Chapter 17.80
PLEASANT HARBOR RESORT DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
17.80.020 Required mitigation measures during development and operations.
17.80.030 SEPA compliance required.
17.80.040 Revisions to master plan.
17.80.010 Resort development.
This chapter describes development and operations mitigation measures for facilities located in the Pleasant Harbor MPR, consistent with the “master plan” defined by JCC 17.60.040, describes how SEPA is used, and provides processes for reviewing major or minor revisions to the master plan. These provisions apply to all development and operations within the Pleasant Harbor MPR. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)]
17.80.020 Required mitigation measures during development and operations.
The mitigation measures required in the Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort), Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (2007 FEIS), the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement December 9, 2015 (2015 FSEIS), and the terms and conditions of the Ordinance 01-0128-08 and the mitigation measures contained in the development agreement entered into between Jefferson County and the developer are required for the Pleasant Harbor MPR. Listed for reference are those mitigation measures, which include but are not limited to:
(1) Shoreline Mitigation. The southern shoreline abutting Hood Canal will be put into a permanent conservation easement from the ordinary high water mark to 200 feet landward. Property ownership and responsibility for the permanent conservation easement shall be set forth in any development agreement.
(2) Water Quality Mitigation.
(a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall be required to perform water quality monitoring and to supply that data from the state water quality sampling station and other stations in Pleasant Harbor and submit a summary water quality report to Jefferson County.
(b) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall comply with a county-approved comprehensive water quality monitoring plan requiring at least monthly water collection and testing developed and approved in concert with an adaptive management program, utilizing best available science and appropriate state agencies. The monitoring plan shall be funded by a yearly reserve, paid for by the Pleasant Harbor MPR, that will include regular off-site sampling of pollution, discharge, and/or contaminant loading, in addition to any on-site monitoring regime.
(c) In the event that water quality shows any sign of deterioration, Jefferson County shall consult with the owners and operators of the resort, the local residents, and the state (both Washington State Department of Health and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) concerning the source of the change.
(d) Pertinent permits for the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to alleviate any water quality issues caused by the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
(3) Marina Mitigation.
(a) As a condition for permitting, all stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be captured and treated according to the most current edition of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington before discharge.
(b) There shall be no discharge of sewage or contaminated bilge waters at the marina.
(c) Pump out facilities shall be provided and operational at all times.
(d) Cleaning of fish or sea life shall be prohibited within the controlled access areas of the marina.
(e) The project permits shall incorporate shellfish protection district guidelines.
(f) The marina shall have the right to inspect any vessel at any time.
(g) The marina shall develop and manage an active boater education program appropriate to the marina setting to supplement any Jefferson County program developed as part of the shellfish protection district.
(h) New or significant expansions to existing fuel storage or transfer shall be prohibited on marina floats, docks, piers, and storage lockers.
(i) No storage of oily rags, open paints, or other flammable or environmentally hazardous materials except emergency equipment as approved in the emergency service MOU shall be permitted on the docks.
(j) Painting, scraping, and refinishing of boats shall be limited to minor repairs when in the water, which do not result in any discharge to the waters of the harbor.
(k) Any minor repairs must employ a containment barrier that prevents debris from entering the marine waters.
(l) Shellfish harvesting notices and information will be available at the resort at specific locations, such as the marina, maritime village and at the conference center.
(m) The marina operations shall incorporate mitigation requirements consistent with Jefferson County’s shellfish protection plan, and shall integrate a boater education program into a marina public education plan, which shall be implemented and maintained for so long as the resort is in operation, as part of a resort habitat management plan.
(n) The marina operations shall collect water quality data (from state sources so long as available or from approved testing plan should the state sources move or not accurately reflect Pleasant Harbor conditions), and shall be required to participate with Jefferson County in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort and related Pleasant Harbor or maritime village.
(o) The marina operations shall conduct ongoing monitoring and maintain an inventory regarding tunicates and other invasive species, and shall be required to participate with Jefferson County and state agencies in an adaptive management program to eliminate, minimize, and fully mitigate any changes arising from the resort, and related to Pleasant Harbor or the maritime village.
(4) Golf Course Mitigation.
(a) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall ensure that golf course operations comply with the best practice standards of the King County Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation (1993), or their substantial equivalent, including, but not limited to, American Golf Association standards.
(b) The golf course and resort facilities will be required to participate in any adaptive management programs required by Jefferson County, as a result of the water quality monitoring program required by subsection (2) of this section and any changes caused by the resort operations.
(c) Stormwater discharge from the golf course shall meet requirements of zero discharge into Hood Canal. To the extent necessary to achieve the goal of designing and installing stormwater management, infrastructures and techniques that allow no stormwater run-off into Hood Canal shall be used.
