HomeMy WebLinkAbout116JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
June 26, 2018
Via email and Regular Mail
Ms. Carol Morris
Morris Law, P.C.
3304 Rosedale Street N.W., Suite 200
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
carol@carolmorrislaw.com
Re: February 9, 2018 Comments on the Draft Development Regulations, Pleasant Harbor Master Planned
Resort (MPR), Black Point, Brinnon, WA (“your comments”)
Dear Ms. Morris:
Thank you for your comments on the above referenced subject. We received over three hundred individual
comments during the public comment period beginning February 7, 2018 and concluding April 13, 2018. Relatively
few of the written comments that we received provided specific comments on the wording and content of the
Pleasant Harbor development regulations or the Pleasant Harbor development agreement. Most of the public
comments that we received were either general statements in support of the MPR or general statemen ts in objection
to the MPR.
Your February 9, 2018 correspondence was among a handful of comment letters that indeed provided specific
feedback and we appreciate the time and thoughtfulness of those comments. We are providing this written response
in part to convey that appreciation. Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) staff revised
the draft development regulations, in consideration to your comments. Please note that not all of your comments
are discussed below. That does not mean that DCD agrees or disagrees with comments not discussed below. DCD
is responding to comments that we believe merit a specific response. For ease of reading, we have itemized our
response to your comments numerically, below.
Comment 1:
Your comments state at page 1:
The County needs to carefully consider the timing of the adoption of the development regulations
and approval of the development agreement. Development agreements are authorized under RCW
36.70B.170 - 210. RCW 36.70B.170(1) provides that ‘a development agreement shall be consistent
with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under [the
Growth Management Act].”
2
Response to Comment 1:
We agree that the development regulations should be adopted before the development agreement. That is the
sequence in which each was adopted—development regulations, then development agreement.
Comment 2:
Your comments state at page 1: “It is impossible to determine whether or not the development agreement is
consistent with the applicable development regulations, if they haven’t been adopted.”
Response to Comment 2:
This is a timing question, as pointed out in Comment 1 of your comments.
Comment 3:
Your comments state at page 1-2: “The County’s distribution of two different versions of development regulations
to the public, as well as a development agreement which purports to include the development regulations in a blank
exhibit violates due process and fundamental fairness.”
Response to Comment 3:
We disagree with this comment. The public notice was clear as to the action proposed: “An Ordinance adopting
the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort development agreement and an Ordinance adopting staff-
recommended revisions to Planning Commission recommended development regulations amending Title 17 and
18 Jefferson County Code are being considered at this public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners.”
(Emphasis added.) In order to enable the public and the Planning Commission to understand the differences
between the Planning Commission’s recommended development regulations and DCD staff’s recommended
changes to the Planning Commission’s recommended development regulations both versions were posted on the
DCD website. It is the language of the public notice that contr ols, not whether additional information was made
available to the public. The public notice reasonably apprised interested parties of the contemplated action that was
pending. Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 Wash. 2d 707, 710, 521 P.2d 1173, 1174 (1974).
Furthermore, the public comment period was extended until April 13, 2018, at the public hearing on April 9, 2018.
The April 9, 2018 staff report for the public hearing reiterates:
Department of Community Development staff is providing proposed development regulations for
the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Staff is forwarding the Planning Commission recommended
development regulations with staff recommended revisions in underline/strikeout format. Staff
recommends approval of these proposed amendments to Titles 17 and 18 of the Jefferson County
Unified Development Code (UDC) as it relates to the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
The County provided sufficient notice on the Planning Commission recommended development regulations with
staff recommended revisions in underline/strikeout format. This was posted to the DCD webpage before the Board’s
public comment period began and provided sufficient opportunity for public comment.
3
Comment 4:
Your comments state at page 2:
17.60.020: “The regulations in this title shall be known as the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned
Resort Code ...” The “title” is Title 17, which includes more than the Pleasant Harbor Master
Planned Resort Code, it also includes the Port Ludlow MPR. It appears that the County has divided
up the Title into Articles, so if Port Ludlow MPR is Article I, then it should be stated here that the
Pleasant Harbor regulations in chapters 17.60, 17.65, 17.70, 17.75, 17.80 and 17.85 are in Article
II of this Title.
Response to Comment 4:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 5:
Your comments state at page 2:
17.60.030: The former language stated that the purpose of this chapter was to set forth development
regulations that comply with and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The language has
been changed in a way that makes no sense: “The purpose ... is to regulate land development uses
that comply with and are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future
development ... “So, does this mean that these regulations only apply to those “uses” that are
consistent with the Comp Plan? It doesn’t apply and can’t be enforced where the “use”· is
inconsistent?
