision is integrated with the overall Pleasant Harbor MPR and any features, such as connections to trail systems, natural systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the character of the resort and the overall Pleasant Harbor MPR; g) A description of the intended phasing of development projects; h) Maps, drawings, illustrations, or other materials necessary to assist in understanding and visualizing the design and use of the completed proposed development, its facilities and services, and the protection of critical areas; i) A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not limited to transportation,water, sewer and stormwater facilities; and a demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for; and j) A description of how the proposed major revision may affect the Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) as identified in the Development Regulations or Ordinance 01-0128-08. 2) Major Revision Process. Major revisions shall be processed as a hearing examiner decision(Type III), with a required public hearing prior to the decision. Public notice of the application,the required public hearing,the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons or agencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Chapter 18.40 Article III, Unified Development Code. Any proposed major revision also involving a change to the boundaries of the MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment(a Type V county commissioners decision)prior to any decision on the Master Plan amendment. 12- 3) Decision Criteria. The hearing examiner may approve a major revision to the Master Plan, and the Board of County Commissioners may approve any associated Comprehensive Plan Amendments,only if all the following criteria are met: a) The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; b) No unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts would be created by the proposed revision; c) The revision is consistent with all applicable development regulations,including those established for critical areas; d) On-site and off-site infrastructure(including but not limited to water, sewer, storm water and transportation facilities)impacts have been fully considered and mitigated; and e) The proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities, meets the needs of residents and patrons, and provides for unified development, integrated site design, and protection of natural amenities. Chapter 17.85 Limitation of Permit Approval, Extinguishment and Severability 17.85.010 Limitation of permit approval. 1) An MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the applicant fails to meet the conditions in the approved phasing plan. a) A new development plan shall be required for any development on the subject property. b) Specific development activities shall be subject to the standards of the approved MPR and the regulations in effect at the time of development permit application. 2) This section is not an exclusive basis for enforcement. All other bases for enforcement apply. 17.85.020 Severability. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Article or amendment thereto, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,the remainder or application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. 13- Attachment 2. Title 18 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 18.15 Land Use Districts 18.15.025 Master planned resort. Per RCW 36.70A.360, a new master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrateddevelopmentwithprimaryfocuson 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. 1) Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort(MPR). The firstonly existing officially designated master planned resort in the-eountyJefferson County is the Port Ludlow MPR, which is designated in accordance with RCW 36.70A.362 as an existing master planned resort and is subject to the provisions of JCC Title 17. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is characterized by both single-family and multifamily residential units with attendant recreational facilities including a marina,resort and convention center. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow also includes a large residential community. The entire resort is served by a village commercial center, which accommodates uses limited to 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. 2) ''leasant Harbor MPR. Pleasant Harbor MPR is the second officially designated master planned resort in Jefferson 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. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is characterized by resort and recreation facilities and amenities south of Black Point Road and a marina/Maritime Village 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 by 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. 18.15.115 Designation. Master planned resort" (MPR)is a land use designation established under the Comprehensive Plan. The only-existing officially designated master planned resorts in the-seuntyJefferson County are is the Port Ludlow MPR,and the Pleasant Harbor MPR, provisions for which are 14- codified in JCC Title 17. The Port Ludlow MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.362 regarding designation of existing master planned resorts. Pleasant Harbor MPR is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 pertaining to new Master Planned Resorts. Designation of any new master planned resorts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 requires compliance with the provisions of this article and a formal site-specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map subject to the findings required by JCC 18.45.080. 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. 18.15.123 Allowable uses. The folowing 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 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; 15- c) On-site retail businesses and services which are designed to serve the needs of the users such as gas stations, espresso stands,beauty salons and spas, gift shops, art galleries, food stores,real estate/property management offices; and d) Recreation-oriented businesses and facilities such as sporting goods and outdoor equipment rental and sales. 6) Cultural and educational facilities, including,but not limited to, interpretative centers and exhibits, indoor and outdoor theaters, and museums. 7) Capital facilities,utilities and services to the extent necessary to maintain and operate the master planned resort. 8) Temporary and/or permanent structures to serve as sales offices. 9) Any other similar uses deemed by the administrator to be consistent with the purpose and intent of this section,the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding master planned resorts, and RCW 36.70A.360. 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 16- space,recreational facilities,road and parking design, capital facilities, and other components are integrated into the project site. f) A description of the environmentally sensitive areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, a description and supportive materials or maps indicating proposed public access to the shoreline area pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program. g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the development and adjacent to the development. h) A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or desirable for the support of the development will be available,and that concurrency requirements of the Comprehensive Plan will be met. i) A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any. The initial application for an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate successfully and meet its environmental protection, concurrency, and other commitments should development cease before all phases are completed. 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). 17- 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 theceantyJefferson County. The Comprehensive Plan amendment or subarea plan may be processed by the-seyJefferson County concurrent with the review of the resort master plan and development agreement required for approval of a master planned resort. 4) Planned Actions. If deemed appropriate by the applicant and the•seuntyJefferson County, a master planned resort project may be designated by he-eountyJefferson County as a planned action pursuant to the provisions of RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168. 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. 18.15.129 Application requirements and approval process. New MPR applications shall be processed as Type V permits under this UDC, requiring legislative approval by the board of county commissioners and the following: 1) A draft of the master plan shall be prepared to meet the requirements of JCC 18.15.126(1). 2) A request for authorization of a development agreement,pursuant to the requirements of JCC 18. 15.126(2) and Article XI of Chapter 18.40 JCC (Development Agreements). 3) A request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment necessary to meet the requirement of JCC 18.15.126(3) and 18.45.040. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] 18.15.132 Decision-making authority. 1) The planning commission, pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040 and 18.45.080, shall hear and make recommendations on master plans and site-specific applications for MPR land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 2) The board of county commissioners,pursuant to its authority specified under JCC 18.40.040, 18.40.850(5) and 18.45.080, shall designate new master planned resort land use districts on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, approve the uses, densities, conditions and standards authorized for site-specific MPRs in a development agreement, and approve master plans. 18- 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)). 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-cJefferson County. 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. 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. 5)he 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. 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. 7) All on-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts have been fully considered and mitigated. 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. 9) The master plan establishes location-specific standards to retain and enhance the character of the resort. 10) The land proposed for a master planned resort is better suited and has more long-term importance for the MPR than for the commercial harvesting of timber or production of agricultural products, and the MPR will not adversely affect adjacent agricultural or forest resource land production. [Ord. 8-06 § 1] 18.15.138 FAA-Ludlow Master Planned Resort. 19- Title l 7Pert-budlew Master Planned Resorts of the Jefferson County Code, as may be amended, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this UDC. 20- STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson In the Matter of Adopting a Development ) Agreement for the Pleasant Harbor Master)) ORDINANCE NO. 04-0604-18 Planned Resort WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington("the Board") constitutes the legislative body for Jefferson County the County"); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 36.70B.170-.210 to strengthen the land use planning process and reduce the costs of development by authorizing the County to enter into an agreement with a landowner regarding the development of its real property located within the County's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS,Jefferson County Code ("JCC")Title 18 provides guidance on the process and procedures for entering into development agreements; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2008 the Board approved and adopted a site-specific comprehensive plan amendment, Ordinance 01-0128-08 establishing a Master Planned Resort on 237.88 acres located on a portion of the Black Point Peninsula in the community of Brinnon, Jefferson County. The Board finding consistency with the comprehensive plan, the Brinnon Subarea Plan and with the GMA implementing regulations codified at Title 18 JCC, affirmed that the Master Planned Resort("MPR") would be "a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations;"and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 was adopted after a programmatic environmental impact statement was issued on November 27, 2007 as Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Brinnon(also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Master Planned Resort; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08 was appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board which determined that: "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;"and WHEREAS, an appeal of the decision of the Growth Management Hearings Board ended in 2011, after it was first affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court and, then the Court of Appeals; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 01-0128-08 included a finding that any future site planning, building and development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR