HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORKSHOP re Transportation concurrency
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Josh D. Peters, County Administrator
FROM: Jeremy Williammee, Director
Greg Ballard, Development Code Administrator
DATE: October 19, 2026
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP re: Amendments to Jefferson County Code regarding Transportation
Concurrency Ordinance and next steps
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Jefferson County is fully planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. On
July 13, 2026, Jefferson County adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance No. 03-0713-26.
The GMA requires municipalities planning under the act to include a transportation element within their
comprehensive plans that specifies level of service standards for local streets and roads.
As part of the approved work plan, the Planning Commission (PC) held a public hearing and deliberated
during its regular meeting on September 23, 2026. Eight Planning Commissioners were present, and all
voted to recommend approval of the proposed Transportation Concurrency Ordinance as presented. The
PC’s written recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) is attached.
ANALYSIS
The development of a Transportation Concurrency Ordinance is specifically required under Ordinance
No. 03-0713-26. At the workshop, the BoCC may consider the following options:
(1) Summarily accept the PC recommendation and adopt a new chapter 18.32 Transportation
Concurrency into the Jefferson County Code without holding a public hearing; OR
(2) Schedule a BoCC public hearing to receive further public testimony and consider potential
revisions to the proposed ordinance. Under RCW 36.70.630 and JCC 18.45.090(4), the BoCC
may adopt modifications to the PC recommendation if it conducts its own public hearing.
RCW 36.70.630 requires the BoCC to adopt findings of fact and a statement of the factors
considered, including its analysis of controlling findings; OR
(3) Remand the proposed ordinance to the PC for further review and recommendation.
The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has reviewed the PC recommended Transportation Concurrency
Ordinance and find it consistent with RCW 36.70A.020(12).
FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
There is no significant fiscal impact associated with this planning process, as it is supported by the General
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a workshop with the Department of Community Development to review the PC’s recommended
Transportation Concurrency Ordinance.
•Preferred Option: If the BoCC determines that approval is in the public interest, staff recommend
that the BoCC moves to approve the proposed amendments to title 18 of the Jefferson County
Code (Unified Development Code), as presented, and direct staff to prepare a final adopting
ordinance for consideration on the November 2, 2026 regular meeting consent agenda.
•Alternative Option: If the BoCC determines there are additional adjustments needed or desires to
edit the Planning Commission recommendation, the Board should approve notice of a Public
Hearing for November 2, 2026 regular meeting.
REVIEWED BY:
Josh D. Peters, County Administrator Date
10/15/2026
C¢
SON Co .
JEFFERSON COUNTY
v,
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
4
NO.
360-379-4450 I email:PlanningCommission(a co.iefferson.wa.us
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Planning Commission
Date: September 23rd, 2026
Subject: Transmittal to BOCC: Findings and Conclusions regarding the adoption of the Jefferson
County Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
Honorable Commissioners Eisenhour, Brotherton and Dudley-Nollette:
The Jefferson County Planning Commission has completed its review and public hearing process
regarding the adoption of the Jefferson County Transportation Concurrency Ordinance. The Planning
Commission completed its review and approved its final recommendations to forward to the BOCC at its
meeting on September 23, 2026. As Chair of the Planning Commission, having first received the
authorization of the Commission, I am transmitting the following findings and recommendations of the
Commission on this proposed Transportation Concurrency Ordinance:
Findings of Fact
1. Jefferson County is fully planning under the Growth Management Act(GMA),chapter 36.70A RCW.
2. On July 13, 2026, Jefferson County adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance No. 03-
0713-26.
3. The GMA requires municipalities planning under the act to include within their comprehensive plans a
transportation element that specifies level of service(LOS) standards for local streets and roads.
4. RCW 36.70A.020(12)requires local governments to"[e]nsure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards;"
5. The county's plan for concurrency must reflect the level of service standards for state highways but only
for the purposes of monitoring performance of the system, evaluating improvement strategies, and
coordinating the county's road program with the Washington State Department of Transportation's
WSDOT) six-year program; it is within the county's discretion to adopt measures that in its judgment
reflect an accurate measurement of traffic volume and capacities for county roads.
6. The county has no authority to alter levels of service standards for state transportation facility. That
authority rests with the Washington State Transportation Commission. Nor does the county have
responsibility to make ultimate decisions concerning improvements to the state highway system,or to
raise needed funding. WSDOT is responsible for planning these state-owned facilities, while the
Page 1 of 5
Legislature has the ultimate responsibility of deciding what state owned facilities will be built and how
they will be funded. Without these assigned responsibilities or capabilities it is not possible for the
county to comply with Growth Management Act concurrency requirements for state-owned
transportation facilities.
7. In August 2026,the Transportation Concurrency Ordinance was first introduced at the Planning
Commission retreat.
8. On September 9, 2026,the Planning Commission held a workshop. At the workshop, the Planning
Commission considered technical and strategy options to address transportation concurrency.
9. DCD issued a Notice of Public Hearing and a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non-Significance on
August 31, 2026. The comment period on the DNS ended on September 16, 2026. This DNS was
routed to: WA State Department of Commerce, Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Ecology, Department of Fish & Wildlife, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Department of Transportation, and tribes. No comments were received.
10. The DNS and description of the Transportation Concurrency Ordinance was published in the Port
Townsend Leader on September 2 and 9, 2026. No comments were received from the public as of
September 23, 2026.
11. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on September 23, 2026 regarding the adoption of a
Transportation Concurrency Ordinance as presented in Appendix A. During the comment period of the
hearing, no one commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission deliberated after the close of the
public hearing on September 23, 2026. The Planning Commission did not make any modifications to
Transportation Concurrency Ordinance as presented in Appendix A. All eight of the Planning
Commissioners in attendance at the September 23, 2026 hearing voted to approve the Transportation
Concurrency Ordinance. One Planning Commissioner was absent.
12. In support of this recommendation for the development regulations located in Title 18 JCC,the Planning
Commission enters the following required findings and conclusions:
1. Required findings:adapted from JCC 18.45.080(1)(b)(i)through (I)(b)(iii)
Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially
changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
The Planning Commission finds that circumstances underlying the recommended code amendments have not
substantially changed since adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in July 2026. In fact, the
adoption of a transportation concurrency ordinance was specifically called for in the 2025 Comprehensive
Plan. The transportation concurrency ordinance is necessitated by the September 9, 2025 establishment in
the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area(PHUGA)and the enactment of Ordinance No. 06-0818-
25, which made clear that the transitional rural zoning overlay was removed from within the PHUGA where
the sewer system is located within 200 feet of an existing sewer collection line. This proposal aligns the
development regulations with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Page 2 of 5
Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid;or is
new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual
amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
The assumptions underlying the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan remain valid. The Planning
Commission finds that the proposal establishes development regulations that addresses transportation
concurrency in unincorporated Jefferson County while safeguarding public health, safety,and general
welfare.
Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal reflects values that are widely held within the community.
The proposed transportation is consistent with the 2025 Comprehensive Plan. Testimony received during the
public hearing and comment period confirms that the proposal aligns with these widely held values.