Response to Comment 5:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 6:
Your comments state at page 2:
17.60.040: Here, it states that the Master Plan for Pleasant Harbor consists of: (1) regulations (the
ones in this chapter?); (2) the conditions and requirements of Ordinance 01-0128-08; (3) Final
Environmental Impact Statements (how many are there? There is no identifying information here,
like the dates of the EIS’s or what they cover); (4) Final Supplemental Impact Statement (again,
there is no identifying information, no dates); (5) maps (which maps?); (6) mitigation measures (in
what? The unidentified EIS’s and PSIS?); and the Development Agreement. This vague language
does not provide sufficient information for the public to understand what applies to this
development -- and it is too vague for the County to enforce against the developer.
Response to Comment 6:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
4
Comment 7:
Your comments state at page 2: “In Section 17.60.060, there is another list of the codes, regulations, etc. that apply
to the Pleasant Harbor MPR. This list is more detailed and includes additional regulations. Why are these two
sections (17.60.040 and .060) different?”
Response to Comment 7:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 8:
Your comments state at page 2:
17.60.050: The provisions of this title apply to all “land use actions and siting of infrastructure ...”
There are no definitions in the County’s code for “land use actions” and “siting of infrastructure.”
A definition is needed so that there is no confusion in the future about applicability. The public
shouldn’t have to guess about the situations that will trigger enforcement of certain codes based on
ambiguous language.
Response to Comment 8:
We do not agree with this comment. The proposed change is not necessary because these terms are broad, not
ambiguous.
Comment 9:
Your comments state at page 3:
17.60.060: Here, the County states that “any land disturbing activity” must comply with other titles
of the Code, and various other documents. If there is some reason to distinguish between the
undefined “land use actions” in 17.60.050 and the “land disturbing activity” in 17 .60.060, why
isn’t the reference to Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code included in 17.60.050? My point is that
the developer must comply with chapter 18.35 JCC, Land Divisions, to divide the property prior to
any sale, lease or transfer of any parcel or lot. Division of land is not a “land disturbing activity.”
(See, 18.10.120.)
Although Title 18 is mentioned here, the procedure in chapter 18.15 JCC doesn’t contemplate any
subdivisions, short plats, or binding site plans in a MPR. (The Planning Commission’s draft
mentioned a binding site plan, but this appears to have been removed in the staff version of the
development regulations.)
It is stated that: “where conflicts occur between the provisions of this title and other applicable code
provisions or other regulations, the more restrictive shall apply.” Are the documents listed in 1
through 4 covered by this? They are not all codes or regulations.
5
Response to Comment 9
The Master Plan described in Section 17.60.40 limits the development. That section requires a development
agreement, not subdivisions, short plats, or binding site plans. Section 17.80.040(2) in the version updated for the
May 29, 2018 BoCC deliberations (previously Section 17.80.060(2)) states:
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 Plans set forth
in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent
with the revised Master Plan and development regulations.
Other sections of the proposed development regulations also limit development. For example, Section
17.60.060 states:
In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or
development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must 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), 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.
Among other requirements, Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code requires compliance with the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act. For instance, JCC Section 18.15.135 discusses the criteria
for approval of a MPR:
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as a 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 county.
6
(3) If a 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) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
(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.
Nevertheless, this section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 10:
Your comments state at page 3: “17.60.060: Why were the exemptions deleted? If they were deleted because ‘it is
confusing and potentially difficult to interpret,’ (staff comment on matrix), I have the same concern with 050 and
060 above, unless the activities that this ‘title’ triggers are defined.
Response to Comment 10:
As you note in your comments, DCD staff made clear why the exemptions were deleted. As to “050 and 060,” this
section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 11:
Your comments state at page 3:
7
17.60.070: Where did the 890 residential unit cap come from? More terms are used here, and they
need to be defined so that this can be enforced. What is a “short term visitor accommodation unit?
Is that the same as a “short-term rental?” There are no definitions of these terms and they will be
difficult to enforce.
Response to Comment 11:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 12:
Your comments state at page 3:
17.60.080 and 17.60.090: Here, the County is establishing new regulations for legally
nonconforming uses and structures. Given that the County has already adopted regulations for
nonconforming uses and structures in Section 18.20.260, and incorporated Title 18 into this chapter
or Article, the County is creating confusion about which apply and how conflicting language must
be interpreted. Has the County inserted these regulations because only “land disturbing activities”
(in 17.60.060) have to comply with Section 18.20.260?
Response to Comment 12:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 13:
Your comments state at page 3: “17.60.100: Why are “structures” exempt?”
