HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda 06-03-2015621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
June 3, 2015
6:30 pm
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of 05/20 Hearing Minutes
Staff Updates
Commissioner Announcements
6:45 pm
DISCUSSION
Topic Speaker Page(s)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Food Sustainability David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner 4 - 19
Housing Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner 20 - 39
UDC AMENDMENTS
Critical Area Ordinance Carl Smith, DCD Director 40 - 43
7:45 pm
OBSERVER COMMENT
When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address.
Please be aware that the observer comment period is:
•An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session.
The Planning Commission is not required to provide response;
•Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there’s time;
•Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record;
•May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit.
8:15 pm
Summary of today’s meeting
Follow-up action items
Agenda Items for 07/01 meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission HEARING MINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
May 20, 2015
Page 1 of 3
Call to Order at 6:30 pm
ROLL CALL
District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: U-Absence Smith: Present Brotherton: Present Carl Smith, DCD Director Felder: Present Farmer: Present Giske: E-Absence Colleen Zmolek, DCD Associate Planner Koan: Present Sircely: E-Absence Hull: Present
Public in Attendance: Approximately 45
Approval of Agenda: Richard Hull approved the agenda. Approval of Minutes: Tom Brotherton moved to approve the 05/06/2015 meeting minutes. Gary Felder seconded. 6 approved. 0 opposed. 0 abstained.
STAFF UPDATESCarl Smith: Announced the BOCC would be holding a special meeting 05/21 to discuss the outcome of tonight’s hearing.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTSNone
PUBLIC HEARING
UDC Text Amendment regarding agriculture, including recreational marijuana: Staff presented proposed regulations for producing, processing, and retail sales for recreational marijuana.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY Peter Geerlofs: Enjoys dark skies and has concerns regarding security cameras, outdoor lighting, and fertilizers. Kyle Craig: Addressed Mr. Geerlof’s concerns regarding outdoor lighting. Stated that 12 consecutive hours of darkness are essential for plant growth. Opposed to the proposed Conditional Use Permits required in certain zones. Accessory uses listed in the Jefferson County Code. DCD is corresponding with LCB objecting to my proposed operation Karen Page: Would prefer more stringent rules, but urges the Planning Commission to adopt the proposed code amendment. Robin Fitch: Concerns for water usage on Marrowstone Island. Roger Short: No clue what’s happening. Jacob Johnsen: Family has farmed shellfish for 100 years. Has concerns for water runoff. Tribes have concerns that proposed regulations have not been brought to their attention. Vicky Costakis: Voted for I-502 with the assumption that the County would protect property owners. Roger Hall: The proposed regulations are beyond repressive. Commissioner Sullivan asked that the regulations be fair. Opposes the proposed regulations. Jean Ball: Proposed regulations mirror fear, not reality. Check the LCB’s regulations regarding water usage. Disagrees with the description that marijuana is considered “profoundly different” as listed in the proposed Findings of Fact. Opposes the proposed regulations. Tim Wilkins: Permits for 8’ fences in Jefferson County are impossible to obtain. Kitsap County is more accommodating. Jefferson County is the only county that requires a fence to withstand 110 mph winds and to submit a stormwater worksheet. Would prefer a “yes” use rather than the proposed Conditional Use permit.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 45
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission HEARING MINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 3
Linda Gately: No comment. Chris Chase: Jefferson County resident for 30 years. Concerns for recreational marijuana operations in rural residential zones. The setbacks proposed are inadequate. Would prefer the proposed 5% of lot coverage in residential zones reduced to 2%. Keith Apgar: Recommends a setback of 50’ versus the proposed 25’. Concerns for cameras videotaping children/private lives of residents. Dianna Wiklund: Commercial grow operations do not belong in rural residential areas, especially if it would require stringent surveillance. Elsa Wiklund: Objects to the grow operations in rural residential areas. Concerns regarding adjacent wetlands. Glenn Woodbury: Who is the administrator that has “discretionary” authority? Richard Hull, PC vice-chair: That is a matter to be discussed at another time. Todd Oestreich: Primary concern is water. Agrees with Peter Geerlofs regarding bright lights hindering dark skies. Who will be regulating to proposed code? Colum Tinley: Proposed code seems discriminatory and complex for a simple issue such as marijuana. Opposed to proposed code. Janet Welch: Limit agriculture based on scale, not crop. Because the state regulates marijuana differently, it creates more impact, and therefore we must regulate differently as well. It’s better to know what the regulations are, instead of the discretionary process. Lisa Gilley: The crop is different and illegal in many other states. Voted in favor of I-502, but would like property owners to be protected. Access to the facilities should be directly from the road, not from easements. Jacob Johnsen: Explained an unfortunate circumstance recently with neighbor dogs that required veterinary assistance due to ingesting marijuana. What happens with the by-product from crops? Gary Johnson: Agrees with WSLCB’s setbacks for fences. Prefers no increase to setbacks. Someone from the audience tonight wondered who would be regulating the operation. Everyone will be regulating. Wayne Funk: The state requires that any by-product be ground up and mixed 50/50 with soil, and disposed of at a top-soil disposal site or dump. My dogs also became ill from neighbor’s apple composting. Kristen Oas: Would prefer a notification process for operations in rural residential areas. We also grow crops, but it’s not regulated with surveillance, lighting, and fences. Industrial areas are more compatible for monitoring and regulating these operations. Jean Ball: Clarified that infrared lights are used, not all-night lighting. Water usage is hard to come by without water rights. Public Testimony closed at 7:52 pm DELIBERATION Tom Brotherton: Performance standards should be revised from “protective measures” to “restrictive measures” in general provisions and setbacks. Disclosed his interest in a marijuana retail shop. Suggested removal of #12 of the revised Findings of Fact: ‘Its illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recreational marijuana is produced (grown) or processed to be an “attractive nuisance” for criminals, vandals and minors, said “attractive nuisance” status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County.’ Richard Hull, Cynthia Koan, Gary Felder, Patricia Farmer, Lorna Smith were in favor of retaining the above-referenced text.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 2 of 45
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
P: 360-379-4450
F: 360-379-4451
plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Jefferson County Planning Commission HEARING MINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 3
Patricia Farmer moved that the UDC text amendment be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners with suggested changes regarding use of “restrictive measures” instead of “protective measures” 6 in favor. 0 opposed. 0 abstained. Adjourned at 8:40 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2015. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Kevin Coker, Chair Elizabeth Williams, PC Secretary/DCD Planning Clerk
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 3 of 45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
4
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
5
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
6
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
7
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
8
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
9
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
10
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
11
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
12
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
13
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
14
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
15
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
16
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
17
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
18
of
45
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Me
e
t
i
n
g
06
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
5
Pa
g
e
19
of
45
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Building Permits & Inspections | Development Consistency Review | Long Range Planning | Watershed Stewardship Resource Center
Page 1 of 1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner
DATE: May 26, 2015
RE: Proposed amendments of Chapter 5: Housing Element of the Comp Plan Update
______________________________________________________________________________________
One important element of the Comprehensive Plan update is the Housing Element, particularly
addressing affordable housing. The updates on this chapter are a work in progress, therefore the
information and updates in this packet are not inclusive.