(d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall implement as a best management practice for the operation and maintenance of the golf course a requirement to maintain a log of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the Pleasant Harbor MPR site, and this information shall be made available to the public.
(5) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall collaborate at least annually with the Climate Action Committee or its successor to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with the Pleasant Harbor MPR, and identify techniques to mitigate such emissions through sequestration and/or other acceptable methods.
(6) Blending of Buildings, Light Mitigation, Greenbelts and Buffer Management.
(a) In keeping with an approved landscaping and grading plan, and in order to satisfy the intent of JCC 18.15.135(6), and with special emphasis at the maritime village, the buildings should be constructed and placed in such a way they will blend into the terrain and landscape with park-like green belts between buildings.
(b) Construction of buildings within the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundaries shall strive to preserve trees that have a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast height (dbh). An arborist will be consulted and the ground staked and flagged to ensure the roots and surrounding soils of significant trees are protected during construction. To the extent possible, trees of significant size (i.e., 10 inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh)) that are removed during construction shall be made available with their root wads intact for possible use in salmon recovery projects.
(c) All development within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall use the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Zone E-1 standards within the boundaries of the Pleasant Harbor MPR.
(d) The Pleasant Harbor MPR shall, at its expense, incur all costs for stewardship of the conservation easements including but not limited to removing, when appropriate, naturally fallen trees, and replanting to retain a natural visual separation of the development from U.S. Hwy 101. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)]
17.80.030 SEPA compliance required.
(1) Compliance with JCC Title 18, inclusive of all SEPA implementation policies and procedures, is required.
(2) Use of Prior Environmental Impact Statements.
(a) Potential environmental impacts from future development of the Pleasant Harbor MPR have been assessed and addressed in prior environmental documents. The prior reviews were published in the following documents:
(i) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort (September 5, 2007) (DEIS);
(ii) Brinnon (also referred to as the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort) Marina and Golf Resort, Final Environment Impact Statement (November 27, 2007) (FEIS);
(iii) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort, November 19, 2014 (DSEIS);
(iv) Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort Final Supplemental Environment Impact Statement, December 9, 2015 (FSEIS).
(b) The DEIS, FEIS, DSEIS and FSEIS are referred to collectively as the “prior EISs.” Development shall substantially comply with the express mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the prior EISs.
(c) The prior EISs shall constitute compliance to the fullest extent possible under SEPA, as well as Condition 63(b) of Ordinance 01-0128-08, for all subsequent approvals or permits to develop the Pleasant Harbor MPR including, but not limited to, plats, short plats, binding site plans, boundary line adjustments, development permits, grading permits and building permits for development and impacts that are consistent with the level and range analyzed in the prior EISs. Upon compliance with the mitigation measures required by the prior EISs, and compliance with applicable regulations and compliance with any development agreement between Jefferson County and the developer, no additional substantive SEPA mitigation measures are required for approvals or permits that authorize development, provided the development and its impacts are consistent with level and range of development analyzed in the prior EISs.
(d) Additional environmental analysis may be required for a new or modified proposal that materially exceeds the level and range of development and impacts reviewed in the prior EISs. For any such new or modified proposal, relevant information from prior EISs shall be used to the fullest extent possible in future SEPA review. The scope of environmental review shall be limited to considering how or whether the proposal differs from or exceeds the scope of the prior EISs and, if so, whether such modification results in potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed in the prior EISs. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)]
17.80.040 Revisions to master plan.
(1) Any proposed revision of size or scope to the Pleasant Harbor MPR boundary or zone changes within the Pleasant Harbor MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and related zoning action. Such changes are outside the scope of the revision processes described below and in JCC 17.80.050 and 17.80.060. Jefferson County may approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only if all applicable requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) are fulfilled.
(2) Jefferson County shall accept building permits only for projects included in and consistent with the master plan. A revision to the existing master plan shall be submitted to Jefferson County for approval prior to the acceptance of any proposal that is inconsistent with the master plan set forth in this division. Upon approval of a revision, all subsequent development proposals shall be consistent with the revised master plan and development regulations.
(3) Proposed revisions to the master plan shall be submitted to the department of community development (DCD) and the DCD director will determine whether the proposal constitutes a major or minor revision. Upon making a determination, the proposed revision shall follow the appropriate process for plan revisions as outlined in JCC 17.80.050 and 17.80.060. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)]
17.80.050 Minor revisions.
(1) Minor Revisions. The master plan may require minor changes to facilities and services in response to changing conditions or market demand. Minor revisions are those that do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the master plan and do not have a significantly greater impact on the environment than that addressed in previous environmental documents. The following nonexclusive list of changes are examples of a minor revision for purposes of this section:
(a) An increase in the overall gross commercial square footage of the master plan that does not cumulatively exceed five percent;
(b) Addition of uses that do not modify the recreational nature and intent of the resort;
(c) Minor shifting of the location or orientation of buildings;
(d) Minor shifting of the location or orientation of parking areas;
(e) Minor changes to landscaping;
(f) Minor shifting of the location, design or orientation of public facilities; and
(g) Timing of approved development.