II. Required Findings from JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)through(4)(b)(vii)
Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than
anticipated, or is it failing to materialize?
The Planning Commission finds that growth in Jefferson County has occurred at a slower pace than
projected in the 2025 forecasts.
Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not
diminished or increased relating to this proposal.
Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
The Planning Commission finds there is sufficient urban land as designated and zoned to meet projected
demand and need.
Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid?
The Planning Commission finds that all assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are valid.
Are there changes in the county-wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
The Planning Commission finds that the county-wide attitudes remain strongly aligned with those embodied
on the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. The proposal does not necessitate amendments to the goals or
core values embodied in the Vision Statement. Instead, it brings the development regulations into
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan?
Page 3 of 5
The Planning Commission finds that the circumstances related to the proposal and affected areas align with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,the GMA,and
the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson County.
III. Additional Findings from JCC 18.45.080(l)(c)(i-vii)
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);
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal.The proposal is not site-specific.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals,policies and implementation strategies of
the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal.The proposal is not site-specific.
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;
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal. The proposal is not site-specific.
In the case ofa site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable
for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited
to, the following:Access; Provision of utilities;and Compatibility with existing and planning surrounding
land uses;
The Planning Commission finds that these criteria are not applicable to the proposal.
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;
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal,while not a site-specific amendment,will not create
pressure to change the land use designation of other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan;
Page 4 of 5
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment,does not materially
affect the land use and population projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
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;
The Planning Commission finds that this proposal, while not a site-specific amendment, will not materially
affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services within the immediate area and the overall
UGA. The intent of the Transportation Concurrency is to ensure adequate transportation facilities to serve
the development and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum
standards.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act(Chapter 36.70A,RCW),the
County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County,applicable inter jurisdictional policies and agreements,
and other local,state or federal laws.
The Planning Commission further finds that the proposal is consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, the GMA,the Jefferson County county-wide Planning Policies,and other applicable
regulations,rules,and statutes.
Recommendations
Following its formal deliberations on the proposed amendments to Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code
JCC)relating to Transportation Concurrency,the Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments set forth in Appendix A.
Transmitted File Location
The transmitted files that accompany these finding and recommendations are located in the Department of
Community Development,accessible in Laserfiche: https://test.cojefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/and
navigate to Community Development>Planning Commission>Agendas/Materials>2026>2026-09-23.
Sin rely,
Cynthi oan
Planning Commission Chair
Page 5 of 5
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
Chapter 18.32
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
Sections:
18.32.010 Purposes.
18.32.020 Applicability.
18.32.030 Transportation impact analysis(TIA) requirement.
18.30.040 Transportation impact analysis(TIA)required components.
18.32.050 Levels of service standards.
18.32.060 Concurrency test requirement.
18.32.070 Strategies for achieving the level of service standards in the comprehensive plan
for county roads.
18.32.010 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are to ensure that adequate Level of Service standards(LOS)adopted
in the comprehensive plan are:
1) Maintained for existing use on county roads;and,
2) Achieved concurrently with new development by only approving development
applications that would not cause the LOS on county roads to decline LOS adopted in the
comprehensive plan.
18.32.020 Applicability.
1) Except as limited by section (2) and except for those developments that generate fewer than
200 Average Daily Trips(ADT)or 25 peak hour trips,this chapter applies to all development
applications, including but not limited to development applications for subdivisions, short
plats, binding site plans, building permits, shoreline development, conditional use and special
use permits, which have a potential vehicular impact on the LOS of a county road or an
intersection of county roads.
2) This chapter does not require concurrency on state highways, including highways of statewide
significance (SR19, SR20, SR104, US101) and highways of regional significance (SR116).
Only the Washington State Transportation Commission has authority to alter LOS for state
highways. For state highways, WSDOT has responsibility to plan them, make decisions about
improvements on them, and to raise any needed funding. The Washington State Legislature
has the ultimate responsibility of deciding what state highways will be built and how they will
be funded.
Page 1 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
3) All development applications subject to this chapter as determined by application of JCC
18.32.020(1)shall be subject to concurrency review at the time such development applications
are submitted. Concurrency review shall be performed as part of the processing of a project
permit application as specified in chapter 18.40 JCC, including appeals pursuant to Article V
of chapter 18.40 JCC.
18.32.030 Transportation impact analysis(TIA) requirement.
1) A TIA as described in JCC § 18.30.080(1)(g)and 18.32.040 shall be required if:
a) The development application states that development is expected to generate 200 or more
ADT or 25 or more peak hour trips;or,
b) The director determines that development would likely generate 200 or more ADT or 25
or more peak hour trips;or
c) The proposed development is located on a county road segment with an identified LOS
deficiency;or
d) The proposed development is located on a county road segment in an identified high
accident location or corridor.
18.32.040 Transportation impact analysis (TIA) required components.
1) The TIA shall be stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of
Washington with expertise in traffic and transportation engineering.
2) The TIA shall satisfy each of the following requirements for county roads, intersections of
county roads, state highways, and intersections of county roads and state highways:
a) Calculation of post-development ADT and comparison to pre-development ADT.
b) Calculation of post-development morning peak hour, evening peak hour, and daily trip
generation and comparison to pre-development peak hour trips. Trip generation during
other than peak hours may also be required by the director.
c) Determination of whether the proposed development likely will have a vehicular impact
on the LOS of a roadway segment or an intersection of roadways.
d) Assignment of proposed development's traffic to the surrounding street system for all
examined peak hours. Show trip assignment for all intersections to which the development
adds 25 or more weekday morning or evening peak hour trips.
e) Sight distance analysis at all site access points.
f) Examination of access spacing standards, if applicable.
Page 2 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
g) Existing peak hour traffic counts at all study area intersections, which shall not be more
than 12 months old,as measured at the time the application is deemed technically complete.
h) A LOS analysis based on the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual,published by
the Transportation Research Board.
i) Signal warrant analysis based on warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices(MUTCD)if applicable,where particular attention should be given to intersections
identified as requiring mitigation.
j) Left-and right-turn lane analysis, if applicable.
k) Crash analysis consisting of the most recent complete three-year crash history.
I) Safety mitigations at intersections shall be identified at any location with a crash rate
exceeding one crash per million entering vehicles. Safety mitigations shall be identified for
roadway sections or intersections where the crash rate is more than two and one-half
crashes per million vehicle miles.
m)Trip generation calculations that compare the trip generation of the proposed development
with the adopted LOS listed in the comprehensive plan to a reasonable worst-case under
the proposed development.
n) Analysis of all the intersections in the area which are the subject of the TIA for conditions
20 years in the future. This analysis shall include intersections of county roads and state
highways. This analysis shall include all the following:
i) Conditions under current land use regulations; and,
ii) Conditions under current land use regulations plus the net increase in trip generation
resulting from the development.
o) Mitigations shall be proposed for any intersection or operational deficiencies for a county
road that is the result of the projected increase in trip generation.
