HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd No 01-0128-08AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ONE } Ordinance No. 01-0128-08
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,)
FILE NUMBER }
MLA06-87 [STATESMAN] }
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as required
by the Growth Management Act ("the GMA"), as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in
motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and comment with
respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan originally
adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended, and;
WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the
proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan ("CP") that composed the 2007
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket ("the Docket"), and;
• WHEREAS, of the ten (10) proposals that compose the Docket, three (3) were rejected;
one proposal, MLA07-104, has been forwarded to the 2008 CP Cycle; the Board has approved or
approved with conditions six (6) of the remaining proposals, five (5) of which are analyzed in
Ordinance No. 02--0128-.08 ; herein analyzed is only one proposal, MLA06-87
[Statesman], which was approved unanimously by the Board; and
WHEREAS, an adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board's legislative
decision with respect to MLA06-87, and;
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions with
respect to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and. the amendment contained herein:
1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its. development
regulations or Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 in the Jefferson County Code
(JCC) in December 2000. The CP was reviewed and updated in 2004.
2. The Growth Management Act (GMA), which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a CP, also requires that there be in place a process to amend the CP. The UDC
• contains precisely such a process in Section 9, and in Title 18 in the JCC
3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County
[including corporations and other business entities] on a regular basis. In accordance with
RCW 36.70A.130, CP amendments can generally be considered "no more frequently than
once per year."
4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before March 1, 2007, the deadline for
submission of a proposed CP amendment.
5. MLA06-87 was timely filed on by March 1, 2006, and carried over to the 2007 cycle in
December 2006, because a separate environmental impact statement was deemed
necessary, and this work could not be performed in 2006.
6. The 2007 CP process started with nine formal site-specific amendments and three
suggested amendments (for a total of twelve), all of which were placed on the Preliminary
Docket through the CP amendment process contained at JCC Section 18.45.050.
7. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners held a joint workshop
on April 4, 2007 to provide an opportunity for the site-specific CP amendment applicants
to make public presentations on their proposals.
8. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Preliminary Docket
on April 18, 2007.
9. The Planning Commission completed its recommendation on the Preliminary Docket on
April 18, 2007, recommending that all twelve original CP amendment applications be
placed on the Final Docket.
10. The Department of Community Development (DCD) issued a Review of Preliminary
Docket on May 7, 2007, analyzing the proposals on the Preliminary Docket and offering
the following recommendation: that two of the three suggested amendments be eliminated
from the Final Docket due to limitations on staff resources.
11. The Board established the Final Docket on May 14, 2007 as nine site-specific amendments
plus one suggested amendment.
12. The Department of Community Development (DCD) issued an integrated Staff Report and
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum on September 5, 2007, analyzing the
proposals on the Final Docket and offering preliminary recommendations for each
13. All of these amendments have been subject to a SEPA-driven analysis through the DCD
• Staff Report and SEPA Addendum dated September 5, 2007. In addition, a separate Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was published on this date pertaining to the site-specific
application analyzed in this ordinance, WA06-87 (Statesman), with an associated 45 -day
public comment period ending at close of business on October 24, 2007. An associated
addendum issued with the Final Environmental Impact Statement was published on
November 27, 2007. For further analysis of the other five (5) amendments comprising the
2007 CP cycle, see Ordinance No. 02-0128-08
14. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) were undertaken and generated pursuant to the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) and a determination by the SEPA-responsible official that the
proposed amendment, MLA06-87, warranted a threshold "Determination of Significance"
(DS), and thus environmental review for any probable significant adverse environmental
impacts, although the environmental review at this stage was the review appropriate for a
non -project action as that term of art is defined in SEPA.
. 15. The FEIS was prepared in conformance with SEPA requirements and the amendment in
this ordinance is the alternative identified in the DEIS as "the proposal."
16. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on MLA06-87 (Statesman)
on October 3, 2007. Oral public comment related to this proposed amendment was taken
during the public hearing, and written comments were accepted through the close of
business on October 24, 2007.
17. The Planning Commission deliberated on MLA06-87 at special meetings on October 31,
2007, and on November 14, 2007, reviewing the growth management indicators, findings,
and conclusions relative to JCC 18.45, and completed recommendations on November 20,
2007.
18. The above statements indicate that the proposed CP amendment was and is the subject of
"early and continuous" public participation as is required by GMA.