At a Planning Commission Meeting in 2010, work was done with the Planning Commissioners on what
in the Housing Element should be updated. Notes from this meeting were compiled and reviewed by
DCD. In these notes, one of the large comments is the need for the background information to be more
current and the updating of the tables to reflect this updated information as well.
The contents of the Housing Element contains a large amount of information based off of statistics.
Currently the data being used in the Plan is from 1990 and 2000 Census data. DCD feels that the data
from 1990 is outdated for this topic and propose that the 1990 data be updated with 2010 data that has
been obtained from the 2010 Census.
In addition to the updating of data currently in the chapter, there is also updating of new information
which belongs in the chapter since the last Comprehensive Plan update in 2004.
Another proposed amendment to this Element is to address the Housing Action Plan Network and
Housing Action Plan. The proposal includes a paragraph (Page 5-13) that provides information
regarding the purpose of this plan. As the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Housing Action
Plan in 2006 with an amendment in 2007, and with the last update to the Comprehensive Plan being in
2004, this information is relevant and should now be added to the Comprehensive Plan.
As the Housing Action Plan has been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson
County and DCD are supportive of the goals and strategies for affordable housing that are addressed in
the Plan. DCD staff has drawn information from these tasks in the Housing Action Plan to create the
proposed Goal and Policies addressed on Page 5-16 of the Housing Element. The policies being
proposed are in support of suitable goals in relation to the County’s capacity.
Also, the Jefferson and Clallam Housing Authorities have since became one housing authority known
as the Peninsula Housing Authority. Updating what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan as the
Jefferson County Housing Authority to what it is known by today as the Peninsula Housing Authority is
another relevant update.
Staff looks forward to discussing this topic with the Planning Commission at the June 3rd meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 20 of 45
Jefferson County Housing Information
May 26, 2015
1 | P a g e
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: With the GMA Periodic Update, we’ll need to update
the housing data, demographics and population projections.
The Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area (UGA) remains the #1 priority for the county
planning to provide affordable housing. The Growth Management Act directs growth to UGAs,
and the city of Port Townsend is the only UGA in Jefferson County so far able to build at urban
densities. The Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA will be able to develop at urban densities once sewer
is available.
Proposed updates incorporated into the Chapter which were supported by the notes from the
Planning Commission Meeting in 2010 (flip charts):
Updating background information and tables;
Incorporating bonus densities for affordable housing (HSP 5.2, page 5-16 of Housing
Element);
Add definition of affordable housing based off of Resolution 112-94, established in 1994
(page 5-5 of Housing Element);
Adding information form HAPN.
Proposed updates being worked on which were supported by the notes from the Planning
Commission Meeting in 2010 (flip charts):
Updating background information and tables;
Updating section on Housing Resources, specifically section on Homelessness and
section titled Living with HIV/AIDs (possibly change this title to something such as Living
with Chronic Diseases, this could include other diseases as well);
Update section on Housing Costs.
Staff Supported Proposed UDC Updates:
Update Multifamily Housing in JCC 18.15.040 Use Table 3-1
Residential care facilities with up to 5 persons would be changed to up to 6 persons. The
current “yes” use for Rural Residential, Rural Village Center zones and General
Crossroad stay the same.
Residential care facilities with 6 to 20 person would be changed to 7 to 20 persons. The
current “conditional” use in rural residential zones and a “yes” in Rural Village Center
zones would stay the same.
This would observe the definition for “adult family home,” in RCW 70.128.010, “a
residential home in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, room,
and board to more than one but not more than six adults who are not related by blood
or marriage to the person or persons providing the services.”
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 21 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-1 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
HOUSING ELEMENT
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Housing Element is to assess future needs for housing in Jefferson
County by examining existing residential patterns, demographic trends and projected
population growth. Based upon these identified needs, policies are recommended to
encourage safe, affordable and decent housing options for all County residents, consistent
with the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
Because of the existence of complex housing issues, several other elements of the Plan
analyze specific aspects of these issues and propose methods to address them. However,
this Element addresses the full range of housing challenges and opportunities that will
confront Jefferson County over the 20-year planning period, while integrating the specific
perspectives and methods from other elements that address housing. These other elements
are referenced where appropriate throughout the goals, policies and strategy sections to
support and enhance the techniques that have been developed in other elements.
HOUSING BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Introduction
The first step in assessing the present and future housing requirements of Jefferson County
is to analyze the characteristics of its existing and projected population, including age,
household size, income, location and special needs. These characteristics provide an
indication of the nature of the demand for housing over the 20-year planning period. The
population of Jefferson County is given as 26,299 29,872 in 2000 2010 and is projected to
increase by approximately 13, 840 people by the year 2024 2036.
The second step in assessing the housing requirements of County residents is to analyze the
characteristics of the existing and expected housing supply, including location, size, cost,
and condition.
By comparing the needs of the population to the available housing stock, gaps in the
housing market can be identified.
1. Where to direct population growth given environmental constraints, the cost of
providing public services, and the requirements of the Growth Management Act;
2. How to ensure that a range of housing types and prices are available; and,
3. How to maintain and enhance the vitality and character of established rural
residential neighborhoods.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 22 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-2 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Demographics
Past and present trends in demographics are the starting point for considering housing
demand issues. These characteristics determine housing amounts, types, age, distribution,
and price needed to shelter the Jefferson County population.
Population and Household Growth
While population growth is the most important indicator of increased demand for the
majority of goods and services, demand in housing markets is driven by the number and
types of households that are competing for the available housing stock. Growth in
population and households are related, but not identical.
The number and types of households in a community are important indicators of the scale
and nature of the housing needs of the community. A household includes all people living in
one housing unit, whether or not they are related.
An assessment of the present and future demand for housing in Jefferson County should be
based upon household growth, not population growth. Household size in Jefferson County
has been decreasing steadily for the last two decades.