3) The director shall have the discretion to require more or less information or analysis based on
the development's size and potential impacts,provided written notice to the applicant is given
no less than 30 days from submission of the TIA.
4) The director may waive the need for or limit the scope of a TIA by a written determination,
provided that any potentially affected segment of a county road or an intersection of county
roads:
a) Do not fall below adopted LOS in JCC § 18.32.050;or,
b) Have been adequately analyzed in:
Page 3 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
i) Research or reports available to the county within one year prior to submitting the
development application; or,
ii)Any traffic analysis submitted to DCD within one year after a completed application
determination pursuant to JCC § 18.40.110.
18.32.050 Levels of service standards(LOS).
Transportation facilities levels of service standards for county roads, as adopted in the
comprehensive plan, are incorporated by reference into this chapter.
18.32.060 Concurrency test requirement.
1) The concurrency test shall be applied only to the scope of the development presented in the
development application. Applicants shall specify uses, densities and intensities that are
consistent with the uses allowed for any lot that is the subject of the development application.
2) The director, with input from the county engineer, shall determine whether a concurrency test
is required as part of the development permit review process. Developments that result in a
reduction of a LOS below the adopted LOS for the affected transportation facility shall not be
approved unless an improvement or strategy relied upon to demonstrate concurrency will be
completed or implemented in the required time frame.
3) An applicant for a development permit may submit a calculation of alternative trip generation
rates for a proposed development, which must be stamped and signed by a professional
engineer licensed in the state of Washington with expertise in traffic and transportation
engineering. If accepted, the director shall adjust the trip generation forecast of the
development to account for transportation strategies proposed by the applicant and accepted
by the director.
4) The director shall not approve a development application subject to the requirements of this
chapter unless transportation facilities meet or exceed the LOS for existing uses or the impacts
of the proposed development are mitigated to meet concurrency standards in the
comprehensive plan for county roads and intersections of county roads.
a) If the applicable transportation facilities maintain an acceptable LOS after accounting for
the proposed development then the development meets the concurrency standards.
b) If the LOS for transportation facilities impacted by the development falls below the adopted
LOS for county roads or intersections of county roads,then the development does not meet
LOS, and the applicant shall select one of the following options:
i) Propose mitigation measures that would ensure concurrency consistent with the
adopted LOS for county roads are met for the proposed development.Mitigation may
include altering the development design or density, voluntarily arranging for the
transportation facilities needed to meet concurrency,or other measures acceptable to
the director.Any improvements or strategies relied upon to demonstrate concurrency
must be completed or implemented within the required timeframe; or,
Page 4 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
ii) Accept the denial of the development application.
5) An increase on the LOS determined by a TIA or the performance of a concurrency test caused
by the development on any segment of a state highway or on an intersection of a county road
with a state highway shall not result in a denial of the application.
18.32.070 Strategies for achieving LOS in the comprehensive plan for county roads.
Each of the following strategies for achieving the LOS in the comprehensive plan is approved for
concurrency mitigation for new development:
1) The county may amend the six-year transportation improvement program (TIP) without
following the requirements of chapter 18.45 JCC, provided there are no inconsistencies with
language in the comprehensive plan.
2) The director may approve applications for development, provided mitigation measures
performed by the applicant will achieve and maintain the LOS for county roads in the
comprehensive plan for the whole development or, if the development is phased, after a phase
of the development has been completed. Mitigation measures for a phase of development shall
not be sufficient mitigation for the whole development. Any additional development on a
phased development is prohibited if only mitigation measures for a phase of a development
have been completed.
3)The director may approve development applications, where mitigation measures are accepted
by WSDOT that will be performed by the applicant or by WSDOT that will achieve and
maintain the LOS at intersections of county roads and state highways.
4)The county may include in the capital appropriations of its budget, expenditures to meet
financial commitments for all transportation improvement developments required to maintain
LOS, except that the county may omit from its budget any capital improvements for which a
binding agreement has been executed with another person to provide the same transportation
improvement development in the same fiscal year.
Page 5 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
Changes needed to existing code:
Chapter 18.10 JCC:
18.10.030 C definitions.
Concurrency"means a condition at the time of a development where improvements or strategies
are in place at the time of a development to have the necessary capacity to meet the adopted LOS
in the comprehensive plan, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six years as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b).
County road" has the same meaning as in RCW 46.04.150.
18.10.060 F definitions.
18.10.080 H definitions.
Highway of regional significance" a highway designated as a highway of regional significance
listed in RCW 47.05.025 or designated by the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (PRTPO), a regional transportation planning organization created pursuant to
Chapter 47.80 RCW.
Highway of statewide significance"has the same meaning as in RCW 47.05.022.
18.10.120 L definitions.
G3
Levels of service standards (LOS)" are those adopted level of service standards in the current
version of the comprehensive plan for county roads.
18.10.190 S definitions.
Page 6 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
State highway" means every highway listed in Chapter 47.17 RCW, and includes but is not
limited to highways of regional significance and highways of state significance.
18.10.200 T definitions.
Transportation improvement program or (TIP)" means the six-year transportation program
required by RCW 36.81.121.
Chapter 18.15 JCC:
18.15.126 Requirements for master planned resorts.
An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements:
1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide
a framework for project development and operation.This shall include:
a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that where the MPR is being situated to use
and enjoy, and the natural and recreational features that will attract people to the area and resort.
b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term visitor
accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site recreational
opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and commercial and supportive
services provided.
c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of use of the
MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its
users.
d)A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing the full extent
and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential
and nonresidential development types and location.
e)A description,with supportive information and maps,of the design and functional features that
provide for unified development, superior site design and protection of natural amenities, and
which further the goals and policies of the Geni rchensive Plan comprehensive plan. This shall
address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and parking
design,capital facilities,and other components are integrated into the project site.
f)A description of the critical areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their
protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act,a description and supportive materials or maps showing proposed public access
to the shoreline area pursuant-to following the shoreline master program.
Page 7 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and
arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the
development and adjacent to the development.
h)A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or
desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that concurrency requirements
of the-Comprehensive-Plan chapter 18.32 JCC will be met.
i)A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any.The application for
an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity
of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at
interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate
successfully and meet environmental protection, traffic transportation concurrency, and other
commitments should development cease before all phases are completed.