Response to Comment 13:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 14:
Your comments state at pages 3-4:
17.65.010: The “purpose” section in a particular zoning district is supposed to explain the purpose
of the district. For example, in a residential district, it might be: “This R-1 zoning district is intended
to accommodate a pattern of land use that is predominately single-family.” The purpose section is
needed for each zoning district because the development regulations cannot list every single type
of use that may be proposed in the future. When a property owner proposes a particular use that is
not listed in the development regulations as either a ‘‘permitted,” “conditional” or “prohibited” use
in that district, the Planning Director is required to issue an administrative interpretation of the code
and make a decision whether the proposed use is compatible with the purpose of the district and
the other uses allowed in the district. If the County doesn’t describe the purpose of the district, then
only the permitted uses provide the basis for the administrative interpretation.
This problem is exacerbated here, because the types of uses “permitted” (there are no “conditional”
or “prohibited” uses,) are widely different in nature. As a result, it is possible that the Planning
8
Staff could allow any type of use not listed as permitted. For example, the land use impacts of a
tavern are totally different from a more sensitive use like a single family home, yet they are
permitted outright in the same zone.
(Emphasis in original.)
Response to Comment 14:
DCD believes the section sufficiently explains its purpose. This response also applies to other statements in your
comments related to claims of inadequate statement of purpose in other sections.
Nevertheless, this section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 15:
Your comments state at pages 4-5:
The definition of “public facilities” in JCC 18.10.160 demonstrates that no one has spent any time
thinking about whether or not these uses are compatible with each other or the other allowed uses
in this zone. (The definition includes: “facilities serving the general public, streets, roads, ferries,
sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, community water systems, community
sewage treatment systems, storm water systems, park and recreational facilities, libraries, fire and
police stations, emergency medical services, municipal and county buildings, power houses,
cemeteries and public schools.” In other words, the developer could build single family homes
immediately adjacent to a community sewage treatment system. Or, a county jail (county building)
could be built right next to a public school.
-and-
If the County allows every possible use of property other than heavy industrial in this zone, what
does the Community Development Department need to do when the developer proposes an intense
use not listed in 17.67.020? Nothing, other than to rubber stamp an approval. We question why
there are no conditional uses in the MPR zoning districts, when the County actually implements a
conditional use permit process in other areas of the County.
Response to Comment 15:
DCD disagrees with these comments. The Master Plan described in Section 17.60.40 limits the development.
Section 17.80.040(2) in the version updated for the May 29, 2018 BoCC deliberations (previously Section
17.80.060(2)) states:
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 Plans set forth
in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent
with the revised Master Plan and development regulations.
Other sections of the proposed development regulations also limit development. For example, Section
17.60.060 states:
9
In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or
development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must 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), 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.
Among other requirements, Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code requires compliance with the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act. For instance, JCC Section 18.15.135 discusses the criteria
for approval of a MPR:
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as a 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 county.
(3) If a 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) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
(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
10
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.
DCD believes the existing Jefferson County Code would handle the situations mentioned in your comments.
Nevertheless, DCD clarified this section in the revised proposed development regulations.
Comment 16:
Your comments state at page 5:
17.65.030: Here, the County is allowing the developer to build a building of any height, as long as
the developer buys a ladder truck or other equipment for the Fire District. A variance isn’t even
required, so the adjacent property owner will have no notice of the developer’s receipt of a building
permit to construct a structure that will dwarf others in the neighborhood. The fact that the Fire
District may need additional equipment to put out a fire in a building over a certain height is not
the only negative land use impact resulting from excessive height, especially adjacent to single
family uses.
(Emphasis in original.)
Response to Comment 16:
DCD disagrees with this comment. The Master Plan described in Section 17.60.40 limits the development. Section
17.80.040(2) in the version updated for the May 29, 2018 BoCC deliberations (previously Section 17.80.060(2))
states:
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 Plans set forth
in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent
with the revised Master Plan and development regulations.
To address this specific concern, DCD clarified this section in the revised proposed development regulations.This
response also applies to the comments about Section 17.75.030 on page 6 of your comments.
11
Comment 17:
Your comments state at pages 5-6:
17.65.040: So that there is no question that no consideration whatsoever was given to the persons
who would eventually visit, live and work in this zone, all yard and setbacks have been eliminated.
We assume that this has been added in order to eliminate any restrictions on the developer’s ability
to maximize its investment.
-and-
17. 75.020: Again, my concern is that all listed uses are permitted outright in the MPR-MV zone.
There are two prohibited uses, but the County has not classified any use as a “conditional use.”
A conditional use is not a permitted use. It is listed in the zone as a use that may be made within a
zone, but only upon the grant of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner or other decision-
maker (after a hearing). The reason certain uses are permitted only upon the grant of a conditional
use permit, is because there are certain uses that may be desirable, but are not completely consistent
with the permitted uses. Therefore, the zoning code requires that the decision-maker evaluate the
proposed development under certain criteria for approval, which allows the decision-maker to
consider the facts relating to the property and the proposed use.