will be consistent with"all GMA-derived development regulations relating to GMA critical areas and all on-site and off-site infrastructure 1 LU P Att. B1 and service impacts ... will be mitigated as the MPR is implemented first through a development agreement, internal zoning map and internal zoning code,then through plat and permit review and possible issuance of permits and, with all the prior items accomplished, finally with the issuance of building permits;"and WHEREAS,all of the findings,conclusions and the conditions listed in paragraph 63 of Ordinance 01-0128-08 are incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2018, the Board approved a hearing notice published on February 7, 14 and 28, 2018, setting a public hearing on April 9, 2018 on the staff proposed revisions to Planning Commission recommended development regulations for Pleasant Harbor MPR and establishing a public comment period beginning February 7, 2018 accepting written public comments up and through the end of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 9,2018, following timely and effective public notice and in accordance with JCC 18.45.090,the Board held a public hearing on staff-proposed revisions to the Planning Commission recommended development regulations during which seventy-five(75)verbal comments were received and after which the Board made a motion to extend the public comment period to accept written public comments until 4:30 pm on April 13, 2018; and WHEREAS,the Board received public testimony and began deliberations on the hearing record, including 282 pieces of written testimony and verbal testimony from 75 members of the public; and WHER ETAS,on May 21, 2018, following timely and effective public notice, a staff report was presented to the Board to assist the Board's deliberations that included a matrix that documented the 282 written comments and 75 verbal comments received during the Board public comment period and based on the record, the Board gave staff direction to negotiate with the developer on specific issues outlined in the staff report; and WHEREAS, in consideration of tribal consultations, public comments and testimony, negotiations with the developer resulted in improvements to the development agreement as follows: 1. The Term of the Development Agreement. The developer agreed to a maximum 45-year term, or 5 years after the build out is complete, whichever is sooner. This addresses comments on the prior draft of the development agreement created a perpetual term, while giving reasonable assurances that the build out will be complete before the term of the development agreement runs out; and 2. The Wildlife Management Plan. The developer agreed to key changes that respond to comments. The changes require: a. Blinking Signs to Warn Drivers of Elk Crossings Near the MPR. The changes require that the developer pay for installation of signs with blinking lights on Highway 101. similar to those in Sequim), at either end of the MPR,that would be triggered when 2 elks who have collars that turn on the lights pass nearby. The developer also agreed to provide $10,000 to reimburse WDFW for collars and other parts of the system; and b. An Elk Exclusion Fence. The changes require installation by the developer of an elk exclusion fence on the West side of the MPR, in consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and affected tribes prior to fence construction; and c. Non-Lethal Removal of Wildlife. The changes require that wildlife that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety. This was another key recommendation received in public comments. 3. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan was revised to provide a mechanism to require investigation and remediation of any chemicals and fecal coliform that might be released from the MPR, after detection in the sentinel wells. This is responsive to public comments regarding the need for a specific action plan in the event of a polluting activity originating from the MPR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with specific conditions implementing the Pleasant Harbor MPR contained in Ordinance 01-0128-08 and in recognition of the Board's desire to establish and maintain good working relationships with area tribes and in recognition of Washington Governor's Office of Indian Affairs guidelines on government-to-government consultations between federally recognized Indian tribes and the State of Washington in order to respect the sovereign status of the parties, enhance and improve communications, and facilitate the resoluti)n of issues, the County consulted with affected tribes seeking to substantially address and, to the maximum extent practicable, resolve tribal concerns regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR; and WHEREAS, government-to-government consultations related to the environmental review, planning, development standards and development agreement of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and tribal issues regarding usual and accustomed hunting and fishing rights and regarding tribal cultural resources go back at least as far as 1996, concerning the Brinnon Subarea Plan and have continued through to the present,the documentation of which is hereby incorporated into the record; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that opportunities provided for government-to-government consultations and for citizen participation used in the preparation of these proposed amendments to Title 17 and 18 JCC are consistent with the requirements of the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs guidelines, GMA,the State Environmental Policy Act and Ordinance 01-0128-08; and WHEREAS, the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort, LLC ("Developer") is the owner of real property consisting of approximately 237.88 acres located within the Black Point Peninsula in Brinnon, Washington, and proposes to establish a development there as a master planned resort; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to specifically adopt the Pleasant Harbor MPR development agreement and incorporate the record supporting all other related Pleasant Harbor 3 MPR reports, findings, conclusions, items of record, internal zoning map and mitigation measures, as analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement("FSEIS") published on December 9, 2015, and the June 4, 2018 development regulations; and WHEREAS, the development agreement is the best vehicle to substantially address and, to the maximum extent practicable resolve,tribal concerns regarding the Pleasant Harbor MPR; and WHEREAS, the development agreement contains 31 separate attachments necessary to comply with state law,the JCC and, Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that it is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety to enter into the development agreement. NOW THEREFORE be it ordained: Approval of Development Agreement The Development Agreement is approved and the Board is authorized to sign it on behalf of the County. Effective Date This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption. C g • APPROVED and ADOPTED this4-• day of 1 t 042— ,2018,1 p, A "1; JEFFERSON CO ' TY BOARD OF 4.1 COMMISSIO' .1 Gay • j David Su ivan,Chair 4<see/L Kathleen 1 r,Member 4E," AL Carol Gallaway Kate Dean, ember Deputy Clerk of the Board' Approved as to form only: Vi c./L4 ØJe Philip C. Hunsucker Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF MASTER PLANNED RESORT LUP Att. B2 Dev.Agr. w/o 1 appendices Table of Contents DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1 1 RECITALS. 1 2 EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND BUILD-OUT PERIOD.2 2.1 Effective Date. 2 2.2 Term. 2 2.3 Build-Out Period. 2 2.4 Modification 2 2.5 Exhibits and Appendices 2 3 THE PROPERTY AND THE MASTER PLAN. 2 3.1 The Property Description. 2 3.2 The Master Plan Components. 2 4 NATIVE AMERICAN TREATY RIGHTS. 3 4.1 Protection of Native American Treaty Rights 3 4.1.1 Protection of Fishing Rights. 3 4.1.2 Protection of Hunting Rights. 3 4.2 Preservation of Native American Treaty Rights. 3 5 RECOGNITION OF AREAS WITH CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. 3 6 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY 4 6.1 Recognition of Significant Nearby Natural Resources. 4 6.2 Developer's Agreement to Address Impacts of the Pleasant Harbor MPR on Nearby Natural Resources.4 7 RESERVATION OF POLICE POWER OF THE COUNTY 4 7.1 Police Power. 4 7.2 Reservation of County Authority. 4 8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.5 8.1 Permitted Uses and Density Standards; Zoning 5 8.2 Planning Goals and Objectives. 5 8.3 Stormwater Standards. 5 8. 3.1 Stormwater Subject to Best Management Practices and the County's Stormwater Management Requirements. 5 8. 3.2 Stormwater Management in Public Roads, Rights-of-Way and Easements5 8.3.3 Stormwater Management in Private Rights-of-Ways 5 8.4 Critical Area Standards 5 8.5 Land Division Standards 6 8.6 Shoreline Master Program 6 8.7 Additional Development Standards. 6 8.8 Compliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08. 6 8.8.1 Condition 63(e). 6 8. 8.2 Condition 63(f) 6 8. 8.3 Condition 63(k). 6 8. 8.4 Condition 63(1) 7 8.8.5 Condition 63(p). 7 8.8.6 Condition 63(r) 7 8. 8.7 Condition 63(s). 7 8.8.8 Condition 63(t) 8 8.8. 9 Condition 63(x). 8 8.8.10 Condition 63(z). 8 8.9 The Pleasant Harbor MPR Water Service 8 8.10 The Pleasant Harbor MPR Wastewater Treatment Plan 8 8.I 1 Memoranda of Understanding. 8 8. 11.1 School Services Mitigation. 9 8.11.2 Fire and EMS Services Mitigation 9 8.1 1.3 Law Enforcement Services Mitigation. 9 8.11.4 Transportation Services Mitigation 9 8.1 1.5 Healthcare Services Mitigation. 9 8.11.6 Housing Mitigation.9 8.11.7 Parks and Recreation Mitigation 10 8.1 1.8 MOUs Satisfy Condition 63(c) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 10 9 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER MITIGATION BY COUNTY. 10 9.1 County Processing and Review 10 9.2 SEPA Compliance 10 9.2.1 Environmental Impact Statement 10 9.2. 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 11 9. 2.3 Substantial Compliance with Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements Required. 11 9.2.4 Future SEPA Review for Individual Projects. 11 9.3 Vesting of Development Standards 12 3 9.3.1 Scope of Vesting. 12 9.3.2 Vesting Period 12 9.3. 3 Default Standards and Requirements 12 9.3.4 State and Federal Law 12 9.3. 5 Building Codes 12 10 PHASING. 13 10.1 Phasing Plan.13 10.1. 1 Phases Proposed 13 10.1.2 Requirement of Adequate Infrastructure, Open Space, Recreational Facilities, Landscaping and Other Conditions Sufficient for Each Phase to Stand Alone.13 10.1.3 Phase 1. 13 10.1.4 Phase 2. 13 10.1.5 Phase 3. 14 10.2 Preliminary Facilities. 14 10.2.1 Water System. 14 10.2. 2 Wastewater Treatment System.14 10.2.3 Road Network. 14 10.2.4 Landscaping. 14 10.2.5 Parking. 14 10.2.6 County Approval of Preliminary Facilities Required. 14 10.3 Public Amenities and Access. 15 11 INDEMNITY. 15 11.1 Indemnified Claims. 15 11.2 The Developer's Obligations. 15 11.2.1 Scope 15 11.2.2 No Waiver of RCW 4.96.020 by the Developer. 16 11.2.3 Cooperation 16 11.2.4 Best Efforts to Obtain Release of the County. 16 11.2.5 Claims against Both the County and the Developer. 16 11.2. 6 The Developer is the Real Party in Interest.16 11.3 The County's Obligations. 16 11.3.1 Notice. 16 11.3.2 Cooperation.17 11.3.3 Consent to Counsel Selected by the Developer. 17 4 11.4 Limitations. 17 II.4.1 No Indemnity for Claims Other than Indemnified Claims. 17 11.4.2 Claims Based on Comparative Fault 17 12 GENERAL PROVISIONS.17 12.1 Governing Law. 17 12.2 Binding on Successors. 18 12.3 Assignment 18 12.3.1 Right to Transfer, Consent of the County Not Required.18 12.3.2 Obligations of the Developer and Transferee under this Agreement.18 12.4 Release of the Developer's Liability by Assignment 18 12.4.1 Transfer and Assumption of All Obligations Under this Agreement Required 18 12.4.2 Results of Effective Assignment 18 12.4.3 Effect of Partial Assignment. 19 12.5 Recording as a Covenant Running with the Land 19 12.6 Release as to Residential Development. 19 12.7 Severability. 19 12.8 Amendment. 19 12.9 Headings 19 12.10 Dispute Resolution. 20 12.11 Default and Remedies. 20 12. 12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. 21 12.13 Construction.21 12.14 Signature in Counterparts 21 12.15 Notice.21 12.16 Estoppel Certificates. 22 12.17 Cooperation.22 12.18 Voluntary Undertaking. 22 12.19 No Waiver. 22 12.20 No Private CCR Enforcement by the County. 23 12.21 Entire Agreement. 23 12.22 No Assignment 23 13 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 24 5 List of Attachments Exhibits: Exhibit 1 — Legal description of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP Property and Pleasant Harbor Marina, LLC Property Exhibit 2—Master Plan Map of the Property Exhibit 3 —Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf MPR Land Use Map (recordable version of Comprehensive Plan map) Exhibit 4—Phasing Plans Appendices: Appendix A—MPR zoning chapter, Title 17 and 18 as amended Appendix B—Stormwater Management Requirements, Chapter 18.30.070 JCC Appendix C—Critical Area Requirements, Chapter 18.22 JCC Appendix D—Land Division Requirements, Chapter 18.35 JCC Appendix E—Land Use Application Procedures Requirements, Chapter 18.40 JCC Appendix F—Shoreline Master Program Requirements, Chapter 18.25 JCC Appendix G—Additional development standards, Chapters 12.05, 12.10, and 18.30 JCC Appendix H—Water System Plan Appendix I—Wastewater Treatment Plan Appendix J—Memoranda of Understanding: 1. Schools Mitigation 2. Fire/EMS Mitigation 3. Law Enforcement Mitigation 4. Transportation Mitigation 5. Health Care Services Mitigation 6. Housing Mitigation 7. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Appendix K—Ordinance 01-0128-08 Appendix L—Vegetation Management Plan Appendix M—Conservation Easements Appendix N—Water Quality Monitoring Plan, including Amendment 1 Appendix O—Neighborhood Water Supply Program Appendix P—Wildlife Management Plan, including Amendment 1 Appendix Q—Cultural Resources Management Plan Appendix R—Tunicate Monitoring Agreement Appendix S—International Dark Sky Appendix T—LEED Narrative 6 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("this Agreement") is entered into this day of 2018, by and between PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP, a Washington limited liability partnership (referred to as "the Developer") and JEFFERSON COUNTY (the "County"), a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Washington,pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170-.210. 1 RECITALS. WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of real property consisting of approximately 237.88 acres located within the County which property is described with particularity in Exhibit 1 (the"Property"). WHEREAS, the County approved the Developer's application to designate the Property as a master planned resort pursuant to RCW 36.70A.360 in the County Comprehensive Plan to allow for resort-related development including, but not limited to, a golf course and other on-site indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, conference center, resort-related commercial uses, long-term and short-term residential units not to exceed 890 units, and open space ("the Pleasant Harbor MPR"). WHEREAS, buildout of the Property is expected to occur over the next ten to twenty-five years and the Developer, the County, and members of the public at large will invest considerable time in the County permit and review process for the future buildout of the Property. WHEREAS,the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 36.70B.170-.210 to strengthen the land use planning process and reduce the costs of development by authorizing the County to enter into an agreement with a landowner regarding the development of its real property located within the County's jurisdiction. WHEREAS,the County has determined that this Agreement will facilitate orderly buildout of the Property within the Pleasant Harbor MPR and will further promote growth management and planning objectives of the County by providing certainty over time with respect to permitted densities, uses, infrastructure, development standards and other aspects of the development review process. WHEREAS,the Parties to this Agreement acknowledge the Zoning Ordinance for the Pleasant Harbor MPR is in conformance with the standards set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW and Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0128-08. WHEREAS, this Agreement constitutes a final land use action pursuant to RCW 36.70C.020. 1 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises,covenants,and provisions set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and adequacy of which consideration is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 2 EFFECTIVE DATE,TERM AND BUILD-OUT PERIOD. 2.1 Effective Date. The effective date shall be the date of the adoption of a resolution by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners ("Board of Commissioners") approving this Agreement as required by RCW 36.70B.200. 2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date to forty-five (45) years after the effective date or five(5)years after the end of the build-out period described in Section 2.3, whichever is sooner. 2.3 Build-Out Period. The build-out period for purposes of RCW 36.70B.180 shall be twenty-five (25) years from the effective date or five years after the completion of all the phases described in Section 10, whichever is later. 2.4 Modification. This Agreement may be modified, extended or terminated upon the express written agreement of the Developer and the County. 2.5 Exhibits and Appendices. Exhibits 1 through 4 and Appendices A through T are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the Exhibits and Appendices and the main body of this Agreement, the main body of this Agreement shall control. 3 THE PROPERTY AND THE MASTER PLAN. 3.1 The Property Description. The Property covered by this Agreement consists of approximately 237.88 acres and is described with particularity in Exhibit 1. 3.2 The Master Plan Components. For the purposes of this Agreement,the Master Plan for future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR consists of the development regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08, the Final 2 Environmental Impact Statement, the Final Supplemental Impact Statement, and this Agreement, inclusive of a Phasing Plan and Master Plan Map of the Property. 4 NATIVE AMERICAN TREATY RIGHTS. 4.1 Protection of Native American Treaty Rights. 4.1.1 Protection of Fishing Rights. The Pleasant Harbor MPR is located between two public beaches located at the mouths of the Duckabush and the Dosewallips Rivers which provide both commercial and ceremonial/subsistence harvest opportunities to Native American tribes (" tribes") with usual and accustomed fishing rights in the area. To protect water quality the Developer shall construct the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Stormwater Management requirements attached as Appendix B, Shoreline Master Program attached as Appendix F and Wastewater Treatment Plan attached as Appendix I. The Developer will operate the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix N and the Neighborhood Water Supply Program attached as Appendix 0. The Property sits atop a bluff above these two public beaches. Further, though located between these two public beaches, access to the public beaches on the trail from the Property has been prohibited and will continue to be prohibited permanently. 4.1.2 Protection of Hunting Rights. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe("PGST")has expressed concern that Elk hunted by the PGST in areas outside of the Property could be attracted to the Pleasant Harbor MPR once it is built out. The Developer shall implement the adaptive management measures set forth in the Wildlife Management Plan attached as Appendix P to mitigate against this concern. 4.2 Preservation of Native American Treaty Rights. The parties respect the tribal treaty rights and have modified the project and imposed mitigation measures designed, in part,to protect and preserve those rights. Nothing in this Agreement should be viewed as an attempt to curtail or expand the rights reserved to tribes under their treaties with the United States, including but not limited to the Point No Point Treaty. The Developer will continue to cooperate with tribes to protect tribal treaty rights. 5 RECOGNITION OF AREAS WITH CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. The parties and the tribes discussed the importance of kettles on the Property to the PGST's cultural history. The PGST has applied for including of any Traditional Cultural Properties on the National Register of Historic Places as of the date of this Agreement. If,prior to 3 Developer applying for a grading or building permit for the Pleasant Harbor MPR, the PGST applies for and receives a recommendation from the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that either Kettle B or C is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,the Developer shall: A) Preserve either Kettle B or C by preventing the selected kettle from being used for any stormwater storage; and, B) Consult with the PGST to arrive at a kettle management plan where the PGST would enhance the selected kettle by removing invasive vegetation and planting it with native vegetation found at the time of its use by native people, and to develop and install an educational signs that explain the significance of the kettles to native people. This provision does not restrict or otherwise prevent Developer from exercising its right to object to any application that kettles are culturally significant. 6 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY 6.1 Recognition of Significant Nearby Natural Resources. The Developer recognizes the importance of Hood Canal as a source of recreation and fishing. Protecting water quality in Hood Canal is just as important to the success of the Pleasant Harbor MPR as it is to those who use Hood Canal for recreation and subsistence. 6.2 Developer's Agreement to Address Impacts of the Pleasant Harbor MPR on Nearby Natural Resources. The Developer agrees to address demonstrated impacts of the Pleasant Harbor MPR to water quality both on-site and off-site. The Developer will construct the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Stormwater Management requirements attached as Appendix B, Shoreline Master Program attached as Appendix F and Wastewater Treatment Plan attached as Appendix I. The Developer will operate the Pleasant Harbor MPR in accord with the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix N and the Neighborhood Water Supply Program attached as Appendix 0. 7 RESERVATION OF POLICE POWER OF THE COUNTY 7.1 Police Power. The Developer understands and agrees that pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4),the execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of the County's police power. 7.2 Reservation of County Authority. The Developer understands and agrees that pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170( 4) and JCC 18.40.840(3)(d), this Agreement reserves the County's authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. 4 8 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 8.1 Permitted Uses and Density Standards; Zoning. The Master Plan,permitted land uses,and development regulations for development within the Property are set forth in chapter 17.60 of the Jefferson County Code, attached as Appendix A. Development of the Property shall not exceed 890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space and indoor and outdoor recreational spaces when completed at full build out. 8.2 Planning Goals and Objectives. The planning goals adopted by the County in the Comprehensive Plan as of the date of recording this Agreement shall be the policy guidance and the foundation for all future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. 8.3 Stormwater Standards. 8. 3.1 Stormwater Subject to Best Management Practices and the County's Stormwater Management Requirements. In all future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR the Developer shall utilize best management practices ("BMP") and be subject to the County Stormwater Management requirements, JCC 18.30.070. A copy of JCC 18.30.070 is attached in Appendix B. 8. 3.2 Stormwater Management in Public Roads, Rights-of-Way and Easements. The County shall be responsible for the management of stormwater runoff in all public roads, rights-of-way, and easements within the Pleasant Harbor MPR that have been accepted by the County for maintenance or other areas within the Pleasant Harbor MPR dedicated to the County. The Developer shall be responsible for the management of stormwater runoff in all other public areas within the Pleasant Harbor MPR as may be necessary to control stormwater runoff as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08, Condition 63(q). 8. 3.3 Stormwater Management in Private Rights-of-Ways The Developer shall be responsible for the management of stormwater runoff in all private rights-of-ways and other non-public areas such as parking lots or drainage easements, as may be necessary to control stormwater runoff as required by Ordinance 01-0128-08, Condition 63(q). 8.4 Critical Area Standards Critical areas and their associated buffers, as well as allowed uses within the critical areas of the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be determined based upon the Jefferson the County Critical Area requirements, Chapter 18.22 JCC. A copy of Chapter 18.22 JCC is attached in Appendix C. 5 8.5 Land Division Standards Platting within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be pursuant to RCW 58.17 and the County Land Division requirements, Chapter 18.35 JCC, and within the time frames adopted by the County pursuant to the 1995 Regulatory Reform Legislation, ESHB 1724 ( ch. 347, Laws of 1995), as codified in Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation, Chapter 18.40 JCC, and vested in accordance with RCW 36.70B.180. A copy of Chapter 18.35 JCC and is attached in Appendix D and a copy of Chapter 18.40 JCC is attached in Appendix E. 8.6 Shoreline Master Program All future development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be subject to the County Shoreline Master Program,Chapter 18.25 JCC. A copy of the applicable Shoreline Master Program requirements are attached as Appendix F. 8.7 Additional Development Standards. Additional Development Standards as identified in Chapters 12.05, 12.10, and 18.30 JCC shall also apply to the extent they do not conflict with the terms of this Agreement. A copy of Chapters 12.05, 12. 