Chapter 18.40 JCC:
18.40.100 Development permit application.
1) Information Required for All Applications. Applications for project permit decisions shall be
submitted upon forms provided by the administrator. A project permit application is complete
when it meets the submission requirements of this section. An application shall consist of all
materials required by the relevant section of this code or other applicable county ordinance or
regulation, and shall also include the following general information:
a)A completed site development review(SDR)under Article VII of this chapter.
b)A completed project permit application form, including a SEPA checklist unless categorically
exempt from SEPA;
c) A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the
exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the
written consent of all owners of the affected property,and proof of ownership of the property;
d)Identification of a single contact person or entity to receive determinations and notices required
by this code;
e)A legal description of the site, including the Jefferson County assessor's parcel number;
f) Payment of the applicable fee as set forth in the most recently adopted DCD fee schedule;
g) For each development or proposed use necessitating potable water, evidence of available and
adequate water supply and, if applicable, compliance with the requirements established by the
Jefferson County department of health for the provision of water; evidence may be in the form of
a water right permit from the Department of Ecology, or another form sufficient to verify the
existence of an adequate water supply;
Page 8 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
h) Evidence of septic approval, a valid pending septic application, or sewer availability and, if
applicable, compliance with the requirements established by the Jefferson County department of
health for wastewater disposal;
i)Site Plan Requirements for Permits.The following shall be depicted either in required narrative
above and/or on the site plan detailing the following (as applicable unless waived by the
administrator):
i)Compass direction and graphic scale;
ii) Parcel boundaries and dimensions;
iii)Location of existing and proposed roads and access points;
iv) Driveways and parking areas;
v) Easement and rights-of-way located on the property within the proposed developed/use area;
vi)The location of septic,wells, and water lines within the developed areas;
vii) The general description of the topography of the entire site (including slope direction and
five-foot contours);
viii)The location of existing and proposed structures including setbacks;
ix)All proposed or existing uses;
x)The location of existing and proposed landscaping if required for development/or use;
xi)The areas to be graded and cleared(including source and volumes if over 500 cubic yards);
xii)The location of significant geographic features(including slopes exceeding 40 percent slope)
on the site and immediately adjoining properties;
xiii) Location and type of water bodies,drainage ways,or wetlands;
xiv)Location and type of shorelines and critical areas;
xv) Shoreline and critical area buffers where trees/vegetation shall be retained, and if applicable,
associated special reports; and
xvi) Preliminary drainage plan including measures to address stormwater management for
development and land disturbing activity;
j) Identification of other local, state and federal permits required for the proposal, to the extent
known by the applicant;
Page 9 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
k) A verified statement whether the proposed development is expected to generate 200 or more
or 25 or more total weekday morning or evening peak hour trips;
IE1) All permit applications shall include the information specified in the chapter of the County
Code pertaining to the specific type of development permit being applied for. In addition to this
chapter, where applicable,with the following chapters in the Unified Development Code:
Chapter 18.15 Land Use Districts
Chapter 18.18 Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Development Regulation Implementation
Chapter 18.19 Transitional Rural Development Standards of the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban
Growth Area
Chapter 18.20 Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas
Chapter 18.25 Shoreline Master Program
Chapter 18.30 Development Standards
Chapter 18.35 Land Divisions
The county may require such additional information as reasonably necessary to fulfill and properly
evaluate the proposal;
1)At every stage of the permit application process,the burden of demonstrating that any proposed
development is consistent with this chapter and other applicable, adopted regulations is upon the
applicant.
2) Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily and Small-Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses —
Additional Application Requirements. In addition to the general information required under
subsection (1) of this section, development or proposed uses involving commercial, industrial,
multifamily, and small-scale recreational and tourist uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC §18.15.040
shall include a site plan prepared by a civil engineer, architect or landscape architect licensed in
the state of Washington that includes or graphically depicts the following information:
a)A site plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer,architect,or landscape architect unless waived
by the administrator(i.e., for low-intensity small-scale recreation and tourist uses);
b) Engineered drainage plan;
c) Parking plan(including ADA requirements);
d)Lighting plan;
Page 10 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
e) Landscaping plan;
f) Signage plan;
g) Fire protection requirements (water lines, hydrants, fire suppression systems, uses within
structure,eteetc.);
h) Compliance with DCD land use authorization requirements if not a "yes" use per Table 3-1;
and
i)Other requirements required by DCD for the review of the proposal.
3) Additional Application Requirements. In addition to the information required under
subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the administrator may require additional information or
studies i-order for the application to be considered complete. Such information may include, but
is not necessarily limited to,the following:
a)A phasing plan, acreage of phases,and time schedule, if the site is intended to be developed in
phases;
b) Enumeration of the number of persons that will reside in a dwelling(s);
c) Documentation of the date and method of segregation for the subject property verifying that
the lot or lots were not created in violation of the subdivision (i.e., either short or long) laws in
effect at the time of creation, or identifying whether the lots were created prior to the advent of
Ghapter chapter 58.16 RCW in 1937(now codified in GhapteF chapter 58.17 RCW);
d) A recorded survey of the subject property in-order to verify property boundaries and setback
measurements;
e) Special reports pursuant to GhapteF chapter 18.22 JCC, Article IX or as required by the
administrator.
4) Application Requirements in Other Applicable Regulations. Applications for the following
land use permits must satisfy JCC § 18.40.100(1), (2) and, if required, (3), and the following
provisions of this Unified Development Code and applicable county ordinances and regulations:
a)Building permits under the Jefferson County building code,Chapter 15.05 JCC,or its successor
ordinance;
b)On-site septic systems pursuant to Chapter 8.15 JCC;
c)Critical areas variance under JCC § 18.22.250;
d) Reasonable economic use exception permits under JCC § 18.22.260;
Page 11 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
e) Planned rural residential developments(PRRDs)under Article VI-M of Chapter 18.15 JCC;
f)Cottage industries under JCC § 18.20.170;
g)Home businesses under JCC § 18.20.200;
h)Temporary outdoor use permits under JCC § 18.20.380;
i) Stormwater management permits under JCC § 18.30.070;
j) Sign permits under JCC § 18.30.150;
k) Boundary line adjustments under Article II of Chapter 18.35 JCC;
1) Short plats under Article III of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
m)Long plats under Article IV of Ghapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
n) Binding site plans under Article V of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
o) Written exemptions, shoreline substantial development permits for primary and secondary
uses, and shoreline conditional use and variance permits under the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program;
p) Wireless telecommunications permits under JCC § 18.20.130 and Chapter chapter 18.42 JCC;
and
q) Plat alterations under Article VII of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
r) Unit lot subdivisions under Article IX of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC.
All application requirements identified in other code sections that supplement or supersede the
requirements of this chapter shall be met before an application is deemed complete.
5) Waivers. The administrator may waive any specific submittal requirements determined to be
unnecessary for review of any application. In such event, the administrator shall document the
waiver in the project file or project log.
Chapter 18.45 JCC:
18.45.080 Final docket— Planning commission and board of county commissioners' review.
1)Planning Commission Review.All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed
and assessed by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of
county commissioners after holding at least one open record public hearing.
Page 12 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
a)Notice.The hearing before the planning commission shall be noticed by one publication in the
official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a
copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. This notice shall include the
following:
i)The purpose(s)of amending and/or updating the comprehensive plan;
ii)The deadline for submitting comments on the amendments; and
iii) A tentative hearing schedule; continued hearings may be held by the planning commission,.
but no additional notices need be published.
b) Required Findings—Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall
develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC § 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)through(4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
i)Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment for the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of the
comprehensive plan;
ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the
comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which
was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County
comprehensive plan; and
iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County.
c)Additional Required Findings—Formal Site-Specific Amendments. In addition to the findings
required in subsection (1)(b) of this section, to recommend approval of a formal site-specific
proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan comprehensive plan, the planning commission must
also make the following findings:
i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation in
chapter 18.32 JCC and does not adversely affect the LOS 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
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;
Page 13 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
iv)In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map,the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated-land u e proposed 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 shall not require changing 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 bases of the Co ehen 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 County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-
jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
d) Recommendation. The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a
recommendation to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s)be denied,
approved, or approved with conditions or modifications.