-and-
Again, 17.75.020(10) allows uses of every type and description, many of which are not compatible
with each other or the residential uses allowed outright in 17.75.020(2).
-and-
Same comment with regard to 17.75.020(12). There is no purpose section, only a summary of the
uses allowed in this zone. Therefore, any type of use can be allowed, as long as the Department of
Community Development approves. There are no criteria for DCD to use in such approvals.
-and-
What is the procedure for the County to make the decision whether or not a use is allowed in a
particular zoning district? I could not find any procedure for an administrative code interpretation.
State law requires that the City adopt this procedure: “As part of its project review process, a local
government shall provide a procedure for obtaining a code interpretation as provided in RCW
36.708.110.” RCW 36.708.030(3). If the County doesn’t have this procedure (as required by state
law), then the public will have no notice or opportunity to apply a decision of the Director to allow
an unlisted use within one of these MPR zones: The developer could propose an outdoor shooting
range that will cause tremendous noise and pollute the ground water with lead, and the County may
permit it, claiming that it is consistent with Section 17 .65.020(4), as an “outdoor resort-related
recreational facility.”
12
Response to Comment 17:
DCD disagrees with these comments. The Master Plan described in Section 17.60.40 limits the development.
Section 17.80.040(2) in the version updated for the May 29, 2018 BoCC deliberations (previously Section
17.80.060(2)) states:
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 Plans set forth
in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent
with the revised Master Plan and development regulations.
Other sections of the proposed development regulations also limit development. For example, Section
17.60.060 states:
In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or
development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must 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), 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.
Among other requirements, Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code requires compliance with the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act. For instance JCC Section 18.15.135 discusses the criteria
for approval of a MPR:
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as a 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 county.
13
(3) If a 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 healt h services, to adequately
meet the needs of the guests and residents of the MPR.
(5) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented t o 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.
Comment 18:
Your comments state at page 6:
It is difficult to understand why the County would allow a marina as a permitted use, not a
conditional use, in this zone. While it does appear that the developer would have to obtain a
shoreline permit for the marina, it is difficult to say whether the shoreline permit would address the
impacts of a marina that would normally be addressed under zoning regulations.
Response to Comment 18:
The Pleasant Harbor 300 slip marina, although within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR, is not included
because it was re-developed under an Amended Binding Site Plan. Re-development and renovation of the Marina
under the existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was completed in April 2015. In July 2015, the
applicant revised the resort plan to include a new preferred alternative #3, which no longer includes the marina.
14
Comment 19:
In a number of instances, your comments raise issues about mitigation measures, including claiming the proposed
development regulations do not adequately detail mitigation measures required or enforcement responsibilities.
Response to Comment 19:
We do not agree with these comments. The Master Plan described in Section 17.60.40 limits the development.
Section 17.80.040(2) in the version updated for the May 29, 2018 BoCC deliberations (previously Section
17.80.060(2)) states:
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 Plans set forth
in this title. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent
with the revised Master Plan and development regulations.
Further, Section 17.60.060 states:
In addition to the requirements of this title, the provisions of Title 15 and Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code shall apply to development in the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Any regulated land use or
development activity within the Pleasant Harbor MPR must 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), 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.
Among other requirements, Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code requires compliance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act. For instance, JCC Section
18.15.135 discusses the criteria for approval of a MPR:
(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 county.
15
(3) If a 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) The MPR will contain within the development all necessary supportive and accessory on-
site urban-level commercial and other services, and such services shall be oriented to serve the
MPR.
(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.
In Section 17.80.030, the development regulations themselves require SEPA compliance as follows:
An application to develop any parcel or parcels of land as a 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.
Nevertheless, this section was clarified in the final development regulations.
Comment 20:
Your comments state at page 10:
17.85.010: Here, it states that a MPR approved with a phasing plan shall be null and void if the
applicant fails to meet the conditions in the approved phasing plan. Apparently, the developer can
take 50 years to construct a phase, but the MPR is only null and void if the developer fails to meet
some other condition of the approved phasing plan. This needs to be eliminated so that it is not
16
interpreted as some exclusive basis for enforcement. The County can revoke the MPR for other
reasons.
Response to Comment 20:
This section was clarified in the final development regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioner to
make clear that this section is not the exclusive basis for enforcement.
Comment 21:
Your comments make a few points about the draft development agreement.
Response to Comment 21:
This letter responds only to comments about the proposed development regulations.
We appreciate your timely and thoughtful comment letter and appreciate this opportunity to respond to some of the
comments raised. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to con tact this
office.
Sincerely,
Patty Charnas
Patty Charnas, Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Cc: Board of County Commissioners
PAO- Civil