10, and 18.30 JCC are attached in Appendix G. 8.8 Compliance with Ordinance 01-0128-08. As conditions to designating the Property as a master planned resort per Ordinance 01- 0128-08,the County requires the Developer implement the following requirements: 8.8.1 Condition 63(e). The Developer 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. 8.8.2 Condition 63(f). The Developer shall prioritize the sourcing of materials from within Jefferson County to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Nothing in this Section 8.8.2 shall require that developer utilize materials or labor from within Jefferson County that are not of comparable price or quality to their counterparts outside of Jefferson County. 8.8.3 Condition 63(k). The Developer prepared 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, provide procedures regarding future ground disturbing activity, assure traditional tribal access to cultural properties and 6 activities, and to provide for community education opportunities. Developer shall implement the Cultural Resources Management Plan attached in Appendix Q. 8. 8.4 Condition 63(1). Developer prepared a Wildlife Management Plan focused on non-lethal strategies developed in the public interest and in consultation with the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ("WDFW") 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. Hwy 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. Developer shall implement the Wildlife Management Plan attached in Appendix P, modified by Amendment 1 attached thereto. 8.8.5 Condition 63(p). The Developer shall provide access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if salt water intrusion becomes an issue for neighboring wells on Black Point where it is proven that the Developer draw down of potable water has caused the salt water intrusion, 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 is attached in Appendix 0. The Developer will implement the Neighborhood Water Policy Plan. 8.8.6 Condition 63(r). The Developer prepared a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan specific to Pleasant Harbor requiring water collection,testing and an adaptive management program. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve,paid for by the Developer and will include regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any onsite monitoring regime. The Developer will implement the Water Quality Monitoring Plan attached in Appendix N, modified by Amendment 1 attached thereto. 8.8.7 Condition 63(s). To ensure that natural greenbelts and buffers are maintained and protected, a conservation easement attached in Appendix M will be recorded within 15 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The Developer will implement the Vegetation Management Plan attached in Appendix L. The Developer shall, prior to site disturbance, record a conservation easement protecting any wetlands and their respective buffers identified or created on the Property. 7 8.8. 8 Condition 63(t). The Developer shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding Tunicates and other invasive species. A Tunicate Agreement is attached in Appendix R. The Developer will implement the Tunicate Agreement. 8.8.9 Condition 63(x). The Developer shall use the LEED Shadowing (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." A Narrative Demonstrating Compliance with the Intent of LEED Standards is attached in Appendix T. The Developer will implement LEED Shadowing Standards, but is not required to register with LEED or obtain LEED certificates or approvals. 8. 8.10 Condition 63( z). The Developer shall use the International Dark Sky Association("IDA")Zone E-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. Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards is attached in Appendix S. The Developer will implement the Dark Sky and Energy Star Approved High Efficiency Lighting Standards. 8.9 The Pleasant Harbor MPR Water Service. Water main extensions and potable water system improvements for potable water service that may be required to serve the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be installed in conformance with the most current approved specifications and requirements as determined by the Washington State Department of Health and shall comply with the Coordinated Water System Plan("CWSP")and all other applicable laws,ordinances,rules and regulations. A copy of the applicable CWSP is attached in Appendix H. 8. 10 The Pleasant Harbor MPR Wastewater Treatment Plan. Sanitary and on-site sewer and future sewer system improvements as required to serve the Developers Property shall be installed in conformance with the most current approved specifications and requirements of the Washington State Department of Health, Washington State Department of Ecology and the County Department of Public Health and all other applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. 8.11 Memoranda of Understanding. As a condition to designating the Property as a master planned resort,the County required that the Developer negotiate memoranda of understanding or memoranda of agreement to 8 provide needed support for law enforcement services, the Brinnon schools, Fire District No.4 and emergency medical services to mitigate for the potential impacts associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. RCW 36.70A.360(4)(e) provides that a master planned resort is authorized only if on-site and off-site infrastructure and impacts are fully considered and mitigated. In part, the memoranda of understanding("MOUs") are written to address this requirement. The parties secured the following MOUs: 8. 11.1 School Services Mitigation. School services to the Pleasant Harbor MPR are provided by the Brinnon School District. Mitigation for school services associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, if any, shall be implemented by the Developer as set forth in the MOU attached as Appendix J-1. 8.11.2 Fire and EMS Services Mitigation. Jefferson County Fire District No.4 will provide Fire and EMS services within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Mitigation for Fire and EMS services associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, if any, shall be implemented by the Developer as set forth in the in the MOU attached as Appendix J- 2. 8. 11.3 Law Enforcement Services Mitigation. The County will provide law enforcement services within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Mitigation for law enforcement services associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be implemented by the Developer as set forth in the MOU attached as Appendix J-3. 8.11.4 Transportation Services Mitigation. Public transportation services to the Pleasant Harbor MPR are provided by Jefferson County Transit. Mitigation of transportation services associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be implemented by the Developer as set forth in the in the MOU attached as Appendix J-4. 8.11.5 Healthcare Services Mitigation. Mitigation for health care services associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be implemented by the Developer as set forth in the MOU attached as Appendix J-5. 8.11.6 Housing Mitigation. The Developer shall comply with Ordinance 01-0128-08, Condition 63(g) related to affordable housing. This will include but not be limited to the staff housing mitigation 9 associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, if any, which shall be implemented by the Developer as set forth in the MOU attached as Appendix J-6. 8.11.7 Parks and Recreation Mitigation. The County, the State and the United States provide areas for parks and recreation in the vicinity of the Property. Parks and Recreation mitigation associated with development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be implemented by the Developer pursuant to applicable state and local law as set forth in the MOU attached as Appendix J- 7. 8.11.8 MOUs Satisfy Condition 63(c) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08. The County agrees that the MOUs listed in this Section 8.11 satisfy condition 63(c) of Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 and adequately mitigate impacts for the proposed development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR. No additional mitigation will be required,except as provided in Section 9.2.4. 9 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER MITIGATION BY COUNTY. 9.1 County Processing and Review. The review and approval of proposed development applications proposed by the Developer for the Property shall be pursuant to the Pleasant Harbor MPR Zoning Code(Appendix A) and the County's Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation, Chapter 18.40 JCC, which is attached in Appendix E. 9.2 SEPA Compliance. 9.2.1 Environmental Impact Statement. The parties acknowledge that potential environmental impacts from future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR have been assessed and addressed in prior environmental documents. The prior reviews were published in the following documents: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort September 5, 2007) ("DFEIS"); Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement November 27, 2007) ("FEIS"); Pursuant to Condition 63(b)of Ordinance 01-0128-08,the County required a supplemental impact statement on the planned final configuration of the MPR,and the systems designed to address the conditions and environmental consequences of the MPR as identified in the FEIS (Chapter 5) and Conditions 63(a)-(dd) in Ordinance 01-0128-08. 10 9.2.2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the following documents: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort November 19, 2014 ("DSEIS"); Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 ("FSEIS"). 9.2.3 Substantial Compliance with Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements Required. The FEIS,DSEIS and FSEIS are referred to collectively as the"Prior EISs." Development shall substantially comply with the express mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the Prior EISs. 9.2.4 Future SEPA Review for Individual Projects. The Prior EISs shall constitute compliance to the fullest extent possible under SEPA, as well as Condition 63(b)of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all subsequent approvals or permits to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR consistent with this Agreement, including, but not limited to, plats, short plats, binding site plans, boundary line adjustments, development permits, grading permits and building permits. Except as provided in this Section 9.2.4, no further environment impact statements are required,and no additional substantive SEPA mitigation measures are required for approvals or permits that authorize development that is consistent with level and range of development analyzed in the Prior EISs. The County may require additional environmental analysis for a new or modified proposal that materially exceeds the level and range of development reviewed in the Prior EISs. For any such new or modified proposal, relevant information from Prior EISs shall be used to the fullest extent possible in future SEPA review. The scope of environmental review shall be limited to considering how or whether the proposal differs from or exceeds the scope of the Prior EISs and if so,whether such modification results in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the Prior EISs. Nothing in this Section 9.2.4 shall release the Developer or its successors, successors in title, or assignees from complying fully with the terms of the Pleasant Harbor MPR Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 01-0128-08 (Appendix K), specifically condition 63(b), which requires an automatic threshold determination of significance unless the SEPA Responsible Official determines that the proposal results in only minor construction. 11 9.3 Vesting of Development Standards. 9.3.1 Scope of Vesting. To the fullest extent allowed by RCW 36.70B.180, all development proposed on the Property shall be vested to and governed by the terms of this Development Agreement,the Pleasant Harbor MPR chapter of the Jefferson County Zoning Code, and the Unified Development Code, now codified at Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code including, but not limited to,those code standards attached to this Agreement effective on the date of this Agreement and attached as Appendices A-I). 9.3.2 Vesting Period. The vesting period shall be the same as the build-out period in Section 2.3. Except as otherwise provided in Section 9.3,any new or different development standards adopted by the County during the term of this Agreement shall not apply to the Property. 