Page 14 of 14
C¢SON Co . JEFFERSON COUNTY
v, PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
;4 NO. 360-379-4450 I email:PlanningCommission(a co.iefferson.wa.us
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Planning Commission
Date: September 23rd, 2026
Subject: Transmittal to BOCC: Findings and Conclusions regarding the adoption of the Jefferson
County Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
Honorable Commissioners Eisenhour, Brotherton and Dudley-Nollette:
The Jefferson County Planning Commission has completed its review and public hearing process
regarding the adoption of the Jefferson County Transportation Concurrency Ordinance. The Planning
Commission completed its review and approved its final recommendations to forward to the BOCC at its
meeting on September 23, 2026. As Chair of the Planning Commission, having first received the
authorization of the Commission, I am transmitting the following findings and recommendations of the
Commission on this proposed Transportation Concurrency Ordinance:
Findings of Fact
1. Jefferson County is fully planning under the Growth Management Act(GMA),chapter 36.70A RCW.
2. On July 13, 2026, Jefferson County adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance No. 03-
0713-26.
3. The GMA requires municipalities planning under the act to include within their comprehensive plans a
transportation element that specifies level of service(LOS) standards for local streets and roads.
4. RCW 36.70A.020(12)requires local governments to"[e]nsure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards;"
5. The county's plan for concurrency must reflect the level of service standards for state highways but only
for the purposes of monitoring performance of the system, evaluating improvement strategies, and
coordinating the county's road program with the Washington State Department of Transportation's
(WSDOT) six-year program; it is within the county's discretion to adopt measures that in its judgment
reflect an accurate measurement of traffic volume and capacities for county roads.
6. The county has no authority to alter levels of service standards for state transportation facility. That
authority rests with the Washington State Transportation Commission. Nor does the county have
responsibility to make ultimate decisions concerning improvements to the state highway system,or to
raise needed funding. WSDOT is responsible for planning these state-owned facilities, while the
Page 1 of 5
Legislature has the ultimate responsibility of deciding what state owned facilities will be built and how
they will be funded. Without these assigned responsibilities or capabilities it is not possible for the
county to comply with Growth Management Act concurrency requirements for state-owned
transportation facilities.
7. In August 2026,the Transportation Concurrency Ordinance was first introduced at the Planning
Commission retreat.
8. On September 9, 2026,the Planning Commission held a workshop. At the workshop, the Planning
Commission considered technical and strategy options to address transportation concurrency.
9. DCD issued a Notice of Public Hearing and a SEPA Threshold Determination of Non-Significance on
August 31, 2026. The comment period on the DNS ended on September 16, 2026. This DNS was
routed to: WA State Department of Commerce, Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Ecology, Department of Fish & Wildlife, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Department of Transportation, and tribes. No comments were received.
10. The DNS and description of the Transportation Concurrency Ordinance was published in the Port
Townsend Leader on September 2 and 9, 2026. No comments were received from the public as of
September 23, 2026.
11. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on September 23, 2026 regarding the adoption of a
Transportation Concurrency Ordinance as presented in Appendix A. During the comment period of the
hearing, no one commented on the proposal. The Planning Commission deliberated after the close of the
public hearing on September 23, 2026. The Planning Commission did not make any modifications to
Transportation Concurrency Ordinance as presented in Appendix A. All eight of the Planning
Commissioners in attendance at the September 23, 2026 hearing voted to approve the Transportation
Concurrency Ordinance. One Planning Commissioner was absent.
12. In support of this recommendation for the development regulations located in Title 18 JCC,the Planning
Commission enters the following required findings and conclusions:
1. Required findings:adapted from JCC 18.45.080(1)(b)(i)through (I)(b)(iii)
Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially
changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
The Planning Commission finds that circumstances underlying the recommended code amendments have not
substantially changed since adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in July 2026. In fact, the
adoption of a transportation concurrency ordinance was specifically called for in the 2025 Comprehensive
Plan. The transportation concurrency ordinance is necessitated by the September 9, 2025 establishment in
the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area(PHUGA)and the enactment of Ordinance No. 06-0818-
25, which made clear that the transitional rural zoning overlay was removed from within the PHUGA where
the sewer system is located within 200 feet of an existing sewer collection line. This proposal aligns the
development regulations with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Page 2 of 5
Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid;or is
new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual
amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
The assumptions underlying the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan remain valid. The Planning
Commission finds that the proposal establishes development regulations that addresses transportation
concurrency in unincorporated Jefferson County while safeguarding public health, safety,and general
welfare.
Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal reflects values that are widely held within the community.
The proposed transportation is consistent with the 2025 Comprehensive Plan. Testimony received during the
public hearing and comment period confirms that the proposal aligns with these widely held values.
II. Required Findings from JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)through(4)(b)(vii)
Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than
anticipated, or is it failing to materialize?
The Planning Commission finds that growth in Jefferson County has occurred at a slower pace than
projected in the 2025 forecasts.
Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not
diminished or increased relating to this proposal.
Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
The Planning Commission finds there is sufficient urban land as designated and zoned to meet projected
demand and need.
Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid?
The Planning Commission finds that all assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are valid.
Are there changes in the county-wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
The Planning Commission finds that the county-wide attitudes remain strongly aligned with those embodied
on the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. The proposal does not necessitate amendments to the goals or
core values embodied in the Vision Statement. Instead, it brings the development regulations into
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan?
Page 3 of 5
The Planning Commission finds that the circumstances related to the proposal and affected areas align with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County?
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,the GMA,and
the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson County.
III. Additional Findings from JCC 18.45.080(l)(c)(i-vii)
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);
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal.The proposal is not site-specific.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals,policies and implementation strategies of
the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal.The proposal is not site-specific.
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;
The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal. The proposal is not site-specific.
In the case ofa site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable
for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited
to, the following:Access; Provision of utilities;and Compatibility with existing and planning surrounding
land uses;
The Planning Commission finds that these criteria are not applicable to the proposal.
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;
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal,while not a site-specific amendment,will not create
pressure to change the land use designation of other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan;
Page 4 of 5
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment,does not materially
affect the land use and population projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
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;
The Planning Commission finds that this proposal, while not a site-specific amendment, will not materially
affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services within the immediate area and the overall
UGA. The intent of the Transportation Concurrency is to ensure adequate transportation facilities to serve
the development and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum
standards.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act(Chapter 36.70A,RCW),the
County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County,applicable inter jurisdictional policies and agreements,
and other local,state or federal laws.
The Planning Commission further finds that the proposal is consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, the GMA,the Jefferson County county-wide Planning Policies,and other applicable
regulations,rules,and statutes.
