Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 0128 08 cc: ~D PC ' /3\ JOO :5 ~e (',-t~ STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ONE } COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,} FILE NUMBER } MLA06-87 [STATESMAN] } Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 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.01O 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 (ICC) 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. 1 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. 2 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, MLA06-87 (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 (SEP A) and a determination by the SEP A-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 SEP A. 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. 3 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 SEP A. 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. 4 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 ~he 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 ofthe 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 CPo The area is 5 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. 6 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 (Hi) 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 CPo 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 7 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 adopted into 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. 8 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. 9 (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) Ifwithin 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 ofthe 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, ~ 11 of the State Constitution and RcW 36.32.120(7)], particularly conditions d, e, f, g, v, x, aa 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. 10 b) All applications will be given an automatic SEP A threshold determination of Determination of Significance (DS) at the project level except where the SEP A- 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. f) 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 on site 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 11 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 ofFish 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. 0) Detailed review is needed at the project-level SEP A analysis to ensure that water quantity and water quality issues are addressed. The estimated potable water use is 12 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 13 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. 14 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. 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: Under MLA06-87 [Statesman], the map of Comprehensive Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcels of property located in Brinnon, Washington, and found in the legal description (see Exhibit A to this Ordinance) accompanying this CP application, shall be given in their entirety an underlying land use designation of Master Planned Resort. Section Two: The Comprehensive Plan narrative on page 3-23 would be amended to add language below the last paragraph that would read: Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new Master Planned Resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units. Section Three: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, then the development regulations and/or underlying zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of the non-compliant or invalid section of this Ordinance shall be applicable to that parcel or parcels. Section Four: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, such a finding of non-compliance or invalidity shall not nullify or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance. Section Five: The map and legal description are hereby incorporated by attachment. 16 Section Six: In consideration of the weather emergency situations of December 2007, and within the overall public interest, the Board extended the decision date on these CP amendments to January 14,2008 by Resolution No. 113-07. The Board's adoption ofthe motion approving the MPR for Black Point met the legislative intent of Resolution 113-07 as the decision date for the legislative decision. This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January ,2008. SE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (4t?l L . r." l~" ' ',..,. I ,*,' .. , ~. ~ .';~ I,.. .. ~. . II . A TTESr{ ~ Phil Johnson, hairman ~</b~~ Davi ullivan (}UlvJ7~~~ ~lie Matth s, CMC (f Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: o&~ cb I~ZOO8 David Alvarez, Deputy Ci il Prosecuti g Attorney 17 Exhibit'A Ordinance No. 01-0128-08 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 DNR leased tidelands supporting the Pleasant Harbor Marina. PARCEL A: The Northeast 1/4 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~asement for road and utility purposes through, across and over t:he following described property: Beginning at; the Southeast CO:l;ner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/1 of said Section ~5; 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 Blaok 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 Bast, 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 beginnin,g; 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: The East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 ot Section 15, Township 25 North, Range:2 West, W.M., in Jefferson County, Washington; E:XCEPT that portion thereof, lying within a strip of land conveyed to the State of Washington, for State Road No. !il, Duckabush River-North Section, by deed dated August 28, 1933, and recorded under Auditor's File No. 10817, records of Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of wa6hington. 