19. The Planning Commission recommendations were transmitted to the Board through formal
memoranda dated November 28, 2007, and are part of the record for the legislative
decision 20. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board seven conditions be attached to
approval of this proposal, MLA06-87 [Statesman]. The conditions were included in the
Planning Commission recommendations specific to this proposal.
21. The FEIS and addendum associated with this proposal were published on November 27,
2007. Initial scoping identified probable significant adverse impacts. Public comments
elaborated on those concerns, and the final EIS included staff responses to 17 different
categories covered in over 400 public comment letters, expressed orally and in writing by
the public and by various local and state agencies regarding this application during the
public comment period.
22. The FEIS detailed mitigating conditions resulting from these comment letters as specified
in Chapter 5, overall representing a meticulous and thorough response to the concerns of
the citizens and agencies, precisely what is intended by SEPA.
23, The Board held a duly -noticed public hearing on December 3, 2007 and continued this
public hearing on December 6, 2007, closing the public comment period on December 7,
2007. The Board did consider all public comments received.
24. The final DCD staff recommendation was presented to the Board during the December 3,
2007 and December 6, 2007 public sessions in which the Planning Commission
recommendations were also presented.
25. The final DCD staff recommendation did not match the Planning Commission
recommendation for approval, having different proposed modifications attached.
26. On December 10, 2007, the Board signed Resolution No. 113-07 extending the timeframe
for the legislative decision on the proposed amendment to January 14, 2008.
27. All procedural and substantive requirements of the GMA have been satisfied.
28. The Board of County Commissioners deliberated and decided to approve the Statesman
proposal on January 14, 2008.
29. DCD staff presented to the Board a 14 -step process for decision-making. Step 1: It was
moved and seconded "to approve the Statesman proposal as revised with conditions, and to
amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on pages 3-23 and 3-45 Step 2: The Comprehensive
Plan land use map designations on page 3-45 for this area
• would be changed to reflect a Master Planned Resort as outlined in the November 27, 2007
Final Environmental Impact Statement on page 1-4." See Exhibit `B" to this Ordinance.
30. Step 3: The Board was required to apply criteria from JCC 18.45.080, generally referred
to as deliberations, findings and conclusions, and growth management indicators.
31. Step 4: The Board entered an affirmative statement that consistency with the Growth
Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A.360(1) through (4), is achieved, as each of the
pertinent criteria are met by this proposal.
32. With respect to RCW 36.70A.360(1), the Board hereby enters an affirmative statement that
the proposed Master Planned Resort 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."
33. With respect to RCW 36.70A.360(4) the Board hereby enters an affirmative statement that
its CP already includes policies to guide the development of new MPR, the CP and the
related development regulations serve to preclude urban or suburban land uses in the
• vicinity of the MPR, the land at the site in question is better suited for an MPR than for the
commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, the MPR plan is and 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 have been fully considered
and 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.
34. Step 5: The Board entered an affirmative statement that consistency with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan, specifically Land Use Policies 24.1-24.13, has been achieved
by the applicant, as each of the pertinent criteria are met by this proposal. By way of
example only, the Board's affirmative finding that the site of the proposed MPR is better
suited to become an MPR than it is to be the site of a commercial timber harvest serves to
satisfy the condition laid out in the CP at LNP 24.4, found at p. 3-65 of the CP. The area is zoned Rural
Residential and not Commercial Forest under the Growth Management Act,
and therefore this finding is not required within the proposal.
35. Step 6: The Board entered an affirmative statement that consistency with the Brinnon Sub -
Area Plan, adopted on May 1, 2002, specifically Goals 1.0 and Policies 1.1-1.3, is
achieved, as each of the pertinent criteria are met by this proposal.
36. Step 7: With respect to JCC 18.15.126, the Board affirmed that only a Comprehensive
Plan amendment application was under consideration, and that the development agreement
and zoning code guiding MPR projects will come before it in a subsequent process after
the adoption of this CP amendment. A subsequent development agreement and zoning
code shall be consistent with this CP amendment. This criterion applies to each of the
following code references contained within Step 7.
37. With respect to JCC 18.15.025 and JCC 18.15.115 on land use districts, the Board
concluded that new zoning code language will be developed at a later phase, describing a
second Master Planned Resort in Jefferson County, since Port Ludlow is the only MPR
currently designated under the CP.
38. The Board affirmed the appropriateness of the proposal with respect to JCC 18.15.120 on
purpose and intent, and consistency with RCW 36.70A.360. A new MPR is thus
appropriate at this location.
39. The Board further determined that in accordance with JCC 18.15.123, a subsequent
development agreement and zoning code will ensure consistency with said section.