Recommendations
Following its formal deliberations on the proposed amendments to Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code
(JCC)relating to Transportation Concurrency,the Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments set forth in Appendix A.
Transmitted File Location
The transmitted files that accompany these finding and recommendations are located in the Department of
Community Development,accessible in Laserfiche: https://test.cojefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/and
navigate to Community Development>Planning Commission>Agendas/Materials>2026>2026-09-23.
Sin rely,
Cynthi oan
Planning Commission Chair
Page 5 of 5
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
Chapter 18.32
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
Sections:
18.32.010 Purposes.
18.32.020 Applicability.
18.32.030 Transportation impact analysis(TIA) requirement.
18.30.040 Transportation impact analysis(TIA)required components.
18.32.050 Levels of service standards.
18.32.060 Concurrency test requirement.
18.32.070 Strategies for achieving the level of service standards in the comprehensive plan
for county roads.
18.32.010 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are to ensure that adequate Level of Service standards(LOS)adopted
in the comprehensive plan are:
(1) Maintained for existing use on county roads;and,
(2) Achieved concurrently with new development by only approving development
applications that would not cause the LOS on county roads to decline LOS adopted in the
comprehensive plan.
18.32.020 Applicability.
(1) Except as limited by section (2) and except for those developments that generate fewer than
200 Average Daily Trips(ADT)or 25 peak hour trips,this chapter applies to all development
applications, including but not limited to development applications for subdivisions, short
plats, binding site plans, building permits, shoreline development, conditional use and special
use permits, which have a potential vehicular impact on the LOS of a county road or an
intersection of county roads.
(2) This chapter does not require concurrency on state highways, including highways of statewide
significance (SR19, SR20, SR104, US101) and highways of regional significance (SR116).
Only the Washington State Transportation Commission has authority to alter LOS for state
highways. For state highways, WSDOT has responsibility to plan them, make decisions about
improvements on them, and to raise any needed funding. The Washington State Legislature
has the ultimate responsibility of deciding what state highways will be built and how they will
be funded.
Page 1 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(3) All development applications subject to this chapter as determined by application of JCC
18.32.020(1)shall be subject to concurrency review at the time such development applications
are submitted. Concurrency review shall be performed as part of the processing of a project
permit application as specified in chapter 18.40 JCC, including appeals pursuant to Article V
of chapter 18.40 JCC.
18.32.030 Transportation impact analysis(TIA) requirement.
(1) A TIA as described in JCC § 18.30.080(1)(g)and 18.32.040 shall be required if:
(a) The development application states that development is expected to generate 200 or more
ADT or 25 or more peak hour trips;or,
(b) The director determines that development would likely generate 200 or more ADT or 25
or more peak hour trips;or
(c) The proposed development is located on a county road segment with an identified LOS
deficiency;or
(d) The proposed development is located on a county road segment in an identified high
accident location or corridor.
18.32.040 Transportation impact analysis (TIA) required components.
(1) The TIA shall be stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of
Washington with expertise in traffic and transportation engineering.
(2) The TIA shall satisfy each of the following requirements for county roads, intersections of
county roads, state highways, and intersections of county roads and state highways:
(a) Calculation of post-development ADT and comparison to pre-development ADT.
(b) Calculation of post-development morning peak hour, evening peak hour, and daily trip
generation and comparison to pre-development peak hour trips. Trip generation during
other than peak hours may also be required by the director.
(c) Determination of whether the proposed development likely will have a vehicular impact
on the LOS of a roadway segment or an intersection of roadways.
(d) Assignment of proposed development's traffic to the surrounding street system for all
examined peak hours. Show trip assignment for all intersections to which the development
adds 25 or more weekday morning or evening peak hour trips.
(e) Sight distance analysis at all site access points.
(f) Examination of access spacing standards, if applicable.
Page 2 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(g) Existing peak hour traffic counts at all study area intersections, which shall not be more
than 12 months old,as measured at the time the application is deemed technically complete.
(h) A LOS analysis based on the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual,published by
the Transportation Research Board.
(i) Signal warrant analysis based on warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices(MUTCD)if applicable,where particular attention should be given to intersections
identified as requiring mitigation.
(j) Left-and right-turn lane analysis, if applicable.
(k) Crash analysis consisting of the most recent complete three-year crash history.
(I) Safety mitigations at intersections shall be identified at any location with a crash rate
exceeding one crash per million entering vehicles. Safety mitigations shall be identified for
roadway sections or intersections where the crash rate is more than two and one-half
crashes per million vehicle miles.
(m)Trip generation calculations that compare the trip generation of the proposed development
with the adopted LOS listed in the comprehensive plan to a reasonable worst-case under
the proposed development.
(n) Analysis of all the intersections in the area which are the subject of the TIA for conditions
20 years in the future. This analysis shall include intersections of county roads and state
highways. This analysis shall include all the following:
(i) Conditions under current land use regulations; and,
(ii) Conditions under current land use regulations plus the net increase in trip generation
resulting from the development.
(o) Mitigations shall be proposed for any intersection or operational deficiencies for a county
road that is the result of the projected increase in trip generation.
(3) The director shall have the discretion to require more or less information or analysis based on
the development's size and potential impacts,provided written notice to the applicant is given
no less than 30 days from submission of the TIA.
(4) The director may waive the need for or limit the scope of a TIA by a written determination,
provided that any potentially affected segment of a county road or an intersection of county
roads:
(a) Do not fall below adopted LOS in JCC § 18.32.050;or,
(b) Have been adequately analyzed in:
Page 3 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(i) Research or reports available to the county within one year prior to submitting the
development application; or,
(ii)Any traffic analysis submitted to DCD within one year after a completed application
determination pursuant to JCC § 18.40.110.
18.32.050 Levels of service standards(LOS).
Transportation facilities levels of service standards for county roads, as adopted in the
comprehensive plan, are incorporated by reference into this chapter.
18.32.060 Concurrency test requirement.
(1) The concurrency test shall be applied only to the scope of the development presented in the
development application. Applicants shall specify uses, densities and intensities that are
consistent with the uses allowed for any lot that is the subject of the development application.
(2) The director, with input from the county engineer, shall determine whether a concurrency test
is required as part of the development permit review process. Developments that result in a
reduction of a LOS below the adopted LOS for the affected transportation facility shall not be
approved unless an improvement or strategy relied upon to demonstrate concurrency will be
completed or implemented in the required time frame.
(3) An applicant for a development permit may submit a calculation of alternative trip generation
rates for a proposed development, which must be stamped and signed by a professional
engineer licensed in the state of Washington with expertise in traffic and transportation
engineering. If accepted, the director shall adjust the trip generation forecast of the
development to account for transportation strategies proposed by the applicant and accepted
by the director.
(4) The director shall not approve a development application subject to the requirements of this
chapter unless transportation facilities meet or exceed the LOS for existing uses or the impacts
of the proposed development are mitigated to meet concurrency standards in the
comprehensive plan for county roads and intersections of county roads.