Household Size and Type
Table 5-2 1, illustrates that the majority of households are two persons or less based upon
the 2000 2010 Census data. Nearly seventy eighty percent (69.5% 78.1%) of Jefferson
County households were comprised of one or two persons. Less than seven five percent
(6.5% 4.4%) of households were larger than four persons.
Table 5-2 1
Household Type and Size
Persons per
Household
Percent of
Households
Percent of
Family Households
Percent of
Non-Family Households
1 28.5% 32.2 N/A* 82.5% 80.1%
2 44.3% 45.9 58.9% 65% 15.6% 17.5%
3 12.7% 10.7 18.7% 16.9% 1.3% 1.6%
4 9.3% 6.8 14.3% 10.9% 0.4% 0.6%
5 3.4% 2.6 5.5% 4.2% 0.2% 0.1%
6 1.2% 1 1.9% 1.7% 0.0 0.1%
7+ 0.6% .8 0.7% 1.3% 0.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
* One person households are automatically considered non-family. *Data based from 2010 Census
This small household size has important implications for analyzing and determining future
housing demand. Smaller households mean greater competition for housing resources.
However, these households require smaller housing units to meet their needs, which could
present opportunities for alternative affordable development techniques and housing types.
The decrease in household size is due in large part to demographic trends within the
population of Jefferson County. An aging population, combined with in-migration of retired
persons, has resulted in significant changes to the types of households in the housing
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 23 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-3 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
market. The median age in Jefferson County is 47 54. This helps to explain why the
majority of households are comprised of one or two persons, because this is about the time
when the children leave home. The Master Planned community of Port Ludlow
accommodates a significant number of seniors who in-migrate from other counties and, in
some cases, from other states.
As further discussed in the Special Needs Housing section below, this growing number of
senior households will have significant effects on future housing needs in Jefferson County.
Household Income
The relationship between household income and housing cost is the main factor affecting
the ability of Jefferson County residents to afford adequate housing. As discussed in the
Jefferson County Economic Assessment (2003), by Dr. Paul Sommers, real wages have
been steadily declining. Over the period 1970-2000, real wages, adjusted for inflation, have
decreased twenty-seven percent (27%)..
Housing costs have increased significantly over this same period. Therefore, the decline in
real wages has had serious implications for the affordability of housing in Jefferson County.
Because housing costs have been appreciating at a faster rate than wages, households must
spend larger percentages of their income on shelter.
Not surprisingly, in a housing market, income determines the type and size of housing that
a household can obtain. When household income increases, housing consumption
increases. Generally, upper income households spend a smaller percentage of their
incomes on housing costs, although the amount they spend on housing costs may be
greater. Conversely, the lowest income households are most likely to be paying the most
for shelter relative to their incomes.
Despite difficulties in collecting income data, this information is important because it can be
used to calculate median household income. Median income is defined as the mid-point of
all of the reported incomes. That is, if the reported incomes were sorted by amount, half
the number of households had higher incomes and half had lower incomes than the median.
Median household income is used because the median is less susceptible to being influenced
by a small number of very high or very low incomes than average income.
In 1997 2000, Jefferson County’s median income was estimated to be $30,987 $37,869.
The 2000 2010 Census estimated the median County income to be $37,869 $46,870. The
relatively high median income for a rural county such as Jefferson County reflects the influx
of a large number of financially secure retirees with transfer payments.
The definitions of very low, low, and moderate income households are established by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These income levels are based
on fixed percentages of the area’s median income for a household of four. These categories
are used to evaluate and prioritize the relative housing needs of income groups that may
require housing assistance.
Housing Stock
Past and present trends in the housing stock are the starting point for considering housing
supply issues. The housing stock in Jefferson County is the total of all occupied and vacant
habitable housing units.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 24 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-4 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Inventory and Type
Table 5-3 2 illustrates the number and type of housing units in Jefferson County based upon
the 2000 2010 Census data.
Table 5-3 2
Housing Units by Type
Type of Housing
Number of Units Percent of Total Units
Single Family
Detached 10,181 12,688 72.0% 71.7%
Attached 252 309 1.8% 1.7%
Total Single Family 10,433 12,997 73.8% 73.4
Multi-Family
2 to 4 Units 465 648 3.3% 3.7%
5 to 9 Units 150 358 1.1% 2.0%
10 or More Units 502 718 3.5% 4%
Total Multi-Family 1,117 1,724 7.9% 9.7%
Mobile, Manufactured 2,177 2,512 15.4% 14.2%
Boat, RV, van, etc. 417 458 2.9% 2.6%
Total for Rural County 14,144 17,691 100.0%
*Data based from 2010 Census
The majority of housing units in unincorporated Jefferson County are single family
structures, which corresponds to the County’s rural nature. Single family structures are
traditionally the least affordable housing type. As a result of the relatively small percentage
of multi-family units, mobile and manufactured homes are a major source of affordable
housing in the County. Most mobile and manufactured homes are sited on small parcels,
which further reduces the cost of this housing type. In 1993, over thirty seven percent
(37.3%) of building permit activity in Jefferson County was for mobile and manufactured
homes.
It should be noted that the Census information does not differentiate between mobile homes
and manufactured homes. Manufactured housing units are distinguished from mobile
homes because they are more durable and less mobile in nature. Once manufactured
housing units are sited, they are rarely moved. Additionally, manufactured housing meets
HUD standards, which makes it possible to get a loan to purchase a manufactured home
and the land on which it is sited.
Housing Tenure
Perhaps the most striking feature of the occupancy information is the amount of seasonal
housing units. By Census definition, seasonal units are not available for long-term rental or
owner occupancy. That is, they are not considered available in the housing market.
Therefore, if these units are removed from the category of vacant units, the vacancy rate in
Jefferson County is six percent (6%). A five percent (5%) vacancy rate is considered a
healthy factor that allows the normal and efficient functioning of the housing market.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 25 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-5 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
However, this vacancy rate is predicated on the assumption that “other” vacant units are
available for long-term rental or owner occupancy in the housing market. This may not be a
valid assumption due to the lack of specificity in the Census definition of this term. If the
“other” vacant units are not included in the available market supply of housing units, the
vacancy rate decreases to two percent (2.0%). A vacancy rate at this level would result in
significant inflation in housing costs until the market responded by producing additional
supply.
Housing Costs
As noted above in the Household Income section, there are two components to housing
affordability: household income and housing cost. While household incomes have been
steadily declining over the past twenty-five years as measured in terms of real wages,
housing costs have been increasing significantly. This is true for nearly every region of the
country, and Jefferson County is no exception.