9.3.3 Default Standards and Requirements. To the extent this Agreement does not establish standards or requirements covering a subject, element or condition, then the development approval sought shall vest to and be governed by the County codes, regulations and standards in effect upon the date of complete application. The development standards identified in this Agreement shall apply to the Property for the term of this Agreement, except: The Board of County Commissioners reserves the authority to modify one or more of the standards or requirements of development for the Pleasant Harbor MPR during the term of the Agreement, to avoid a serious threat to public health or safety, as provided in RCW 36.70B.170 and JCC 18.40.840(3)(d). 9.3.4 State and Federal Law. This Agreement does not relieve the Developer of any obligations to comply with state or federal laws or regulations of any kind including but not limited to those laws or regulations related to Native American treaty rights, endangered species, or stormwater. 9.3.5 Building Codes. Jefferson County Code Title 15, The International Building Code and International Fire Code in effect in the State of Washington as of the date of filing of a complete application for a building permit shall apply to all new development. 12 10 PHASING. 10.1 Phasing Plan. 10.1. 1 Phases Proposed. Pleasant Harbor MPR is a planned resort that is capable of being developed in independent and severable components or"phases." Future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and all associated infrastructure, including roads and utilities, may be reviewed,permitted and constructed and/or bonded in phases or sub-phases. A phasing plan(consisting of three phases) for development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR (reviewed as part of the SEIS) is attached as Exhibit 4, modified to move "US HIGHWAY 101 AND BLACK POINT ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS" from Phase 3a to Phase la and to change the color of those improvements from red to purple. Each phase may further be broken down into discrete sub-phases as conditions dictate, but each primary phased must be constructed in the order set forth below. 10.1.2 Requirement of Adequate Infrastructure, Open Space, Recreational Facilities, Landscaping and Other Conditions Sufficient for Each Phase to Stand Alone. JCC 18. 15.135 requires that if a master planned resort will be phased, each phase must contain adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the Pleasant Harbor MPR sufficient to stand alone if no subsequent phases are developed. The Developer will comply with JCC 18.15.135 and will complete or bond all necessary infrastructure to support a phase or sub-phase sufficient for each phase or sub-phase to stand alone,prior to obtaining approval for a subsequent phase. 10.1.3 Phase 1. Phase 1a consists of site clearing and grading for golf course, road network,building footprints, and Kettle B. Construct Highway 101 and Black Point Road intersection improvements. Commence road construction with services and begin implementation of the vegetation management plan. Create construction materials processing location on the golf course site. Phase lb 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. 10.1.4 Phase 2. Phase 2a consists of completion of the golf course and Half-way house (adjacent to fairway 5), develop the new, additional well, Kettle C: supplementary replacement to Kettle B, construct maintenance building and 52 units for staff quarters. 13 Phase 2b consists of construction of the Golf Terrace Recreation Center and Conference center/spa(208 units). 10.1.5 Phase 3. Phase 3a consists of construction of the Maritime Village building consisting of 66 units and 21,000 square feet of commercial. 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. 10.2 Preliminary Facilities. In addition to the facilities specifically described in Section 10.1 each Phase must design adequate preliminary facilities to service the phase. Preliminary facilities are those preliminary facilities or improvements that must be approved and installed in concert with the development of each phase. The preliminary facilities include the following: 10.2.1 Water System. A water system with sufficient water rights to serve the phase or sub-phase under review and approval. 10.2.2 Wastewater Treatment System. A sewer system with sufficient capacity to accommodate the waste discharge for the phase or sub-phase under review and approval. 10.2.3 Road Network. A road network to accommodate the phase or sub-phase under review and approval. 10.2.4 Landscaping. Landscaping for the phase or sub-phase under review and approval. 10.2.5 Parking. Associated parking for the phase or sub-phase under review and approval. 10.2.6 County Approval of Preliminary Facilities Required. The County's approval of a phase or sub-phase, whether by preliminary plat or other process,shall require approval of preliminary facilities for the entire phase. The Developer may construct preliminary facilities for each lot or tract in conjunction with development of that lot or tract. A final plat for a phase may be recorded by lot or tract provided all of 14 the preliminary facilities necessary to serve the lot or tract are complete and the specific development requirements within each lot or tract are complete. 10.3 Public Amenities and Access. Public amenities and access are those facilities and improvements that provide resort related activities and services. The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall,at a minimum,shall contain the following resort amenities (1) a 9-hole golf course; (2) spa services; (3) sports courts; 4) pool; and (5) water slides. These amenities shall be completed consistent with completion of the phase in which the amenity is proposed and made available to members of the general public for a fee to be established by the Developer. 11 INDEMNITY. 11.1 Indemnified Claims. The indemnified claims are: a) Claims for costs, losses, damages or expenses as a result of the County's approval of this Agreement and the Developer's or the Developer's contractors, agents or employees operations under this Agreement including, but not limited to, claims that this Agreement violates treaty rights of tribes; b) Claims based on the Developer's negligence; and, c) Claims based on the breach of any of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement. As used in this Agreement the term "indemnified claim(s)" means the claims listed in this Section 11.1. 11.2 The Developer's Obligations. 11.2.1 Scone. The Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold the County, and its elected officials and employees harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense, including all costs, attorney fees and expenses relating thereto, all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, from any indemnified claims. The County retains the right to provide additional counsel for the County's defense at the County's sole expense to assist counsel paid for by the Developer or to monitor any indemnified claim. 15 11.2.2 No Waiver of RCW 4.96.020 by the Developer. The Developer shall not attempt to waive the requirements of the filing of a pre-suit claim against the County under RCW 4.96.020. 11.2.3 Cooperation. The Developer and County shall cooperate with each other in the defense of any indemnified claims. The Developer shall not file any pleadings or motions or take any position with a court, government agency or hearing officer without first consulting with the County. Developer retains sole discretion to pursue defense of Indemnified Claims in any means it deems appropriate,but cannot take positions on behalf of the County without the County's consent. 11.2.4 Best Efforts to Obtain Release of the County. If the Developer settles any indemnified claim, the Developer will use its best efforts to obtain a release of the indemnified claim for the County, and its elected officials and employees. 11.2.5 Claims against Both the County and the Developer. The Developer wishes to avoid the expenses of a separate defense of both it and the County should any person assert an indemnified claim against both the Developer and the County. Accordingly,the Developer agrees to provide joint counsel to represent both the Developer and the County at the Developer's sole expense when indemnified claims are made against both the County and the Developer. However,the County retains the right to substitute its own counsel in place ofjoint counsel at the County's sole expense or to provide additional counsel at the County's sole expense to assist counsel paid for by the Developer or to monitor any indemnified claim. 11.2.6 The Developer is the Real Party in Interest. For any indemnified claim where the Developer is required to provide the County a defense pursuant to Section 11, the Developer shall make it clear that it is the real party in interest on any indemnified claims made against the County and that: (i) Any positions the Developer takes in defending the indemnified claims are the positions of the Developer and not the County; and, (ii) Any positions the Developer takes in defending the indemnified claims are not necessarily the positions the County would take if it were the real party in interest. 11.3 The County's Obligations. 11.3.1 Notice. The County shall provide notice to the Developer of any indemnified claim it receives within fourteen days of receipt of such claim. For the avoidance of doubt, the notice 16 required under this Section 11.1.3 includes notice of any pre-suit claim presented to the County under RCW 4.96.020. 11.3.2 Cooperation. The County shall cooperate with the Developer in the defense of any indemnified claims. The County shall not file any pleadings or motions or take any position with a court, government agency or hearing officer without first consulting with the Developer. 11.3. 3 Consent to Counsel Selected by the Developer. The County may consent to the representation by counsel selected by the Developer and provide appropriate waivers of conflicts of interest to counsel selected by the Developer. Provided, however, that if the County refuses to consent or to provide appropriate waivers of conflicts of interest, the Developer may suspend performance of the indemnity obligations under this Section 11. 11.4 Limitations. 11.4.1 No Indemnity for Claims Other than Indemnified Claims. Nothing in this Section 11 shall require the Developer to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the County from claims, demands or suits based on claims against the County that are not indemnified claims and are based solely upon the conduct of the County,its elected officials, employees and agents. 11.4.2 Claims Based on Comparative Fault. If the claims or suits are caused by or result from the comparative fault of: (i) the Developer's agents or employees; and, (ii)the County, its elected officials, employees and agents, this indemnity provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such comparative fault, then the claims shall be treated as claims against both the County and the Developer under Section 11.2.6 until a final, enforceable judgment is entered. After a final, enforceable judgment is entered, the Developer and the County shall each be responsible for their shares of the final, enforceable judgment. 12 GENERAL PROVISIONS. 12.1 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws and regulations of the State of Washington, as if applied to transactions entered into and to be performed wholly within the State of Washington between residents of the State of Washington. No party shall argue or assert that any law other than Washington law applies to the governance or construction of this Agreement. 17 12.2 Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, successors in title and assigns of the Developer and upon the County. 12.3 Assignment. 12.3.1 Right to Transfer, Consent of the County Not Required. The parties acknowledge that development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR may involve sale and assignment of portions of the Property to other persons who will own, develop and/or occupy portions of the Property and buildings thereon. The Developer shall have the right to assign or transfer all or any portion of the respective interests,rights or obligations under this Agreement or in the Property to other parties acquiring an interest or estate in all or any portion of the Property, including transfer of all interests through foreclosure (judicial or non judicial) or by deed in lieu of foreclosure, provided transferee agrees to assume all obligations of the Developer under this Agreement. Consent by the County shall not be required for any transfer of rights pursuant to this Agreement. 12.3.2 Obligations of the Developer and Transferee under this Agreement. Upon the transfer or assignment under this Section 12.3 and the transferee's assumption of all obligations of the Developer under this Agreement,the transferee shall be entitled to all interests and rights and be subject to all obligations under this Agreement pertaining to the property transferred or assigned, and the Developer shall be released of liability under this Agreement for the property transferred or assigned,but shall retain liability for any breach which occurred prior to the transfer of rights to another party and for those portions of the Property still owned by the Developer. 