40. The Board affirmed that the provisions of JCC 18.15.129 are applicable to this proposal,
pertaining to the nature of the application as a Type V legislative process, and include a
draft master plan (summarized in the FEIS), a site-specific CP amendment, and require a
development agreement at a later phase in the process.
41. The Board affirmed that decision-making authority is granted to the Board under JCC
18.15.132, after ensuring the veracity of the planning commission process, and after
reviewing its recommendations. A development agreement and zoning code will be
developed in a subsequent phase 42. With respect to 18.15.135, the Board concluded that the
application to develop will take
place at project -level phases subject to the development agreement and zoning code,
consistent with this approval of the CP amendment.
43. The Board determined that 18.15.138 shall be amended at a later date to include revisions
and/or additions to Title 17, in order to establish a zoning code for the Brinnon MPR. This
shall be accomplished through a Type V legislative process.
44. Step 8: With respect to the directives set forth in RCW 36.70, the Planning Enabling Act,
the Board concludes that all steps in the process were conducted properly, including the
application submittal; the public process, review, and recommendations by the Planning
Commission; the public process conducted by the Board; its own findings; and its position
as the sole decision-making authority whereby the Planning Commission's
recommendation is advisory only and the final determination always rests with the Board.
45. Steps 9-14: The Board determined that the procedural requirements of JCC Section
18.45.080(2)(c), in which for all adopted amendments the Board shall develop findings
and conclusions which consider the growth management indicators set forth in a) JCC
• Section 18.45.050(4)(b) (i) through (vii, and b) items (i) through (iii) in JCC Section
18.45.080(1)(b), have been met. Findings and growth management indicators are further
explained below.
46. SEPA mitigations called out in Chapter 5 of the FEIS shall be adhered to through
development of a zoning code, development agreement, and any permit applications.
47. Further conditions of approval are identified in item # 63 (below). The Board directed
staff to prepare this ordinance, provide for legal review, and prepare a record identifying
all components of this CP application process.
48. Further, the Board voted unanimously to amend the CP.
49. JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c), which contains eight criteria from which the Board must
generate findings, is applicable only to site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments.
50. Inquiry into the growth management indicators referenced above was begun for the 2007
Docket through the DCD integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of September 5,
2007. The Board's findings and conclusions with respect to the growth management indicators are
augmented by the September 5, 2007 staff findings and conclusions, except
when and as noted below.
51. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(i), which asks whether assumptions regarding
growth and development have changed since the initial CP adoption, the Board concludes
that census data indicates that the population growth rate in this county has slowed in the
last two to four years, and is slower than projected.
52. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(ii), which asks whether the capacity of the
County to provide adequate services has diminished or increased, the Board concludes that
this CP amendment as conditioned will not impact the ability of the County to provide
services.
53. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(iii), which asks if sufficient urban land is or
has been designated within the County, the Board concludes that this proposal may
constitute additional urban lands (as allowed under RCW 36.70A.360) to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan amendments made effective by adoption of this Ordinance.
54. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(iv), which asks if any of the assumptions on
which the initial CP was based have become invalid, the Board concludes that the
assumptions upon which the CP is based have generally not changed.
55. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(v), which asks if any of the countywide
attitudes upon which the CP was based have changed, the Board concludes that the
countywide attitudes have not generally changed since this CP amendment was submitted.
56. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(vi), which asks if there has been a change in
circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment, the Board concludes that a
conceptual Brinnon MPR was identified in the Brinnon Sub -Area Plan adoptedinto the
County's CP on May 1, 2002, and that there have not been any overarching or countywide
changes in circumstances that would dictate or require a shift in the policies reflected in
the CP with respect to MPR designations.
57. With respect to JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(vii), which asks if inconsistencies have arisen
between the CP, the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, the Board concludes that
these amendments do not reflect any such inconsistency, since a variety of rural residential
densities is maintained even after adoption of this CP amendment 58. Pursuant to JCC Sections
18.45.080(2)(c) and 18.45.080(1)(b), the Board finds that:
• (1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based
continue to be valid.
(3) Based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment may reflect current widely
held values of the residents of Jefferson County,
59. In addition to the required findings set forth in JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(b), in order to
recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
the Board must also make eight (8) findings as specified in Section 18.45.080(1)(c)(i)
through (viii).
60. Pursuant to JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c), the Board enters the following findings:
(i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for
transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other
• public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire, and emergency medical services, parks,
fire flow, and general governmental services).