There has been a steady increase in the price of used single family homes and a steady
series of fluctuations in the price of new single family homes. New home prices are driven
by a number of factors for which used home prices are not affected. This includes, but is
not limited to, labor and materials costs, permitting costs, land costs and costs of meeting
regulatory requirements. One of the most significant factors in increased costs of new
housing construction is the lack of developable land purchase price for acquiring raw land
and development costs associated with construction, mitigation, and other soft costs. This
is particularly true in a region that is as physically and topographically constrained as the
Olympic Peninsula. Many areas of Jefferson County are not suitable for development
because of environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, steep
slopes, and poor soils for structures and drainage. Because of the rural nature of the
County infrastructure is minimal, and land development costs must include roads,
drainfields, utility extensions, and other off-site improvements. These costs are passed on
to the consumer, resulting in increased housing costs, which can put home ownership
beyond the reach of many residents.
It is important to note that because of the historic character of Port Townsend, many of the
older houses have been extensively renovated, restored and updated; Puttingputting them
out of reach financially to most buyers.
Affordability
The County wide planning policies definition for affordable housing is: those housing units
available for purchase or rent to individuals or families with a gross income between the
federally recognized poverty level and the median income for working families in Jefferson
County; and whose costs, including utilities, would not exceed 30% of gross income.
Housing affordability is based upon housing cost and household income. In order to develop
policies and implementation strategies that address both components of affordability,
Jefferson County should create functional linkages between housing and economic
development strategies. These linkages can take two forms:
The wage/housing balance is the relationship between the income earned by people and
the price of housing. Ideally, there are a sufficient number of housing units affordable
to all levels of wage earners.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 26 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-6 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
The jobs/housing balance is the relationship between the location of jobs and the
location of housing. Ideally, residences are developed in locations that are convenient to
their jobs.
This Housing Strategy calls for compact rural development within Quilcene and Brinnon
provided there is adequate infrastructure to accommodate the additional population. Port
Ludlow and the Irondale/Hadlock UGA, because of their infrastructure can support higher
densities. These locations can be successful for affordable housing developments because
they have a traditional pattern of mixed, urban type land uses.
However, increasing development in established communities also is likely to result in loss
of existing low-cost housing, either through demolition or through upgrades of buildings and
neighborhoods.
Cost Burden
Based upon the definition recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Jefferson County defines cost burden as the extent to which gross housing
costs, including utilities, exceed thirty percent (30%) of gross household income. This is
the threshold at which the cost of shelter typically becomes a financial hardship, reducing
the amount of income available for other necessary expenses such as food, medical care,
and clothing.
Table 5-4 3
Percentage of Income for Housing
(Numbers of Households and Percentage of Total)
US Census 1990 2000 and 2000 2010
Renters Owners
1990 2010 2000 1990 2010 2000
Less than 20% 703
553
16%
33%
632
23%
2,955
1,386
69%
25% 2,217 35%
20% to 24 % 251
423
13%
12% 294
11%
498
1,068
12%
19% 1,137 18%
25% to 29% 248
485
14%
12% 255
10%
265
651
6%
12% 718 11%
30% to 34% 168
328
10%
8% 275
10%
180
499
4%
9% 587 9%
35% or more 550
1,586
47%
26% 873
32%
352
2,013
8%
36% 374 6%
*Data based from 2010 Census
If a significant number of households spend more than thirty percent of their incomes on
housing, it can have negative effects on other sectors of the economy. That is, if limited
resources are over-allocated to housing, it comes at the expense of other economic sectors
and a diversified economy. This relationship between affordable housing and a healthy
economy is fundamental to the quality of life in Jefferson County.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 27 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-7 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Table 5-5 4
Gross Monthly Rent
Less
than
$200
$200 to
$299
$300 to
$499
$500 to
$749
$750 to
$999
$1000 or
more
No cash
rent
Median
(dollars)
Gross Rent 2000 160 147 468 883 459 262 327 595
Gross Rent 2010 74 145 510 803 908 950 470 796
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
*Data based from 2010 Census
Current Levels of Affordability
Table 5-6 5 shows the ranges of housing affordability for six income groups based upon the
2000 2010 Census median income of $37,869 46,870 in Jefferson County.
Table 5-6 5 Housing Affordability Levels by Income Group
Income
Group
Definition Annual
Household
Income
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Cost
Affordable
Monthly Rent
Affordable
Mortgage
Payment
Extremely
Low Income
Less than
30% of
Median
$0-11,361 $0-
14,061
$0-284
$351
$0-220
$0-263
$0- 185
$0-228
Very Low
Income
31% to 50%
of Median
$11,361-
18,935
$14,062-
23,435
$285-473
$352-586
$227-379
$273-454
$192-320
$238-396
Low Income 51% to 80%
of Median
$18,936-
30,295
$23,436–
37,966
$474757
$587-937
$391-625
$470-750
$331-530
$418-656
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 28 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-8 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Moderate
Income
81% to 95%
of Median
$30,296-
35,976
$37,967-
$44,527
$758-899
$938-1,113
$644-764
$774-918
$ 549-652
$687-807
Middle
Income
96% to
120% of
Median
$35,977-
45,443
$44,528-
56,244
$9001,136
$1,114-
1,406
$787-966
$947-1,195
$ 675-852
$844-1,022
Upper
Income
Greater than
121% of
Median
Greater than
$45,444
$56,245
Greater than
$1,136
$1,406
Greater than
$994 $1,230
Greater than
$880 $1,097
*Data based from 2010 Census
In order to determine levels of affordability, the following conservative assumptions were
made regarding housing cost structure:
As discussed in the Cost Burden section above, affordable monthly housing cost is equal
to thirty percent (30%) of monthly household income.
Utilities, insurance, and associated costs range from 12.5 to 25 percent of monthly
housing costs for renter-occupied housing, declining by 2.5 percent per income group.
This reduces the amount available for rent accordingly.
An affordable purchase price depends heavily on interest rates, amount for down
payment, and qualifying for a mortgage from a lender. Securing financing for a home
mortgage with an income below the poverty level may not be realistic. The additional
costs for homeownership have been included (see above) for calculating an affordable
monthly payment.
Property taxes, utilities, insurance and associated costs range from 22.5 to 35 percent of
monthly housing costs for owner-occupied housing, declining by 2.5 percent per income
group. This reduces the amount available for principal and interest payments
accordingly.
Affordable purchase price is based upon a fully amortizing 30-year mortgage at 9 percent
interest with no down payment.