12.4 Release of the Developer's Liability by Assignment. 12.4.1 Transfer and Assumption of All Obligations Under this Agreement Required. The Developer shall be released of all liabilities and obligations under the Agreement if: a) The Developer provides notice to the County of an Assignment of the Agreement; and, b) The transferee has assumed in writing the all the obligations of this Agreement. 12.4.2 Results of Effective Assignment. If the conditions for release are met under this sub-section,then from and after the date of transfer, the Developer shall have no further liability or obligation under the Agreement, and the assignee shall exercise the rights and perform the obligations of the Developer under the Agreement for that portion of the Property acquired by the successor or assign. 18 12.4.3 Effect of Partial Assignment. The parties acknowledge that the Developer may transfer or assign title to a portion of the Property in any manner consistent with this Agreement. Should the transfer or assignment of title relate to only a portion of the Property, then the release of liability pursuant to this paragraph shall only apply to acts or omissions arising from or related to the portion of the Property being assigned or transferred. 12.5 Recording as a Covenant Running with the Land. This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Auditor against the Property as a covenant running with the land and pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190 shall be binding on the Developer,its successors, successors in title and assigns during its Term. The parties agree that the appendices need not be recorded. 12.6 Release as to Residential Development. Upon the approval of a final plat, a condominium declaration or other approved land division in compliance with this Agreement that relates to residential development of the Property,then there shall be executed and recorded with the County Auditor a release from this Agreement with respect to that particular and specific parcel or parcels of real property that received final plat approval, filed a condominium declaration or was the subject of other approved land division. Residential development on the parcel or parcels released pursuant to this subsection shall continue to be subject to the requirements of the development regulations listed in Sections 7 and 8.1. 12.7 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of law to be unenforceable or invalid,then the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Further, as to those provisions held by a court of law to be unenforceable, the parties shall confer and agree to amend the Agreement to implement the mutual intent of the parties to the maximum allowed by law. 12.8 Amendment. This Agreement shall not be amended without the express written approval of the County and the Developer (or its successors, successor in title and assigns with respect to the property in which they have an interest). The Board of County Commissioners must approve all amendments to this Agreement by ordinance or resolution and only after notice to the public and a public hearing. 12.9 Headings. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 19 12.10 Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute relating to this Agreement, all parties upon the written request to be titled"Notice of Dispute")of any other party, shall meet within the five(5)business days to seek in good faith to resolve the dispute. The County shall send a department director or the qualified lead planner and other persons with information relating to the dispute,and the Developer shall send an owner's representative and any consultant or other person with technical information or expertise related to the dispute. If the parties are unable to reach amicable resolution of a dispute within thirty(30) days of the written Notice of Dispute issued by one of the parties,the parties agree that they will immediately identify a mediator and participate in mediation in good faith. The selected mediator shall have documented experience and expertise in Washington land use law. The parties agree to work cooperatively to select a mediator with land use and real estate experience. Each party will identify and propose to the other party three potential mediators. Between the proposed mediator lists,the parties will select a mutually agreeable mediator to resolve the dispute. The mediation shall be completed within 90 days of the original written Notice of Dispute by one of the parties. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution following timely mediation, each party reserves the right to seek resolution and pursue remedies available under this Agreement and at law. The parties agree that the cost of mediation pursuant to this paragraph shall be borne equally by the parties to this Agreement. The parties may agree in writing to extend any deadline or time frame listed in this Section 12.10. 12.11 Default and Remedies. No party shall be in default under this Agreement unless it has failed to perform a material provision under this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice of default from any other party. Each notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which the default may be cured satisfactorily. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot be reasonably cured with the thirty(30)day period, then commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure. Any party not in default under this Agreement shall have all rights and remedies provided by law including without limitation damages,specific performance or writs to compel performance or require action consistent with this Agreement. In recognition of the possible assignment and sale of portions of the Property (see Section 12.3) any claimed default shall relate as specifically as possible to the portion of the Property involved and any remedy against any party shall be limited to the extent possible to the owners of such portion of remedies which do not adversely affect the rights, duties or obligations of any other non-defaulting owner of portions of the Property under this Agreement. Each party to this Development Agreement shall be solely responsible for the costs they incur with respect to asserting or defending against any dispute, alleged default or civil lawsuit. 20 12. 12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties hereto and their successors in title and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 12. 13 Construction. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for all parties and no presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the party drafting the document shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 12. 14 Signature in Counterparts. Separate copies of this Agreement may be signed by each of the parties and this Agreement will have the same force and effect as if the original had been signed by all the parties. 12.15 Notice. All communications,notices and demands of any kind which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: To the County: Director Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 cc: Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98370 Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98370 21 To Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP and Pleasant Harbor Marina, LLC: c/o M. Garth Mann Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. 9300 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85269 cc: John T. Cooke Houlihan Law 100 N. 35th St. Seattle, WA 98103 12. 16 Estoppel Certificates. Within 30 days following any written request that any party or a mortgagee may make from time to time,the other party shall execute and deliver to the requesting person a statement certifying that: (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect, and stating any formal amendments to the Agreement;and,(b)to the best of the knowledge of the certifying party, no notice of default has been sent and no notice of violation of applicable laws has been issued regarding the project; and any other reasonably request information. Failure to provide a timely response to the requesting party shall be deemed conclusive evidence that the Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect and that no notices of default or violvtion have been issued. Issuance of estoppel certificates is an administrative matter within the County. The County shall have no liability to the requesting party if it provides an estoppel certificate in good faith and with reasonable care. 12.17 Cooperation. The parties shall not unreasonably withhold requests for information,approvals or consents provided for in this Agreement. The parties agree to take further actions and execute further documents, whether jointly or within their respective powers and authority, to implement the intent of this Agreement. 12. 18 Voluntary Undertaking. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily and without any coercion by or undue influence on the part of any person, firm or corporation. 12.19 No Waiver. No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition,or a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement. 22 12.20 No Private CCR Enforcement by the County. The parties acknowledge and agree that nothing in this Agreement shall alter, infringe upon, modify, change, limit or restrict the ability or powers of the existing neighborhood, tract or subdivision property owner or lot owner associations from enforcing, interpreting and utilizing any and all covenants,conditions or restrictions that pre-exist this Agreement or covenants,conditions or restrictions recorded with the County Auditor after the effective date of this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the County bears no responsibility for the enforcement, interpretation or resolution of any dispute, filing, grievance, complaint or appeal that might arise as a result of recorded covenants, conditions or restrictions relating to tracts, subdivisions, lots or parcels within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. 12.21 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement consists of the Resolution approving the Agreement, the Agreement, Exhibits 1-4, and Appendices A-T. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relating to this subject matter. There are no other agreements, oral or written, except as expressly set forth herein. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, this Agreement supersedes all prior or simultaneous representations, discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether written or oral. 12.22 No Assignment. The Developer represents, warrants and agrees that it has not assigned, transferred, conveyed, encumbered or in any manner otherwise disposed of all or any portion of the Property or any rights, obligations, or interests of any nature or kind whatsoever covered by this Agreement, whether before or after they occurred, regardless of whether they have occurred as of the date of this Agreement. 23 13 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Each of the parties represents and warrants that: a) Each is fully authorized to enter into this Agreement; b) Each has taken all the necessary actions to duly approve the making and performance of this Agreement and that no further approval is necessary; c) Each has read this Agreement in its entirety and knows the contents of this Agreement; d) The terms of this Agreement are contractual and not mere recitals; and, e) Each have signed this Agreement having obtained the advice of legal counsel. SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) 24 Signatures JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners By Chair, David Sullivan Date: By Member, Kathleen Kler Date: By Member, Kate Dean Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date: Patricia L. Charnas Director of Community Development Date: 25 PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT, LLP By: M. Garth Mann Its: Manager Date: Acknowledgement STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF On this day of 2018, before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Melvin G. Mann, to me known to be the person who signed as manager of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, LLP, the Washington limited liability company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was duly elected, qualified and acting as said officer of the limited liability company and that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. Dated this day of 2018. Signature of Notary) Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at . My Appointment Expires: 26 Exhibit I. LEGAL DESCRIPTION—CONTAINED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES) The Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort at Black Point shall consist of the properties described below, excluding only that potion of any parcel lying westerly of US 101, and together with leased tidelands supporting the Pleasant Harbor Marina; all as illustrated at Figure 1-5, page 1-4 of the Brinnon Master Planned Resort FEIS issued November 27, 2008. Parcel A APN 502153002 The Northeast '/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., in Jefferson County, Washington; Together with a perpetual non-exclusive easement for road and utility purposes through, across and over the following described property: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 15; thence run West, along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, approximately 175 feet to the Southerly line of Black Point County Road; thence Northeasterly, along said Southerly line, to a point 30 feet North of said South line when measured at right angles; thence East, parallel to said South line, to the East line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 30 feet to the point of beginning; And over and across the West 30 feet of the South 30 feet of Government Lot 4 in said Section 15. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel B APN 502153003 The East '/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., in Jefferson County, Washington; Except that portion thereof, lying within a strip of land conveyed to the State of Washington,for State Road No. 9, Duckabush River-North Section,by deed dated August 28, 1933, and recorded under Auditor's File No. 70817, records of Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. 27 Parcel C APN 502153023 Those portions of Sections 15 and 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The Southwest '/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and Government Lot 7 of said Section 15, and Government Lots 2 and 3 of said Section 22; Except those portions thereof lying East of the West line of the East 695.00 feet of said Southwest ''/4 of the Southeast 1/4, and East of the Southerly prolongation of said West line; Also Except that portion of the West 100.00 feet of said Government Lot 7,lying Southerly of the North 539.00 feet thereof. Together with tidelands of the second class, as conveyed by the State of Washington, situate in front of, adjacent to and abutting upon the West V2 in width of said Government Lot 2, in said Section 22. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel D APN 502154002 That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., lying Southerly of the Black Point Road as conveyed to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 223427, records of said County; Except that portion described as follows: That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection of the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and the Southerly margin of the Black Point Road; thence South along the said East line, a distance of 300 feet; thence West 350 feet; thence North to the point of intersection with the Southerly margin of the Black Point Road; thence Easterly along said Southerly margin to the point of beginning. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel E APN 502152005 That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., described as follows: A strip of land 250 feet wide lying Easterly of and parallel to the Southeasterly right of way of State Highway 101; 28 Except the right of way for Black Point Road as conveyed to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Auditor's File Nos. 223427 and 410399, records of Jefferson County, Washington. Also Excepting Therefrom the following tract: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 3; thence North 88° 23' 07" West 308.14 feet to the Southeasterly right of way of State Highway No. 101, and the true point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said Highway, 117 feet, thence South 88° 23' 07" East, to a point 175 feet West of the high tide line; thence Northeasterly to a point on the North line of the Southwest Y4 of the Northwest 1/4, 100 feet West of said high tide line; thence North 88° 23' 07" West to the true point of beginning of this exception. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel F APN 502152014 Lot 1 of Watertouch Short Plat,as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats,pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel G APN 502152015 Lot 2 of Watertouch Short Plat,as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats,pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel H APN 502152016 Lot 3 of Watertouch Short Plat,as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats,pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel I APN 502152013 Lot 1, Pleasant Harbor Marina Short Plat, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 221 to 223 and amended in Volume 3 of Short Plats, pages 8 to 10, records of Jefferson County, Washington, Except that portion of Lot 1 described as follows: 29 That portion of Government Lot 3 abutting second class tidelands in Section 15,Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North 1/4 corner of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington; thence South 88° 13' 42" East along the North line of said Section 15 for a distance of 364.50 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 88° 13' 42" East 238.76 feet to the line of mean high tide; thence South 61° 12' 00" West along the line of mean high tide 34.78 feet; thence North 40° 41' 54" West along the line of mean high tide 3.31 feet; thence South 62° 36' 19" West along the line of mean high tide 26.83 feet; thence South 87° 54' 36" West 166.65 feet; thence North 21° 21' 05" West 43. 00 feet to the point of beginning. And Also Excepting second class tidelands as conveyed by the State of Washington, in front of, adjacent to and abutting the above described excepted uplands. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel J APN 502152012 Lot 2, Pleasant Harbor Marina Short Plat, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 221 through 223, and amended in Volume 3 of Short Plats, pages 8 through 10, records of Jefferson County, Washington. Together with second class tidelands, as conveyed by the State of Washington, situate in front of, adjacent to and abutting thereon. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel K APN 502153020 Those portions of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Section 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The East 345.00 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,as measured along the North line thereof; Together with that portion of said Government Lot 2 lying East of the Southerly prolongation of the West line of said East 345.00 feet; Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel L APN 502153021 30 Those portions of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Section 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The East 520.00 feet less the East 345.00 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, as measured along the North line thereof. Together with that portion of said Government Lot 2 lying East of the Southerly prolongation of the West line of said East 520.00 feet and the West of the Southerly prolongation of the East line of said East 345.00 feet. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. Parcel M APN 502153022 Those portions of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Section 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The East 695.00 feet less the East 520.00 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, as measured along the North line thereof. Together with that portion of said Government Lot 2 lying East of the Southerly prolongation of the West line of said East 695.00 feet and West of the Southerly prolongation of the East line of said East 520.00 feet. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. 31 AMENDMENT 1 TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN This Wildlife Management Plan is amended as follows: 1) Delete the sentence on page 5, paragraph 2 that reads: "Elk migrate on a seasonal pattern and can be expected to be in the project vicinity during certain times of the year." 2) Delete"and inhabit the site for short durations during the year" from the sentence on page 5, paragraph 2 that reads: "Elk could potentially wander onto Black Point and inhabit the site for short durations during the year." 3) After the sentence on page 5, paragraph 2 that reads: "According to Bryan Murphie wildlife biologist with WDFW), there are two unique herds in the area: Duckabush and the Dosewallips herds (personal communication, 2017)." add the following sentence: "the Point No Point Treaty Council's census records show that at times the Duckabush herd has contained as many as 80 individuals." 4) After the sentence on page 5 paragraph 2 that reads: "Both herds have the potential add the following: "Some elk migrate seasonally. The Duckabush herd is resident year-round, and has not undergone a true migration since 1993. Some individual elk are nomadic, and may travel up to 13 kilometers from one end of their range to the other. As a result, it is possible that most of the Duckabush heard would be in the vicinity of the MPR all year,posing the risk that elk will cross Highway 101 and visit the MPR." 5) Add a new fourth bullet in the"Deer" section on page 7 as follows: " Deer that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety." 6) Delete "because the site is adjacent to mapped elk crucial wintering range" from the sentence on page 7 that reads: "Elk have not been identified on the property but there is a potential for their presence because the site is adjacent to mapped elk crucial wintering range (WDFW 2017)." 7) Delete the following to the sentence from page 7: "Therefore, another potential strategy to reduce elk and vehicular incidents is to install collars on elk that are linked to signs on Highway 101." 8) Delete the following to the sentence from pages 7-8: "However,this strategy would not prevent elk from entering the project site and is not always an effective strategy personal communication with Fish and Wildlife Biologist at WSDOT 2017; personal communication with Wildlife Biologist at WDFW 2017)." 9) After the first sentence in the first full paragraph on page 8 that reads: "To help prevent elk and vehicle collisions, Statesman will install flashing signs that are associated with collared elk."add the following: "A flashing sign shall be located on the East side of Highway 101 on both the North and the South sides of the Pleasant 32 Harbor MPR, in a precise locations determined by the Developer, after consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).The Developer also will work with the WDFW to attach devices to area elk that would trigger the flashing signs when the Elk approach them. The WDFW will determine how the flashing signs will interface with the elk movements, who will be responsible for capturing and collaring elk, who will replace collars when they wear out, and who will be responsible for maintenance of all the system components. The Developer will reimburse WDFW for installation of two flashing signs and provide reimbursement of up to $10,000 to WDFW for elk collars on the Duckabush herd and other system components for the program." 10) Delete the following from the last sentence in the first full paragraph on page 8 as follows: "If more than four elk (which could be a herd) are observed accessing the property within a one year span," so the sentence would read: "Statesman will employ the following strategies to remove and discourage elk from the site:" 11) Delete the all the language in the second bullet on page 8 as follows: "Once the. property is developed and should there be more than four elk on the property at one time after the developer has determined that noise-deterrents, smell-deterrents and visual deterrents have proven ineffective, then the developer will install a fence as a last resort to discourage their presence for the benefit of the PGST and their hunting rights. The fence will only be installed on WDFW and WSDOT's concurrence that installation of a fence will not pose a threat to human health and safety." Replace it with the following: Nevertheless, the Developer shall construct an exclusion fence along the western border of the MPR South of Black Point Road,to exclude elk from the MPR. The Developer will be responsible for determining the precise location of the exclusion fence, but will consult with the WDFW and the Point No Point Treaty Council before constructing the exclusion fence. The exclusion fence shall be visible to Elk, (e.g., using survey tape or branches, or other like means) and shall be at least 8 feet in height. Fencing shall be either woven-wire or electric. Fencing shall be constructed before or concurrent with clearing the forest and developing greens, fairways, and lawns at the MPR." 12) Add a new third bullet to the"Elk" section on page 8 as follows: " Elk that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety." 13) Add a new second bullet in the"Cougar"section on page 9 as follows: " Cougar that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety." 14) Add a new bullet in the "Bear" section on page 9 after the last two bullets in that section as follows: " Bear that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety." 33 15) Add a new fourth bullet to the end of the "Waterfowl" section on page 10 as follows: " Deer that end up on the MPR shall not be destroyed by the Developer, except where the animal poses a threat to human health or safety." 