A change to the master plan not specifically identified above may still qualify as a minor revision under this section despite its failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions in subsections (1)(a) through (g) of this section if not specifically mentioned above if the change does not otherwise qualify as a major revision.
(2) Minor Revision Approval Process. Applications for minor revisions shall be submitted to, and reviewed by, the Jefferson County department of community development (DCD) to determine if the revisions are consistent with the existing master plan, the 2007 FEIS, the 2015 FSEIS, subsequent environmental impact statements, the Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance 01-0128-08, and other pertinent documents. Those proposals that satisfy the above-referenced criteria shall be deemed a minor plan revision and may be administratively approved (as a Type II decision under the land use procedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Development Code) by the director of the department of community development. Public notice of the application, the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons or agencies as required by the land use procedures of JCC Title 18, Unified Development Code. Those revisions that do not comply with the provisions contained within this section shall be deemed a major revision, subject to the provisions outlined in JCC 17.80.060. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)]
17.80.060 Major revisions.
Revisions to the master plan that will result in a substantial change to the resort including: changes in use, increase in the intensity of use, or in the size, scale, or density of development; or changes which may have substantial impacts on the environment beyond those reviewed in previous environmental documents, are major revisions and will require application for a revised master plan.
(1) Application for a Major Revision to the Master Plan. An application shall be prepared describing the proposed revision in relation to the approved master plan and providing a framework for review, analysis and mitigation of the revised development activity proposed. The master plan revision proposal shall include the following information:
(a) A description of how the revised master plan would further the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan;
(b) A description of how the master plan revision complements the existing resort facilities of the Pleasant Harbor MPR;
(c) A description of the design and functional features of the master plan revision, setting out how the revision provides for unified development, integrated site design and protection of natural amenities;
(d) A listing of proposed additional uses and/or proposed changes to density and intensity of uses within the resort, and a discussion of how these changes meet the needs of residents of the Pleasant Harbor MPR and patrons of the resort;
(e) A completed SEPA environmental checklist with description and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed revision, including an analysis of the cumulative impacts of both the proposed revision and the approved master plan, and their effects on surrounding properties and/or public facilities;
(f) A description of how the proposed master plan revision is integrated with the overall Pleasant Harbor MPR and any features, such as connections to trail systems, natural systems or greenbelts, that have been established to retain and enhance the character of the resort and the overall Pleasant Harbor MPR;
(g) A description of the intended phasing of development projects;
(h) Maps, drawings, illustrations, or other materials necessary to assist in understanding and visualizing the design and use of the completed proposed development, its facilities and services, and the protection of critical areas;
(i) A calculation of estimated new demands on capital facilities and services and their relationship to the existing resort and MPR demands, including but not limited to transportation, water, sewer and stormwater facilities; and a demonstration that sufficient facilities and services to support the development are available or will be available at the time development permits are applied for; and
(j) A description of how the proposed major revision may affect the memorandums of understanding (MOUs) as identified in the development regulations or Ordinance 01-0128-08.
(2) Major Revision Process. Major revisions shall be processed as a hearing examiner decision (Type III), with a required public hearing prior to the decision. Public notice of the application, the required public hearing, the written decision, and appeal opportunities shall be provided to all persons or agencies as required by the land use procedures of Article III of Chapter 18.40 JCC, unified development code. Any proposed major revision also involving a change to the boundaries of the MPR shall require a Comprehensive Plan amendment (a Type V county commissioners decision) prior to any decision on the master plan amendment.
(3) Decision Criteria. The hearing examiner may approve a major revision to the master plan, and the board of county commissioners may approve any associated Comprehensive Plan amendments, only if all the following criteria are met:
(a) The proposed revision would further the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan;
(b) No unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts would be created by the proposed revision;
(c) The revision is consistent with all applicable development regulations, including those established for critical areas;
(d) On-site and off-site infrastructure (including but not limited to water, sewer, stormwater and transportation facilities) impacts have been fully considered and mitigated; and
(e) The proposed revision complements the existing resort facilities, meets the needs of residents and patrons, and provides for unified development, integrated site design, and protection of natural amenities. [Ord. 3-18 § 2 (Att. 1)]