HOUSING RESOURCES
Assisted Housing
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Rental Certificate
program, a publicly funded housing support program, is administered locally by the
Peninsula Housing Authority of Jefferson County. The program has four objectives:
1. To provide improved living conditions for very low-income families (50 percent of area
median income) while maintaining their rent payments at an affordable level;
2. To promote freedom in housing choice and spatial deconcentration of lower income and
minority families;
3. To provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for eligible participants; and,
4. To provide an incentive for private property owners to rent to lower income families by
offering timely assistance payments and protection against unpaid rent, damages and
vacancy loss.
The Section 8 program issues Rental Certificates to income eligible households. In order to
insure accommodations to households of different sizes, Section 8 Certificates are issued
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 29 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-9 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
based upon the number of bedrooms required to house a family without overcrowding.
Once a Certificate is issued, the household is required to find a rental unit on the open
market. The unit is then evaluated by the Housing Authority based upon the following
criteria:
The landlord must be willing to participate in and abide by the rules of the Section 8
program.
The rent, minus a utility allowance, must be within the Fair Market Rent guidelines for
the bedroom size of the Certificate issued to the household. Fair Market Rents are
determined by HUD for the area based upon annual surveys.
The rental unit must pass HUD’s Housing Quality Standards to ensure safe and decent
shelter.
Once these criteria are satisfied, the household pays thirty percent of their adjusted income
for rent, minus a utility allowance. The balance of the rent is paid by the Section 8
program.
Special Needs Housing
Some residents of Jefferson County require modified housing units or special services in
order to live independently. Others require group home or institutional care. While some of
these individuals have the resources and abilities to take care of their housing needs, many
do not. In order to serve these special housing needs, an assessment of existing programs
was conducted to analyze the scale of need, determine available resources, and identify
potential gaps in the delivery system.
The study of special needs housing in Jefferson County included the mentally ill, the
developmentally disabled, people with terminal diseases, and the homeless. Subsequently,
the Peninsula Housing Authority of Jefferson County has instituted a system by which
“preference” may be granted to terminally ill persons who apply for Section 8 assistance.
An important component of addressing low-income housing needs is the goal of successfully
integrating housing for low-income people and people with special needs into the larger
community. Assisted housing developments are typically small projects, either new
construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing, that fit into the
surrounding neighborhood. For special needs groups in particular, public policies favor
community-based, independent living in small residences, often in single-family houses or
apartments.
Mentally Ill
With respect to special housing needs, the main program is operated by the Jefferson
Community Counseling Center, and is confined to two groups. These groups are: (1) the
chronically mentally ill, and (2) mentally and emotionally disturbed.
Public assistance (social security insurance) provides a standard of living equal to twenty
seven percent (27%) of median income. However, if provided with sufficient residential
support, this group can live independently. These individuals are cared for by nurses and
case managers who also work closely with landlords to assure an amicable client-landlord
relationship.
Developmentally Disabled
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 30 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-10 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Establishments that provide services to the County are the Helena Home and Maria Home.
Both of these facilities are located in Port Townsend. However, because of the scale of the
housing needs of this population, these establishments do not serve the entire County.
Housing is not available for the developmentally disabled in the unincorporated portion of
Jefferson County.
A combination of one bedroom housing units with supportive residential services and adult
group homes has been suggested to serve this growing population.
Persons Living with HIV/AIDS
Jefferson County contains people living with HIV/AIDS, who were in need of affordable
housing. Opportunities should continue to be explored to include this segment of the
population in the overall affordable housing scheme.
Homelessness
Homelessness continues to be an issue in Jefferson County. Homelessness should be
explored utilizing a collaborative process between the public, non-profit, and private sector.
Housing needs should be anticipated to provide persons and families with shelter.
Land Resources for Projected Future Housing Needs
As discussed above in the Population and Household Growth section, Jefferson County will
continue to grow over the 20-year planning period. Table 3-1 in the Land Use/Rural Element
indicates the projected rate and location of population growth in Jefferson County over the
next twenty years.
The amount of land necessary to accommodate these new households by the year 2024
2036 depends upon many factors, including whether the County wants to encourage single-
family residences on existing small, moderate or large size lots, or accommodate more
households in multi-family residences at higher densities. Higher density residential would
require sufficient infrastructure such as community water, community sewer, location near
commercial services, adequate transportation. Port Townsend and Port Ludlow are
presently the only two communities that have level of service standards that would
accommodate the above criteria for locating multi-family residential. The Irondale/Hadlock
Urban Growth Area is planning for a sewer service area that will meet requirements for
higher density housing.
Land Requirements for Multi-Family Housing
Jefferson County contains a predominately rural residential land use pattern. This pattern
allows single-family dwellings throughout a majority of Jefferson County. The Port Ludlow
Master Planned Resort and the Irondale/Hadlock UGA provide opportunities for greater
densities and the creation of multi-family housing units.
HOUSING STRATEGY
Housing cost is influenced by a wide variety of market and institutional forces. Some of
these can be affected by local government, but most others are the result of larger socio-
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 31 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-11 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
economic issues that are beyond the reach of regional policy. One major contributor to the
cost of housing is the price of land. In an attempt to reduce land costs associated with the
construction of affordable and special needs housing, the County will analyze the inventory
of publicly owned lands to determine if any of these lands are suitable for the
accommodation of low income and special needs housing.
This is not to say that local government cannot make important contributions to
encouraging affordable housing within its jurisdiction. Jefferson County is committed to
realizing the vision of the community to shelter its residents in safe, decent, and affordable
housing. But it is important to recognize that there are limits to the housing issues that can
be addressed within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan.
The following components are the primary influences on housing affordability:
1. Land availability, and land use controls that limit the areas where housing may be built
and the density of development, which may increase the cost and availability of land;
2. Governmental regulations such as the Growth Management Act, building and
development code requirements, and permitting, which may increase construction costs;
3. Site development requirements, including infrastructure, environmental mitigation, and
other on- and off-site improvements;
4. The asking price of raw land or platted lots;
5. Costs of higher taxes on building improvements;
6. Finance costs, including interest rates and fees;
7. Materials and construction costs, including labor; and,
8. Population changes, including demographic shifts and in-migration, which may result in
mismatches between housing supply and demand.
While Jefferson County can influence the first three components through its policies and
regulations, the latter four are, for the most part, independent of local government. In
order to provide the housing needed by the residents of Jefferson County, it will be
necessary to develop new relationships with the City of Port Townsend, Washington State,
and the private sector.