(ii) The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
(iii) The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant
adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities.
(iv) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to the following:
a. Access
b. Provision of utilities; and
c. Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses
v) The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole.
(vi) The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
(vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities
and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA.
(viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, applicable inter -
jurisdictional policies and agreements, and local, state and federal laws.
61. Master Planned Resorts are governed under a distinct statutory provision within the GMA.
They are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural
Development (LAMIRDs). Instead, RCW 36.70A.360 provides that new MPRs "...may
constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section."
62. MLA06-87 is submitted by Statesman Group of Companies, LTD. The application is for
a Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation. (See Exhibit A for the complete legal
description and Exhibit B for a map.)
63. In consideration of the public interest, and pursuant to the authority that is granted the
County legislative authority under SEPA by RCW 43.21C.060, WAC 197-11-660 and
Jefferson County Code 18.40.770, the Board enters certain of the following conditions for
approval of the CP amendment MLA06-87, recognizing that certain of the conditions
listed here are imposed not in reliance upon SEPA but instead pursuant to the Board's
general police power as a legislative body [arising from Article XI, § 1 I of the State
Constitution and RCW 36.32.120(7)], particularly conditions d, e, f, g, v, x, as and bb:
a) Any analysis of environmental impacts is to be based on science and data pertinent to
the Brinnon site. This includes rainfall projections, runoff projections, and potential
impacts on Hood Canal b) All applications will be given an automatic SEPA threshold determination of
• Determination of Significance (DS) at the project level except where the SEPA-
responsible official determines that the application results in only minor construction.
c) The project developer will be required to negotiate memoranda of understanding
(MOU) or memoranda of agreement (MOA) to provide needed support for the Brinnon
school, fire district, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), housing, police, public
health, parks and recreation, and transit prior to approval of the development
agreement. Such agreements will be encouraged specifically between the developer
and the Pleasant Tides Yacht Club, and with the Slip owner's Association regarding
marina use, costs, dock access, loading and unloading, and parking.
d) A list of required amenities shall be in the development agreement along with
conditions for public access.
e) Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries and post offices in East
Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities for contracting and
employment, and will prefer local applicants provided they are qualified, available, and
• competitive in terms of pricing.
fj Statesman will prioritize the sourcing of construction materials from within Jefferson
County.
g) The developer shall commission a study of the number of jobs expected to be created
as a direct or indirect result of the MPR that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
average median income (AMI). The developer shall provide affordable housing (e.g.,
no more than 30% of household income) for the Brinnon MPR workers roughly
proportional to the number of jobs created that earn 80% or less of the Brinnon area
AMI. The developer may satisfy this condition through dedication of land, payment of
in lieu fee, or onsite housing development.
h) The possible ecological impact of the development's water plan that alters kettles for
use as water storage must be examined, and possibly one kettle preserved.
i) Any study done at the project level pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21C) shall include a
distinct report by a mutually chosen environmental scientist on the impacts to the
• hydrology and hydrogeology of the MPR location of the developer's intention to use one of the
existing kettles for water storage. Said report shall be peer-reviewed by a
second scientist mutually chosen by the developer and the county. The developer will
bear the financial cost of these reports.
j) Tribes should be consulted regarding cultural resources, and possibly one kettle
preserved as a cultural resource.
k) As a condition of development approval, prior to the issuance of any shoreline permit
or approval of any preliminary plat, there shall be executed or recorded with the
County Auditor a document reflecting the developer's written understanding with and
among the following: Jefferson County, local tribes, and the Department of
Archaeology and Historical Preservation, that includes a cultural resources
management plan to assure archaeological investigations and systematic monitoring of
the subject property prior to issuing permits; and during construction to maintain site
integrity, provide procedures regarding future ground -disturbing activity, assure
traditional tribal access to cultural properties and activities, and to provide for
community education opportunities.