99999-977 4/LEGAL 13 889965.1 PARCEL C: Those portions of Sections lS and 22, both in Township 25 North, Range 2 West:, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington, described as follows: The Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and Government Lot 1 of said Section 151 and Government Lots 2 and 3 of said section 22i EXCEPT those portions thereof lying East of the West line of the East 695.00 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, and East of the Southerly prolongation of said West line; ALSO EXCEPT that portion of t.he 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 1/2 in width of said Government Lot 2t in said Section 22. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of w,ashington. PARCEL D~ That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 2 West iIl.M" lying Southerly of the Black Point Road as conveyed to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Auditor's File NOs 223427, records of said CountYi EXCEPT that portion described as follows: That portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, Town,ship 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the 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 P,oint: of intersection with the Southerly m,argin of the Black point Road; thence Easterly along said Southerly ma,rgin to the point of Beginning, Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. 99999-9774/LEGAL 13889965.1 PARCEL E: That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15" Township 25 North, Range 2 West, W.M" as follows,: A strip of land 250 feet wide lying Easterly of and parallel to the Southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway 101; EXCBP'I' the right of way for Black Point Road as conveyed to Jef ferson County by deed recorded under Auditor' e FileNo. 223427 and 410339, records of Jefferson County, Washington. AIJSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described tract: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Government Lot J: thence North 8S" 23' 07" West30S.14 feet to the Southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway No. 101, and t.he TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thst'lce Southwesterly along said Highway, 117 feet, t.hence South 8S" 23' 07" East, t.o a point 175 feet West:: of the high tide line; t.hEmce Northeasterly to a point on t.he North line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, 100 feet West of said high tide line; thence North 88 " 23' 0711 West to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this except,ion. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State 0,;[ Washington. PARCEL F: Lot 1 of Watertouch short Plat, as recorded in Volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, be,ing a portion of Section 15, 1'own,ship 25 North, Range :2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. PARCEL G: Lot :2 of Wa.t:::ertouoh short Plat, as reoorded in volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 205 and 206, records of Jefferson County, Washington, being a portion of Section IS, Township 2.5 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Jefferson County, washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. 99999-9774/LEGALl3889965.! PARCEL H: Lot 3 of Wat.ert.ouch 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. I Je f ferecn County I Washington. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. PARCEL !: Lot 1, pleasant Harbor Marina Short plat, as per plat reoorded in volume 2 of Short Plats, pages 221 to 223 and amended in Volume 3 of Short Plats, pages 8 to 10 I records of Jefferson County, Washington, EXCEPT that portion of lot 1 described as follows: That portion of Government Lot ,) abutting 2nd class tidelands in Section 15, TO\lmship 25 North, Range :2 West, W.tt1., 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, washingtoni thence South 8a" 13' 42 !I East along the North line of said Section 15 for a distance of 364. SO feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 8S" 13' 42" East. 238.76 feet to the line of mean high tide; thence South 61" 12' oon West along the line of mean high tide 34.78 feet; thence North 400. 41' 54" West along the line of mean high tide 3.31 feet; thence South 62" 36' 19" West a,long the line of mean high tide 26.83 feet; thence South 87" 54' 3611 West 166,65 feet; thence North 21" 21' 05u West 43.00 feet to the point of beginning. AND ALSO EXCEPTING second Class tideland 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. 