Regionalism and Fair Share
Based upon the population projections in the mutually adopted Watterson West Report, the
City of Port Townsend has developed housing policies for the Urban Growth Area under City
jurisdiction in its Comprehensive Plan. These policies provide for the accommodation of the
City’s Fair share of household growth over the 20-year planning period.
Under GMA, the County’s designated Urban Growth Areas must bear responsibility for
locating higher density and multi-family residential areas. This type of housing can be
developed much more affordably than single family housing that occurs in the rural areas.
However, the County is severely constrained to accommodate this type of housing because
of infrastructure requirements. High density and multi-family housing requires a full range
of urban services, including public water, sewer, senior and health services, recreation
facilities, transportation, and complementary and supportive land uses for employment and
retail needs.
Port Ludlow is the only unincorporated community in Jefferson County which also has a full
range of urban services including public water and sewer. Some of its undeveloped lands
are currently designated for future higher density, multi-family residential. Port Ludlow is
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 32 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-12 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
responsible for its share in developing affordable higher density and multi-family housing
both for purchase and for rent.
This presents the opportunity for regional cooperation and coordination. In regional housing
markets, housing issues cut across all jurisdictions and communities. The actions of each
jurisdiction affect the other. No jurisdiction or community is independent of another
regarding the difficulty of encouraging affordable housing to a growing population. Although
each jurisdiction is taking steps to provide housing for future household growth, regional
coordination is needed.
A monitoring system should be implemented to determine the success of efforts to
encourage housing for low and moderate income households. Since both the City and the
County will need to develop this process, it is important to take a coordinated regional
approach using consistent surveys, modeling, assumptions, and techniques. Because of its
role in the regional housing market, the Peninsula Housing Authority of Jefferson County
may be the best organization to lead this process.
This process should provide low and moderate income targets for the jurisdictions that are
achievable in a progressive manner over the 20-year planning period. That is, short term
and long term affordable housing needs should be addressed. The process should identify
programs and finance mechanisms that will result in meaningful progress toward the
targets.
If the monitoring system identifies shortfalls in accommodating the Fair share housing
targets, a cooperative process to determine appropriate inter-jurisdictional and inter-
community solutions should be developed. Potential strategies include regional funding for
low and moderate income housing, density transfers, and resource donations.
Regulatory Framework
The rising costs of development -- land, residential construction, financing, permit
processing, roads and utilities -- have contributed to increased rents and house prices at all
price levels. Some of these cost increases are outside the control of local governments,
while others are directly affected by public policy decisions. When public policies are
developed, it is important to evaluate the cost implications for housing development and
look for cost-saving approaches. Efforts to encourage sufficient infrastructure and reduced
development costs will help make new affordable housing achievable. Zoning, regulatory
and infrastructure strategies that cut development costs can help restrain rising housing
costs and increase the amount of new, moderately priced housing.
Senior Housing
One of the fastest growing age groups in the County over the next twenty years is expected
to be the elderly. Many seniors live on a fixed income that limits their ability to afford
market rate rental housing. Elderly homeowners often cannot afford increasing property
tax, insurance premiums, or maintenance costs.
Elderly households are likely to require special supportive residential services as well as
affordable housing.
The scale and nature of the projected elderly housing needs should be thoroughly assessed
by Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. This study could be performed by a
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 33 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-13 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
joint citizen advisory committee with staff support. The study should make
recommendations to both jurisdictions regarding regional elderly housing policies.
Housing Action Plan Network (HAPN)
The Housing Action Plan Network was a joint Port Townsend City /Jefferson County advisory
board established in 2006 to research the housing needs for Eastern Jefferson County and
create a Housing Action Plan that identified strategies for accomplishing these housing
needs. The Housing Action Plan was adopted by the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson
County in 2006. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners approved and
adopted the plan through Resolution Number 69-06 on November 6, 2006; with an
amendment to the plan being adopted by Resolution Number 59-07 on July 9, 2007. With
the housing crash of 2008 the ability to obtain funding for housing needs became more
difficult for individual housing providers. The Peninsula Housing Authority, Olympic
Community Action Programs and other housing and shelter providers convened a group
named Shelter to Housing to address all housing needs in Jefferson County. With a
collaborative group they are able to better serve the needs of the community. The Housing
Action Plan created forty-three tasks for major strategies to be implemented in order to
accomplish the goals of the Housing Action Plan of which the County is identified in the plan
as the lead on twenty-five of these tasks. These tasks include involvement in: action plan
organization; economic development; planning measures; affordable housing policies;
infrastructure development; financial incentives and implementations; and accountability
and follow-up.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 34 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-14 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals outlined below provide a general direction for housing policy in Jefferson County.
These goals are based on the requirements of the Growth Management Act, which outlines
specific criteria for the provision of housing affordable to all segments of the population.
HOUSING
GOAL:
HSG 1.0 Encourage and support efforts to provide an adequate supply of
housing for County residents of all income groups.
POLICIES:
HSP 1.1 Promote the provision of an adequate supply of housing through
interjurisdictional and public-private cooperative efforts.
HSP 1.2 Encourage a regional fair share housing allocation process that establishes
affordable and special needs housing targets for Urban Growth Areas, Rural
Village Centers, Rural Crossroads, and the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
HSP 1.3 Promote regionally coordinated low income housing in coordination with the
Jefferson County Housing Authority, non-profit housing providers, and other
public and private housing interests.
HSP 1.4 Support the Jefferson County Peninsula Housing Authority, Habitat for
Humanity, and Olympic Community Action Programs, in their efforts to
develop a home repair program, funded through State administered block
grant funds, or the State Housing Assistance Program.
HSP 1.5 Promote economic development strategies that create adequate income for
available housing resources.
GOAL:
HSG 2.0 Promote a variety of affordable housing choices throughout the
County through the use of innovative land use practices, development
standards, design techniques, and building permit requirements.
POLICIES:
HSP 2.1 Establish consistent development regulations and procedures that protect
environmental quality, such as public health and safety standards, while
minimizing the economic impact on the development of housing.
HSP 2.2 Provide the most current available information on environmentally critical
areas and natural resource lands, including maps, to identify potential land
development constraints.
HSP 2.3 Identify and address potential mitigation for critical area impacts as early in
the public inquiry or permitting process as possible.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 35 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-15 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
HSP 2.4 Explore a variety of methods to minimize delays in the land development
process.
HSP 2.5 Allow an accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with a single-family residence
throughout the County.
HSP 2.6 Ensure that the County’s impact fee program is based on a fair share of the
cost of new public facilities needed to accommodate each housing unit or
subdivision.