(a) If the applicable transportation facilities maintain an acceptable LOS after accounting for
the proposed development then the development meets the concurrency standards.
(b) If the LOS for transportation facilities impacted by the development falls below the adopted
LOS for county roads or intersections of county roads,then the development does not meet
LOS, and the applicant shall select one of the following options:
(i) Propose mitigation measures that would ensure concurrency consistent with the
adopted LOS for county roads are met for the proposed development.Mitigation may
include altering the development design or density, voluntarily arranging for the
transportation facilities needed to meet concurrency,or other measures acceptable to
the director.Any improvements or strategies relied upon to demonstrate concurrency
must be completed or implemented within the required timeframe; or,
Page 4 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(ii) Accept the denial of the development application.
(5) An increase on the LOS determined by a TIA or the performance of a concurrency test caused
by the development on any segment of a state highway or on an intersection of a county road
with a state highway shall not result in a denial of the application.
18.32.070 Strategies for achieving LOS in the comprehensive plan for county roads.
Each of the following strategies for achieving the LOS in the comprehensive plan is approved for
concurrency mitigation for new development:
(1) The county may amend the six-year transportation improvement program (TIP) without
following the requirements of chapter 18.45 JCC, provided there are no inconsistencies with
language in the comprehensive plan.
(2) The director may approve applications for development, provided mitigation measures
performed by the applicant will achieve and maintain the LOS for county roads in the
comprehensive plan for the whole development or, if the development is phased, after a phase
of the development has been completed. Mitigation measures for a phase of development shall
not be sufficient mitigation for the whole development. Any additional development on a
phased development is prohibited if only mitigation measures for a phase of a development
have been completed.
(3)The director may approve development applications, where mitigation measures are accepted
by WSDOT that will be performed by the applicant or by WSDOT that will achieve and
maintain the LOS at intersections of county roads and state highways.
(4)The county may include in the capital appropriations of its budget, expenditures to meet
financial commitments for all transportation improvement developments required to maintain
LOS, except that the county may omit from its budget any capital improvements for which a
binding agreement has been executed with another person to provide the same transportation
improvement development in the same fiscal year.
Page 5 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
Changes needed to existing code:
Chapter 18.10 JCC:
18.10.030 C definitions.
"Concurrency"means a condition at the time of a development where improvements or strategies
are in place at the time of a development to have the necessary capacity to meet the adopted LOS
in the comprehensive plan, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six years as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b).
,
"County road" has the same meaning as in RCW 46.04.150.
18.10.060 F definitions.
18.10.080 H definitions.
"Highway of regional significance" a highway designated as a highway of regional significance
listed in RCW 47.05.025 or designated by the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (PRTPO), a regional transportation planning organization created pursuant to
Chapter 47.80 RCW.
"Highway of statewide significance"has the same meaning as in RCW 47.05.022.
18.10.120 L definitions.
,
«G3
"Levels of service standards (LOS)" are those adopted level of service standards in the current
version of the comprehensive plan for county roads.
18.10.190 S definitions.
Page 6 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
"State highway" means every highway listed in Chapter 47.17 RCW, and includes but is not
limited to highways of regional significance and highways of state significance.
18.10.200 T definitions.
"Transportation improvement program or (TIP)" means the six-year transportation program
required by RCW 36.81.121.
Chapter 18.15 JCC:
18.15.126 Requirements for master planned resorts.
An applicant for an MPR project must meet the following requirements:
(1) Master Plan. A master plan shall be prepared for the MPR to describe the project and provide
a framework for project development and operation.This shall include:
(a) A description of the setting and natural amenities that where the MPR is being situated to use
and enjoy, and the natural and recreational features that will attract people to the area and resort.
(b) A description of the destination resort facilities of the MPR, including short-term visitor
accommodations, on-site outdoor and indoor recreational facilities, off-site recreational
opportunities offered or provided as part of the resort's services, and commercial and supportive
services provided.
(c) A listing of the proposed allowable uses and maximum densities and intensities of use of the
MPR and a discussion of how these uses and their distribution meet the needs of the resort and its
users.
(d)A land use map or maps that depict the completed MPR development, showing the full extent
and ultimate development of the MPR or resort and its facilities and services, including residential
and nonresidential development types and location.
(e)A description,with supportive information and maps,of the design and functional features that
provide for unified development, superior site design and protection of natural amenities, and
which further the goals and policies of the Geni rchensive Plan comprehensive plan. This shall
address how landscaping, screening, and open space, recreational facilities, road and parking
design,capital facilities,and other components are integrated into the project site.
(f)A description of the critical areas of the project and the measures that will be employed for their
protection. For an MPR adjacent to the water and subject to the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act,a description and supportive materials or maps showing proposed public access
to the shoreline area pursuant-to following the shoreline master program.
Page 7 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(g) A description of how the MPR relates to surrounding properties, and how its design and
arrangement minimize adverse impacts and promote compatibility among land uses within the
development and adjacent to the development.
(h)A demonstration that sufficient facilities and service which may be necessary, appropriate, or
desirable for the support of the development will be available, and that concurrency requirements
of the-Comprehensive-Plan chapter 18.32 JCC will be met.
(i)A description of the intended phasing of development of the project, if any.The application for
an MPR shall provide sufficient detail for the phases such that the full intended scope and intensity
of the development can be evaluated. This shall also discuss how the project will function at
interim stages prior to completion of all phases of the project, and how the project may operate
successfully and meet environmental protection, traffic transportation concurrency, and other
commitments should development cease before all phases are completed.
Chapter 18.40 JCC:
18.40.100 Development permit application.
(1) Information Required for All Applications. Applications for project permit decisions shall be
submitted upon forms provided by the administrator. A project permit application is complete
when it meets the submission requirements of this section. An application shall consist of all
materials required by the relevant section of this code or other applicable county ordinance or
regulation, and shall also include the following general information:
(a)A completed site development review(SDR)under Article VII of this chapter.