99999-977 4/LEGAL 13 889965.1 PARCEL J: 50Z,/6~CW:.. Lot 4, Pleasant Harber Marina Short Plat, as per plat recorded in Volume :2 .of Short Plats, pages 221 threugh 223, and amended in Volume 3 .of Short Plats, pages 8 through 10, recDrds of Jefferson County, Washingten. TOGETHER WITH secend class tidelands. as conveyed by the State of Washington, situate in front .of, adjacent to and abutting thereen. Situate :tn the County .of JefferSon, State .of washington. PARCEL K: <;O'Z)b-3OZD 15tbWN Those portions .of the Southwest 1/4 .of the Southeast 1/4 .of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Secti.on 22, beth in Township 25 North, Range 2 West. W . M., Jeffersen County. washington, described as follews: The Bast 345.00 fe,et of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, as measured alcng the Nerth line thereof; TOGETHER WITH that pertion of said Govern,ment Lot 2 lying East .of the Southerly prolongation of the West line of said East 345.00 fee t i Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of washington. PARCEL L: SD':! I ':7 ~I JO;Jw [\fIjL\t:l~S;:: These porticns of the Southwest 1/4 of the S.outheast 1/4 .of Section 15, and Government Lot 2 of Section 22, both in ToWnship 25 North, R.ange 2 West, W.M., .:Jefferson C.ounty, 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 prolongati.on of the West line of sa.id Eaat 520.00 feet and West of the S.outherly prolongation of the East line of said East 345.00 feet. Situate ::I.n the county of Jefferson, State of Washington. 99999-9774/LEGAL 13 889965.1 PARCEL M: . S;-,oZl..,'" 3oZ,Z C), ,(Zl.e;'$ m,orJlt:(5* Those port.ions of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 151 and Government Lot 2 of Sect.ion 221 both in Township 25 North, \ Range 2.West;:W.M. I Jefferson OCutny, washington, describei:l:as follows The East Q~5.ao feetless,t:he 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 Bast 695.00 feet and West of the Southerly prolongation of the East line of said Bast 520.00 feet. Situate in' the County of.J'efferson, State of Washington. Parcel N: 502152017 Lot 4 ofWatertouch 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. Reoords <lIxamined to f'e.br.,tary ~O, 2006, at 8:00 A M. 99999-9774/LEGAL 13889965.1 Ordinance Number: 01-0128-08 Exhibit B MLA06-87 Map: BoCC-Adopted Boundary, Brinnon MPR BrinnonMPR BOCC Adopted Boundary January 14, 2008 ,~ ~II' ...... '.....1... ".",..,' . "' ,.,,~ ,,-- l $ ; ~ i ! ; i i ! "'''_1;1_1''--''11 _11._ ..1_"'-11._.....11.... 111_111"'11'_'" .'-.-.-II_I...\. ,~ " "1 ~ i i ""_111_11) ; DNR Lease i t~ . r1 i ! i =..- ....... '....,. _. II' Legend pili_lit.... i.._..._'! MPR Boundary Printing Date: J/2812008 File: Q\Projc.;:ts'DCD\BrinnmMPR\BrinnonMPR DNR Alt8.mxd Prepared By: Doug NoltcmeicT. M.:\ -- 02007 JclferrlOn County. Wa~hin8ton GIS Coonlinate System: NAD 1983 StatcPlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet Dalum: North AmcriCllll 1983 DISCLAIMER: Jefferson County docs not alte~1 to the accuracy of the data cmtaincd hcrcin and makes no warranty with resped to its correctness or validity. Data ooniained in tbis map is limitoo by the method and accuracy ofits coIlcctioll ! i i =.~ i ~ i I i f .'..... i '. j '." , i , - \ ~ +\ i \ , \ ! '- I '-"-" I fl--"."'I...,... ~ ~'- i ...,'......... : .....,fI_I...I..II.~ o I 250 500 I 1,000 Feet I Figure 8 NOTICE OF ADOPTION BY THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for Jefferson County enacted Ordinance #[Replace with number] on January 28, 2008, thereby adopting the Brinnon MPR Comprehensive Plan amendment associated with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle; the decision having been made on January 14,2008, following the schedule outlined in Resolution #113-07, signed on December 10,2007. The Adopting Ordinance was enacted during the regular Consent Agenda at 9:30 AM in the BOCC Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1821 Jefferson St., Port Townsend. Following is a brief description of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference and is a site-specific amendment. MLA06-87: The Statesman proposal was approved as revised with conditions, to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on pages 3-23 and 3-45. The comprehensive plan narrative on page 3-23 would be amended to add language below the last paragraph to read: "Early in 2008, Jefferson County designated a new master planned resort (MPR) in Brinnon. The new master planned resort is 256 acres in size and includes the Pleasant Harbor and Black Point areas. The Marina area is existing and would be further developed to include additional commercial and residential uses such as townhouses and villas. The Black Point area of the new resort would include new facilities such as a golf course, a restaurant, a resort center, townhouses, villas, staff housing, and a community center. The overall residential construction would not exceed 890 total units." 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. Five additional site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the 2007 amendment cycle are enacted in a separate Adoption Ordinance. Availability ofInformation: Copies of the adopted ordinance are available at the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1821 Jefferson St., Port Townsend WA 98368, (360) 385-9100. A copy of the full text of the ordinance will be mailed out upon request. Background information is available at the Dept. of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend and on the DCD web pages: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment. Contact Karen Barrows for more information: (360) 379-4482 or kbarrows@co.iefferson.wa.us .