HSP 2.7 Encourage and support greater opportunity for the development of innovative
housing types, such as residential units in mixed-use development and single
family attached housing, duplexes, triplexes, apartment houses, and multi-
care facilities. Encourage development patterns such as clustering in Rural
Village Centers and Urban Growth Areas, provided adequate infrastructure
and services are in place.
HSP 2.8 Encourage builders to adopt innovative technology such as composting toilets
and gray water systems that minimize environmental impacts.
HSP 2.9 Encourage and promote housing development within UGAs.
GOAL:
HSG 3.0 Cooperate with the appropriate agencies to create programs aimed at
conserving and improving the County’s existing housing.
POLICIES:
HSP 3.1 Support the expansion of existing weatherization and energy conservation
activities and programs.
HSP 3.2 Support efforts of the Jefferson County Peninsula Housing Authority, Habitat
for Humanity and the Community Action Council to obtain Housing
Preservation Grant Program funding for the repair and rehabilitation of
dwellings for low income renters and owners.
HSP 3.3 Cooperate with the Jefferson County Peninsula Housing Authority and other
agencies to identify areas most in need of rehabilitation assistance and
infrastructure improvements. To the extent possible, coordinate public
investments in capital infrastructure with rehabilitation efforts.
GOAL:
HSG 4.0 Encourage the development of housing for people with special needs.
POLICIES:
HSP 4.1 Allow for a continuum of care for special needs populations, in UGAs and
Rural Village Centers, including emergency housing, transitional housing,
assisted living, group homes, senior housing and low income housing.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 36 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-16 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
HSP 4.2 Encourage the development, rehabilitation, and adaptation of housing that is
responsive to the physical needs of special needs populations, such as
building and site plan requirements that address accessibility.
HSP 4.3 Coordinate the development of special needs housing through social service
providers and the public agencies that provide services and funding.
HSP 4.4 Coordinate with Olympic Community Action Programs, the Jefferson
CountyPeninsula Housing Authority, nonprofit housing providers, and other
public and private housing interests to ensure that low income and special
needs housing is sited in locations that are adequately served by necessary
support facilities and infrastructure.
HSP 4.5 Where feasible, enter into agreements, provide services, and generally
support the Jefferson CountyPeninsula Housing Authority through actions
authorized in the Housing Cooperation Law (RCW 35.83).
HSP 4.6 Jefferson County shall continue to recognize and support the provisions of the
Federal Fair Housing Act. Jefferson County shall continue to encourage and
support the development of housing to accommodate disabled persons in
accordance with the Fair Housing Act.
HSP 4.7 Vacant public lands will be considered to accommodate low income housing
opportunities throughout Jefferson County. This study will be overseen by the
Joint County-City Housing Advisory Committee.
GOAL:
HSG 5.0: Support the goals of the Port Townsend/Jefferson County Housing
Action Plan.
POLICIES:
HSP 5.1: Encourage innovative design and low impact site development standards that
will have the effect of minimizing housing costs and promote energy
efficiency.
HSP 5.2 Consider standards that would provide bonus densities in return for providing
encourage a percentage of low or moderate-income housing units for multi-
unit residences providing bonus density incentives in the future Irondale/Port
Hadlock Urban Growth Area.
HSP 5.3 Reference the Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, and Urban Growth
Area Elements of this Plan for public facilities planning in connection to
planning for affordable housing development sites.
HSP 5.4 Consider implementing other tasks that are consistent with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in accordance with
the County’s capacity to implement them.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 37 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-17 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
STRATEGIES
A. HOUSING SUPPLY STRATEGY
Jefferson County’s strategy for providing an adequate housing supply for County residents
focuses on regulatory and cooperative activities to ensure the availability of sufficient land,
to provide a variety of housing types, and to promote affordable options for housing.
Action Items
1.Conduct Community Housing Analyses and County-wide housing needs assessment for
each of the Rural Village Centers and Urban Growth Areas. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
2.Cooperate with public, private and non-profit agencies to undertake an assessment of
housing demands and monitor the achievement of the housing policies and housing
targets not less than once every three (3) years. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
3.Adopt a formal memorandum of understanding to encourage and support the efforts of
the Jefferson County Peninsula Housing Authority. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 3.0)
4.Conduct a joint County-City study to assess the adequacy of the supply of developable
residential land currently served by required urban or rural utilities and roads to
accommodate existing affordable housing shortfalls. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
5.Develop a process to distribute information on County policies and regulations and
changes in the housing market to housing developers and providers. (Corresponding
Goal: 2.0)
6.Consider[SH1] owner builder amendment to Building Code to allow owner occupancy prior
to the final inspection and completion of the dwelling unit. (Corresponding Goal: 2.0)
7.In cooperation with the City of Port Townsend, Clallam County, Clallam-Jefferson County
Action Council, the Jefferson County Housing Authority, Olympic Area Agency on Aging,
Habitat for Humanity and the State of Washington’s Community Trade and Economic
Development (CTED), identify funding sources such as “Planning-Only” grant funds to
pursue a County-wide study of housing conditions as a basis to develop a regional
subsidized housing repair program. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
8.Coordinate and promote an economic development strategy that creates adequate
income for home ownership. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 38 of 45
HOUSING ELEMENT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-18 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
B. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING STRATEGY
Jefferson County’s strategy for special needs housing combines cooperative efforts with
human services agencies and land use regulatory changes which together will facilitate the
development of special needs housing to serve County residents.
Action Items
1.Appoint a joint County-City Housing Advisory Committee to develop a fair share
housing monitoring program and Elderly Housing Needs Advisory Committee to
assess the special housing needs of the senior population. The scale and nature of
the projected elderly housing needs should be thoroughly assessed by Jefferson
County and the City of Port Townsend. A joint citizen advisory committee with staff
support could perform this study. The study should make recommendations to both
jurisdictions regarding regional elderly housing policies. (Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
A.The Joint County-City Housing Advisory Committee will analyze the location,
size, and availability of publicly owned lands to assess their possible utility for
accommodating low income housing opportunities throughout Jefferson
County.