(b)A completed project permit application form, including a SEPA checklist unless categorically
exempt from SEPA;
(c) A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the
exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the
written consent of all owners of the affected property,and proof of ownership of the property;
(d)Identification of a single contact person or entity to receive determinations and notices required
by this code;
(e)A legal description of the site, including the Jefferson County assessor's parcel number;
(f) Payment of the applicable fee as set forth in the most recently adopted DCD fee schedule;
(g) For each development or proposed use necessitating potable water, evidence of available and
adequate water supply and, if applicable, compliance with the requirements established by the
Jefferson County department of health for the provision of water; evidence may be in the form of
a water right permit from the Department of Ecology, or another form sufficient to verify the
existence of an adequate water supply;
Page 8 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(h) Evidence of septic approval, a valid pending septic application, or sewer availability and, if
applicable, compliance with the requirements established by the Jefferson County department of
health for wastewater disposal;
(i)Site Plan Requirements for Permits.The following shall be depicted either in required narrative
above and/or on the site plan detailing the following (as applicable unless waived by the
administrator):
(i)Compass direction and graphic scale;
(ii) Parcel boundaries and dimensions;
(iii)Location of existing and proposed roads and access points;
(iv) Driveways and parking areas;
(v) Easement and rights-of-way located on the property within the proposed developed/use area;
(vi)The location of septic,wells, and water lines within the developed areas;
(vii) The general description of the topography of the entire site (including slope direction and
five-foot contours);
(viii)The location of existing and proposed structures including setbacks;
(ix)All proposed or existing uses;
(x)The location of existing and proposed landscaping if required for development/or use;
(xi)The areas to be graded and cleared(including source and volumes if over 500 cubic yards);
(xii)The location of significant geographic features(including slopes exceeding 40 percent slope)
on the site and immediately adjoining properties;
(xiii) Location and type of water bodies,drainage ways,or wetlands;
(xiv)Location and type of shorelines and critical areas;
(xv) Shoreline and critical area buffers where trees/vegetation shall be retained, and if applicable,
associated special reports; and
(xvi) Preliminary drainage plan including measures to address stormwater management for
development and land disturbing activity;
(j) Identification of other local, state and federal permits required for the proposal, to the extent
known by the applicant;
Page 9 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(k) A verified statement whether the proposed development is expected to generate 200 or more
or 25 or more total weekday morning or evening peak hour trips;
(IE1) All permit applications shall include the information specified in the chapter of the County
Code pertaining to the specific type of development permit being applied for. In addition to this
chapter, where applicable,with the following chapters in the Unified Development Code:
Chapter 18.15 Land Use Districts
Chapter 18.18 Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Development Regulation Implementation
Chapter 18.19 Transitional Rural Development Standards of the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban
Growth Area
Chapter 18.20 Performance and Use-Specific Standards
Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas
Chapter 18.25 Shoreline Master Program
Chapter 18.30 Development Standards
Chapter 18.35 Land Divisions
The county may require such additional information as reasonably necessary to fulfill and properly
evaluate the proposal;
(1)At every stage of the permit application process,the burden of demonstrating that any proposed
development is consistent with this chapter and other applicable, adopted regulations is upon the
applicant.
(2) Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily and Small-Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses —
Additional Application Requirements. In addition to the general information required under
subsection (1) of this section, development or proposed uses involving commercial, industrial,
multifamily, and small-scale recreational and tourist uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC §18.15.040
shall include a site plan prepared by a civil engineer, architect or landscape architect licensed in
the state of Washington that includes or graphically depicts the following information:
(a)A site plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer,architect,or landscape architect unless waived
by the administrator(i.e., for low-intensity small-scale recreation and tourist uses);
(b) Engineered drainage plan;
(c) Parking plan(including ADA requirements);
(d)Lighting plan;
Page 10 of 14
Appendix A. PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(e) Landscaping plan;
(f) Signage plan;
(g) Fire protection requirements (water lines, hydrants, fire suppression systems, uses within
structure,eteetc.);
(h) Compliance with DCD land use authorization requirements if not a "yes" use per Table 3-1;
and
(i)Other requirements required by DCD for the review of the proposal.
(3) Additional Application Requirements. In addition to the information required under
subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the administrator may require additional information or
studies i-order for the application to be considered complete. Such information may include, but
is not necessarily limited to,the following:
(a)A phasing plan, acreage of phases,and time schedule, if the site is intended to be developed in
phases;
(b) Enumeration of the number of persons that will reside in a dwelling(s);
(c) Documentation of the date and method of segregation for the subject property verifying that
the lot or lots were not created in violation of the subdivision (i.e., either short or long) laws in
effect at the time of creation, or identifying whether the lots were created prior to the advent of
Ghapter chapter 58.16 RCW in 1937(now codified in GhapteF chapter 58.17 RCW);
(d) A recorded survey of the subject property in-order to verify property boundaries and setback
measurements;
(e) Special reports pursuant to GhapteF chapter 18.22 JCC, Article IX or as required by the
administrator.
(4) Application Requirements in Other Applicable Regulations. Applications for the following
land use permits must satisfy JCC § 18.40.100(1), (2) and, if required, (3), and the following
provisions of this Unified Development Code and applicable county ordinances and regulations:
(a)Building permits under the Jefferson County building code,Chapter 15.05 JCC,or its successor
ordinance;
(b)On-site septic systems pursuant to Chapter 8.15 JCC;
(c)Critical areas variance under JCC § 18.22.250;
(d) Reasonable economic use exception permits under JCC § 18.22.260;
Page 11 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(e) Planned rural residential developments(PRRDs)under Article VI-M of Chapter 18.15 JCC;
(f)Cottage industries under JCC § 18.20.170;
(g)Home businesses under JCC § 18.20.200;
(h)Temporary outdoor use permits under JCC § 18.20.380;
(i) Stormwater management permits under JCC § 18.30.070;
(j) Sign permits under JCC § 18.30.150;
(k) Boundary line adjustments under Article II of Chapter 18.35 JCC;
(1) Short plats under Article III of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
(m)Long plats under Article IV of Ghapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
(n) Binding site plans under Article V of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
(o) Written exemptions, shoreline substantial development permits for primary and secondary
uses, and shoreline conditional use and variance permits under the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program;
(p) Wireless telecommunications permits under JCC § 18.20.130 and Chapter chapter 18.42 JCC;
and
(q) Plat alterations under Article VII of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC;
(r) Unit lot subdivisions under Article IX of Chapter chapter 18.35 JCC.
All application requirements identified in other code sections that supplement or supersede the
requirements of this chapter shall be met before an application is deemed complete.
(5) Waivers. The administrator may waive any specific submittal requirements determined to be
unnecessary for review of any application. In such event, the administrator shall document the
waiver in the project file or project log.
Chapter 18.45 JCC:
18.45.080 Final docket— Planning commission and board of county commissioners' review.
(1)Planning Commission Review.All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed
and assessed by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of
county commissioners after holding at least one open record public hearing.
Page 12 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(a)Notice.The hearing before the planning commission shall be noticed by one publication in the
official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a
copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. This notice shall include the
following:
(i)The purpose(s)of amending and/or updating the comprehensive plan;
(ii)The deadline for submitting comments on the amendments; and
(iii) A tentative hearing schedule; continued hearings may be held by the planning commission,.
but no additional notices need be published.
(b) Required Findings—Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall
develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC § 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)through(4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(i)Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment for the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of the
comprehensive plan;
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the
comprehensive plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which
was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County
comprehensive plan; and
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County.
(c)Additional Required Findings—Formal Site-Specific Amendments. In addition to the findings
required in subsection (1)(b) of this section, to recommend approval of a formal site-specific
proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan comprehensive plan, the planning commission must
also make the following findings:
(i) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation in
chapter 18.32 JCC and does not adversely affect the LOS 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
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;
Page 13 of 14
Appendix A.PC Recommended Transportation Concurrency Ordinance
(iv)In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map,the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated-land u e proposed 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 shall not require changing 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 bases of the Co ehen 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 County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-
jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
(d) Recommendation. The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a
recommendation to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s)be denied,
approved, or approved with conditions or modifications.
Page 14 of 14