1) A wildlife management plan focused on non -lethal strategies shall be developed in the
public interest in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and local
tribes, to prevent diminishment of tribal wildlife resources cited in the Brinnon Sub -
Area Plan (e.g., deer, elk, cougar, waterfowl, osprey, eagles, and bear), to reduce the
potential for vehicle collisions on U.S. Highway 101, to reduce the conflicts resulting
from wildlife foraging on high-value landscaping and attraction to fresh water sources,
to reduce the dangers to predators attracted to the area by prey or habitat, and to reduce
any danger to humans.
m) No deforestation or grading will be permitted prior to establishing adequate water
rights and an adequate water supply.
n) Approval of a Class A Water System by the Washington Department of Health, and
approval of a Water Rights Certificate by the Department of Ecology shall be required
prior to applying for any Jefferson County permits for plats or any new development.
o) Detailed review is needed at the project -level SEPA analysis to ensure that water
quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is based on a daily
residential demand used to establish the Equivalent Residential Units
• (ERU) for the development using a standard of 175 gallons per day (gpd). The goal of
the development is 70 gpd. All calculations for water use at any stage shall be based on
the standard of 175 gpd.
p) A Neighborhood Water Policy shall be established that requires Statesman to provide
access to the water system by any neighboring parcels if saltwater intrusion becomes an
issue for neighboring wells on Black Point, and reserve areas for additional recharge
wells will be included in case wells fail, are periodically inoperable, or cause
mounding.
q) Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero discharge
into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and
installing stormwater management infrastructures and techniques that allow no
stormwater run-off into Hood Canal, Statesman shall prepare a soil study of the soils
present at the MPR location. Soils must be proven to be conducive to the intended
infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment. Marina discharge shall
• be treated by a system that reduces contamination to the greatest possible extent.
r) A County -based comprehensive water quality monitoring plan specific to Pleasant
Harbor requiring at least monthly water collection and testing will be developed and
approved in concert with an adaptive management program prior to any site-specific
action, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring
plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by Statesman, that will include
regular offsite sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition
to any onsite monitoring regime.
s) The developer must ensure that natural greenbelts will be maintained on U.S. Highway
101 and as appropriate on the shoreline. Statesman shall record a conservation
easement protecting greenbelts and buffers to include, but not be limited to, a 200 -foot
riparian buffer along the steep bluff along the South Canal shoreline, the strip of mature
trees between U.S. Highway 101 and the Maritime Village, wetlands, and wetland
buffers. Easements shall be perpetual and irrevocable recordings dedicating the
• property as natural forest land buffers. Statesman, at its expense, shall manage these easements to
include removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting
to retain a natural visual separation of the development from Highway 101.
t) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory
regarding Tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with
the County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate,
minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to
Pleasant Harbor or the Maritime Village.
u) In keeping with the MPR designation as located in a setting of natural amenities, and in
order to satisfy the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program (JCC
18.15.135(1),(2),(6), the greenbelts of the shoreline should be retained and maintained
as they currently exist in order to provide for "the screening of facilities and amenities
so that all uses within the MPR are harmonious with each other, and in order to
incorporate and retain, as much as feasible, the preservation of natural features, historic
sites, and public views." In keeping with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 24.9,
the site plan for the MPR shall "be designed to blend with the natural setting and, to the
maximum extent possible, screen the development and its impacts from the adjacent
rural areas." Evergreen trees and understory should remain as undisturbed as possible.
Statesman shall infill plants where appropriate with indigenous trees and shrubs.
v) 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 that they will blend into the
terrain and landscape with park -like greenbelts between the buildings.
w) Construction of the MPR buildings will be completed in a manner that strives to
preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An
arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and
surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent
possible, trees of significant size (i.e., 10 inches or more in diameter at breast height
(dbh)) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root
wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery projects x) Statesman shall use the LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) and
• "Green Built" green building rating system standards. These standards, applicable to
commercial and residential dwellings respectively, "promote design and construction
practices that increase profitability while reducing the negative environmental impacts
of buildings, and improving occupant health and well-being."
y) There shall be included as a best management practice for the operation and
maintenance of a golf course within the MPR that requires the developer to maintain a
log of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used on the MPR site, and this information
will be made available to the public.
z) Statesman shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards
for the MPR. These standards are recommended for "areas with intrinsically dark
landscapes" such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or residential
areas where inhabitants have expressed a desire that all light trespass be limited.
aa) In fostering the economy of South Jefferson County by promoting tourism, the housing
units at the Maritime Village should be limited to rentals and time-shares; or, at the
• very least, it should be mandated that each section be required to keep the ratio of 65
to 35% of rental and time-shares to permanent residences per JCC 18.15.123(2).
bb) Verification of the ability to provide adequate electrical power shall be obtained from
the Mason County Public Utility District.
cc) Statesman Corporation shall collaborate with the Climate Action Committee (CAC) to
calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the MPR, and identify
techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable
methods.
dd) Statesman Corporation is encouraged to work with community apprentice groups to
identify and advertise job opportunities for local students