16) Delete"install a west oriented fence in any open areas where elk could find access- to the 9 holes of golf course grasses. The Applicant will investigate if there is proven technology in types of grasses that are not attractive for elk grazing. In the case of elk, if more than four elk individuals are observed on the site in a 1-year period, Statesman will use alternative elk management strategies including scare tactics and fencing as described in the Wildlife Management Strategies section above" in the second paragraph in the "Summary and Recommendations" section on page 10 and replace it with the following: "the mitigation measures outlined above." This Amendment 1 shall be attached to the Wildlife Management Plan. 34 AMENDMENT 1 TO WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN This Water Quality Management Plan is amended as follows: 1) Section X. is renumbered as Section X.A and Section XI. is renumbered as Section X.B.; and, 2)A new Section X is added as follows: X. Actions to be Taken, if Sampling Results Show Increasing Concentrations in Water Quality Parameters A. Investigation. If sampling results show three consecutive increases in concentrations of any one of the water quality parameters sampled under this Agreement the Developer shall take steps to identify the cause of the increase. Under the direction of the JCWQ, the Developer shall take reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the increase in the water quality parameters, including but not limited to inspecting, sampling, or testing to determine the cause, nature and extent of the increase. JCWQ may require the Developer to provide a plan for investigation within the time determined by JCWQ as necessary to address the increasing concentrations in the water quality parameters. B. Remediation. Under the direction of the JCWQ,the Developer shall eliminate, or minimize any threat or potential threat to human health or the environment posed by increasing concentrations that are caused by the construction or operations of the Resort, including taking steps to eliminate, or modify the source to insure applicable groundwater quality standards are not exceeded. This Amendment 1 shall be attached to the Water Quality Management Plan. 35 Pleasant Harbor Final SEIS a PROPOSED AREA CALCULATIONS 213 ACRES IMPERVIOUS; 12% PERVIOUS:RS% MARITIME VILLAGE EXISTING MARINA 0011114:i/ ACCESS FROM i coin LOUR.%ANO RESORT HIGHWAY 101© / AREA ulia ACRES UNITSREA 20 MARMME VILLAGE r _, AREA.ACRES UNITS. PLEASANT HARBOR /----4' HOUSE EXISTINGiMARINA I OOLF'TERaAcssANojCDNFY.RY.NCE(.'E.NT'BRlSYA a ORDINARY HIGH in SE VIE200-FT SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT ATER MARK NITS V+.nnOS.e COMMERCIAL SEA VIEW VILLAS 10 / 4 rain TNG BED BREAKFAST 2D6 UNITS OWNED BY OTHERS) ALNhT,VISTAS f4 '* i 150 FT SHORELINE 44 UNITS BUFFER MAIRIENANCEBUILDING ANDJMEANSEALEVELSTAFQUARTERS r STREAMS SUMTS AND DRA AGE COURSES WITH AP"OXIMATE BU s MARrmvwrIME VILLAGE BUILDING MARINA ACCESS DRIVE 11 U05.E.COMMS iGtAI PROPOSED) • O I. BEDA BREAM AST i, 1VNI(A LAWFUL EXISTING STRUCTURE) l II EXISTINGUNI( IALEXIWELSTLES NGSI ANEWRIABBOR HOUSEMARITIMEVILLA1,1 K POBUILDING1p TOTAL RESIDENT AL SSV UNT1S TOTAL COMMERCIAL 57,000 SF. ZIPUNE & WDFW BOAT LAUNIP CANOPY WALK VISITOR AND SLIP ACCESS ROAD MPHITHEATER OWNER PARKING POOL i*!,.e WASTEWATER DRIVING RANGI n REATMENT PLANT PUTTING GREE JEFFERSON TRANSIT ' MAINTENANCE/STAFF BUILDING AND MASON rRANSIT a a_,•; VENTILATED UTILITY BUILDINGSTOP (PROPOSED)iq lip SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION.y. 1iv(BR CONTROL GATEi,, WATERFALL LD m lill Q C] GOLF COURSE W ti 11:3 AND RESORT KETTLE B a 4010 TENNIS COURT l y'Q 14010\ AND RESTROOM t_. 441 I, WETLAND 0 3 p_:104*/ r RRgcE r 4 lb S WETLAND,C `' I mr EXISTING WELL KETTLE C ' ., L! I 1 r~ SECOND WELL a i '. !!i! LOCATION OPTION AEsc- f/ O`4• Pill" r SECOND WELL PLEASANT HARBOR p'' > OPTION B STEEP SLOPE SETBACK AND AP'' ` '- 4 STORAGE_ UNDERGROUNDWATERWATER RIPARIAN BUFFER (SOFT) o i tttt T David Hamilton Architect lU.y 9230 i_g WA 7Y RESTROOM AND TRN BUIL 1 100 S.F.DING Project Name: PLEASANT HARBOR Master Planned Resort I Figure:Aiternative 3:Overall Site 200-FT SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT Date:November 19,2015 AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT Source: David Hamilton Architects, 2015 Figure 2-9 EaEA Engineering, Science,and Technology,Inc. LUP Att. C: Dev.Agr. Exh.2 Alternative 3 Site Plan 01/09/2018 I Page 1 of 1 PHASING PHASE 1 EXISTING PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA BINDING SITE PIAN 1 PHASE.Ia MARINA IMPROVEMENT!UNDER SEPARATE REVIEW .r SITE CLEARING AND GRADING FORVGOLF COURSE,ROAD NETWORK, BUILDING 2001P/tit.1S,KEI ILL B f ,`f BEGNROAD RVICESCONSTRUCTION WITH SERVICES,,, BEGIN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN f"' A'RIA IT CONSTRDTTION MA'II,1f9A1.8 PROCTESSINDOR EH;A'I ION[7N EXISTING RESIDENCE: I// r- 6 I iOlf e GORSE 51 TE PL T RAMP(iO PO I, .--.(! I OAST:lb HflWODR'tOATION PROPOSED) LOSS nRA1NF[Ft0 WAS CLWAI'LRTRLATMENT PIAN'l' EXISTING BED AND 9fiCANFAST jjj HACK UP SYSTEM) NO MODIFICATION PROPOSED) r f > DISTRIBUTION PIPING AWATE. R STORAGE T,TEF5 TRANSIT STOP Ait tiblirAlk X5TNG CONSTRUU SANITARY SEWERPLTION SEA VIEW VILLAS MARINA I A UNITS GOLF VISTAS MARINA ACCESS.. W SEIS BOUNDRY 1 32UNITS DRIVE f L UTILITY DISTRICT Of P19RYEANSEA LEVEL WAS1I WA 7'FR 7RI AT'MEVT I'IANTRGAUNCH PI MSC PHASE la COMPLETE GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION AND HALF-WAY HOUSE MARITIME VILLAG Y DEVELOP SECOND WELL BUILDING 1 MAINTENANCE BUILDING 7l AND STAFF QIIAR'I FIRS 51 UNITS PHASE Tb P LS NGI 1101 F TERRACE RECREATION('EMI'ER w D BY APPLICANT A CONFERENCE CENTER/SPA 101 CNITS PHASP.10.1.110# PHASE la I aw;, MARI'CIME VILLAGE BUILDING rIf OSS DRAINFIELD 66 UNITS 21,030 S .COMMERCIAL. MA5TEWATT4 MAINTENANCE/STAFF SSTT =-em f TREATMENT PLANT BU)4DING fir 1dtt 71 to l1ULY +$1OTSEp. 1 rilir"6l{Ye iliYf'[Irai id: j c TARNS 1011 LASS 001}IE RR ACES 11! 2 IN PHASE 1 TERRACE 2 1,AND 4 d - 330 UNITS SEA VIEW VILLAS US 101 1111/51/5 HIGHWAY 7 GULF YI]IAS i 16 UNITS C CENTER ROADRE ONSIRUCT BLACK PON I' 1110 CONSTRUCT MARINA ACCESS DRIVES COMI'LE TE UT'ILIT'Y DISTRICT OF PITH KETTLE e I.Y ItE fe 711";11+1. O.rdo SGLLE IN FEET COASTGr 'ERIAA,S 4 ND WELLrLOCCATIONOPTION r Ai"-F __...,> GCa40 t 4, WATER PLEASANT HARBOR 5 pP 5 gRIPRtA4LBUiFFR(30NF David Hamilton Architect 200 Fr 5HOREL)NE 41111111111 ALF WA 9230 ENVIRpINrIBgENT ANS 1 900-892-7788 GONSCTNA ltrm EAS£ T Project fume: PLEASANT HARBOR 1111111111** 1 Master Planned Re*o* FIgure.Alternative : Phasing Overall Site i Date July 20, 2017 1 01/09/2118 1 Page 1 of 1 LUP Att. D: Dev.Agr. Exh.4 as altered &approved by the Jefferson County BOC) ow4%4...'N'' . 114i tt ', lot t4 c 11,4. g,'* *. t• k,,,, .''''''.'"", v14l, t, 4,.i 4.""-- 4 40.:#,, t, i44-.,* i-1., t,",,.''.'', 44 t6,. t1. . z N 4.'f„ It,:•- ti , L'*, 4 4 ,.„7, t44„.•• .iiiii tirtik, 6 lir AIL. 1 tt t t ok 4114 -' A . f i401101111tAlt441111116.0* SO - I i t . i I 1 f MARINA ir---- p , ,....n beatitO il ii.t13*1°til'e'PLEASANTTRrHscRATHARBOR ua THE PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA and RECREATION COMMUNITY of Puget Sound Lu PE: Statesman's Funding ng inforInvest!A Vision the Success WAffersonCOUnlY,le8/t9/2016 Att. Proposal p.1 States:flan Group EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & ROPOSAL PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA& RECREATION COMMUNITY THE INTRODUCTION: Pleasant Harbor Marina &Golf Resort LLP is the applicant/owner of the future Pleasant Harbor Marina & Recreation Community. The 252 acres of land has been designated through The Brinnon Comprehensive Plan to support a Master Planned Resort(MPR). The applicant has proposed a special RECREATION COMMUNITY for both indoor and outdoor activities on a view parcel of+/-30 acres of the land overlooking the sea waters of Hood Canal. The Recreation Center will provide year-round activities that appeal to families as well as creating quality employment through management and operations of multiple league and family programs. c3fwt«e.. lhi. Oiyr'ti44 N.41100:31 Park P rot:>5t Apilmx+rn,;ta ly trt°tilt?rl vehtr#C' t"IrrVF,. by Pleasant Harbor a#,4 t t l x iliicrrr pcierpiex 4vtuo fe,,tdiz. :At th€n ' .S'hum'drrvt. t: Pleasont HtarUor, The rtt?arY t community (s ttaiirri t Afirasftlrrgtutta,h'.Ir t5 . .trtjt;gl&n' torrrmirurty that !:a5 nut 5 to'. 'i oopt.ilatiort grov.:tt' rt f;t. Wr 30 ? t i It C11 t} ?d id Orr_€t p atu 1,144414i- Economically, the community has an extremely small working population, resulting in +/- 70 percent of the Brinnon school students receiving a supplemented meal program. The+/-30 acres proposed for the Recreation Community is on the Black Point Lands,a natural peninsula projecting intoHoodCanal(Appendix A). Historically,since the 1960's, the Black Point Lands had been an active recreational vehicle and tent campground for 500 campsites. The applicant/owner is proposing to reclaim this land that includes the refuse,septic fields, open fire-pits and derelict buildings,and turn this area into a beautiful family park that would shadow LEED GOLD standards. Families and guests would enjoy outdoor hiking and biking trails, a children's playground, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, beach- sand volleyball, and access to a unique 9-hole golf course that plays like an 18 hole course, plus a soccer field house and outdoor court. 7f ation,4I Certtrcr r. ri-mgn4iit: .nt 2 ;toroy `t;...f :trrartttr'< of -t' 158,0a) uluar tt tae, t ,lten «timl iete# vyrn ltI provirtit manor fit rtvrtit? e fits t 1Ctltt 1irPtAt rapt s Swolln rng POO- fOiyrnrp r Pr'zoning pids,water .ti€JG4 Irtri,=rrt '°:irmbsttp i at;s strut „,atar Fttaitrar Coaat:ryr 7w tate F ( rttvr tarr jetvittatrOrt Ptograin a SPA 4 Is):rotl'. am far irltiOat IC Qt#ttio(rraatrn9. IijErOPal Met+tall;Are,65 410St L'rlI1u 14)S €ntloor l3aa,Ic.tmli, Vetlit'}Miall '`?ttt;ter, '7t i.i3r`rt 5: indoor tai 1,441 rikslr1'.tOr batcrminton. II.H1 batt tt+rtuetbdil, t r u 'ling t'.3t;,I and<ttllIi S;f treining alt's+ 9 • 1,t Arrfit)- Cir t t;t r ' #`t=r v;tit-isOily,car= A Ctrrtp:•1 for vetittirtga iE Ji wing, rtda, fol dthir.rit (.Ar.si*t; Th.; 11: I:1 2Os'GIK;ttCyhJ U:II'U+R1Y•' PLEASANT HAREM a t i Orr ' > t ?' 4 + a `C3 r ' r Sj aF e+.3b t, 1ka* hwreq« sir i gv, 2 e ..3 x gd„e THE PROPOSAL: In order to finance this community resource, Pleasant Harbor Marina & Golf Resort LIP (PHM) will be seeking County and State of Washington support, where the stakeholders would all benefit from the increased attraction to the community. First,the+/-30 acre reclaimed lands for the Recreation Family Park will be gifted to the State of Washington from PHM. (The State of Washington may wish to transfer this titled property to Jefferson County). The State would place in a Washington State Utility Trust, a Recreational Community Grant for$9,250,000. Jefferson County would also deposit in the Washington State Utility Trust a Recreational Community Grant for2,000,000. The conditional release of these Grants would be intended for the exclusive development of the Recreational Community Center. Jefferson County would propose to the local Tribes to be engaged and to develop an Indigenous interpretive Center within the grounds (Kettles) and within the Recreation Complex. The Tribes would benefit from the increased recognition within the community, as well as a facility for the development of wellness and skills for children & families of the Indian Tribes. Jefferson County and the State of Washington would be a net benefactor as a result of the expansion of the hospitality business taxes through facilitating League Events for enjoying swimming, basketball, soccer,volleyball, lacrosse as well as coaching wellness through the rehabilitation of Rejuvenation P`US. The local school athletic events at the Recreation Center would attract families to Brinnon and Quilcene, where bursaries could reward students for Excellence in Recreation&Study. The State of Washington would sponsor through the Federal Government a Tax Exempt Municipal Improvement Bond for$26.5 million dollars as a loan to PHM. The 7-year Tax Exempt Bond would yield a rate of 2%and would be secured by PHM. The PHM security would be in the value of the development including 208 Short-Term Stay Residential Suites,a-top the Recreational Centers second story(see Rendering). Further, PHM would develop at its cost affordable staff housing of+/-50 dual suites. Of the total 598 residential units, sixty-five percent are registered for short-term stays and would include Terraced Condominiums of 1, 2 or 3 bedroom suites. Thirty-five percent are for longer-term occupancy and would include single family Cottages,Alpine Townhomes,and Seaview Villas. PHM would be the General Contractor through its associate company Statesman Construction Washington Ltd. All construction short falls would be the responsibility of the General Contractor. The State of Washington would be gifted by PHM the title as owner of the+1-30 acres including the 2 floors of the strata-title for the Recreation Center. (The State may wish to transfer this ownership to Jefferson County). PHM would receive a tax-receipt for the transfer of the gift-asset. 1 l k'X1 7 he anal/Rhea) ire, PLEASANT HARBOR3