2.In cooperation with other jurisdictions in the region, the County shall support
application for special needs housing funds. (Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
3.Develop siting criteria for special needs group housing that address issues of
neighborhood compatibility and meet fair housing requirements. (Corresponding
Goals: 1.0, 4.0)
Edited by Anna 9.12.14
Comment by Stacie 10.24.2014
Edited by Anna 10.27.14
Edited by Anna 5.26.2015
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 39 of 45
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us __________________________________________________________________________________________ Building Permits & Inspections | Development Consistency Review | Long Range Planning | Watershed Stewardship Resource Center
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Carl Smith, DCD Director
RE: Critical Areas Update
DATE: June 3, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________
Background
An important part of the comprehensive plan update will be the updating of the critical areas regulations at
JCC 18.22. This work will have a high level of public interest and controversy can be expected. It is vital that this work be done in a thorough manner with credible science to support it. Therefore, staff is presently
working of an appropriation from the County to fund a consultant study that would provide “best available
science” and document the existing conditions for critical areas in the County, especially for streams and wetlands. It is also vital that the updated critical areas ordinance meets certain other requirements of the
GMA and of relevant case law. At tonight’s meeting, staff will go over some of these factors, for the
information of the Planning Commission and interested public.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 40 of 45
1
Factors to consider for updating the County Critical Area Ordinance.
6-3-15
Growth Management Act
1. RCW36.70A.030 Definitions (5) “Critical areas” include the following areas and
ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for
potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas;
and (g) geologically hazardous areas.
2. RCW 36.70A.050 (3) – the guidelines under subsection (1) of this section shall be minimum
guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions, but shall also allow for regional differences that
exist in Washington state.
3. RCW 36.70A.060 (1)(a) –Regulations adopted under this subsection may not prohibit uses
legally existing on any parcel prior to their adoption and shall remain in effect until the
county or city adopts development regulations pursuant to RCW 36,70A.040. Such
regulations shall assure that the uses of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or mineral
resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in
accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for the production
of food, agricultural products, or timber, or the extraction of minerals.(1)(b) development
within 500 feet of agricultural lands, forest lands and mineral extraction lands must receive
notice that activities on the ag, forest or mineral lands may not be compatible with
residential uses. (2) Each county and city shall adopt development regulations that protect
critical areas that are required to be designated under RCW36.70A.170.
4. RCW 36.70A.172 –In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties
shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations
to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures to preserve or enhance
anadromous fisheries.
5. RCW 36.70A.560 Viability of agricultural lands –Deferral requirements –Definition.
(Expires December 1, 2012). (1) for the period beginning May 1, 2007, and concluding July1, 2011, counties and cities may not amend or adopt critical area ordinances under
RCW 36.70A .060(2) as they specifically apply to agricultural activities. (2)(b)- local
jurisdictions must review and if necessary, revise critical area ordinances as they specifically apply to agricultural activities to comply with the requirements of this section by December 1, 2012.
6. RCW 36.70A.710 Critical areas protection — Alternative to RCW 36.70A.060 — County's
responsibilities — Procedures. As an alternative to protection critical areas used for
agricultural activities through development regulations adopted under RC 36.70A.060, the legislative authority of a county may elect to protect such critical areas through the
program, within six months of July 22, 2011 (January 2012).
7. RCW 36.70A.735 – If did not elect to enter the VSP, then must do one of four things.
a. Develop a watershed work plan approved by the Department of Commerce.
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 41 of 45
2
b. Adopt development regulations previously adopted by another local jurisdictions (Clallam, Clark, King or Whatcom counties)
c. Adopt development regs approved by the department.
d. Revise development regs adopted under the GMA.
Jefferson County Code
JCC 18.20.030 Existing and Ongoing Agriculture. Any agricultural activities conducted on an
ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated as
agricultural lands; provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at anytime
during the five-year period preceding April 28, 2003. Agricultural use ceases when the area on
which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use. (Ordinance no. 05-0428-03).
(h) New Agriculture. Agricultural activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do
not meet the definition of “existing and ongoing agriculture.”
A) New agriculture is required to meet all applicable provisions of Article
VI-D of Chapter 18.15 JCC, et seq.
(B) Existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from standard stream and
wetland buffers. Refer to Articles VI-H and VI-I of Chapter 18.15 JCC,
respectively. The exemption covers only existing and ongoing activities
related to cultivating crops and grazing livestock and the land preparation
associated with those agricultural activities. The exemption does not
cover new structures, parking areas, or other similar development
activities. New development activities related to agriculture are regulated
as new agriculture. (C) In exchange for this exemption from standard
stream and wetland buffers, the agricultural communities in each
Jefferson County watershed are expected to establish and implement
appropriate agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in order to
protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from adverse impacts
related to the practice of agriculture. Refer to subsection (3) regarding
agricultural BMPs below.
(D) The exemption from standard stream and wetlands buffers for
existing and ongoing agriculture will be revisited during periodic review of
the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, pursuant to RCW
36.70A.130. If the county finds through evaluation of best available
science that the voluntary implementation of agricultural BMPs is failing
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 42 of 45
3
to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts
related to agriculture in any given watershed or specific areas within a
given watershed, this exemption will be modified or eliminated for that
watershed or particular sites within that watershed.
Growth Management Hearings Board and Court Cases
8.Pre-existing agricultural uses are not exempt from all critical areas regulation. However
they can have a less stringent rules for pre-existing ag, but must use BAS to reasonably
ameliorate potential harm to the environment and fish and wildlife. County must show good
reasons to allow less stringent rules. (2005 Court of Appeals re: Clallam County v.
WWGMHB and PPF, affirmed by WWGMHB 2012 –PPF v. Clallam County).
9.Best Available Science (BAS) guidance:
a.Need to meet requirement of RCW36.70A.172(1). BAS must be considered inthe record and must be considered substantially in the development of CAO
regulations (H.E.A.L. v. CPSGMHB).
b.Need to consider a wide range of BAS sources (Ferry County v. Concerned
Citizens).
c.County may depart from BAS , due to “local conditions” with “reasoned
justification” (Ferry County v. Concerned Friends).
d.Guidance on what constitutes BAS in WAC 365-195-905(5)(a) and 365-195-915.
e.Buffers must fall within “a range” based on accepted BAS (W.E.A.N. v. Island
County.
f.If there is a lack of BAS, then need to meet standards in WAC 365-195-920
(cautionary approach).
g.Must give “special consideration to conservation or protection measures for
anadromous fish –RCW 36.70A.172. Guidance on meeting this in: WAC 365-
195-925.
10.If BAS not used or deviated from, must show “reasoned justification” (Yakima City v.Eastern WA GMHB 2012)
11.County was sued by Washington Environmental Council in 2005. County and WECentered agreement in 2006 to amend critical areas regulations. Amendments were made
to UDC in 2008.
G:\PLANNING\CompPlan and Updates MASTER FOLDER\2016 GMA Periodic Update\Planning Commission Periodic
Assessment\CAO\CAO factors -PC meeting of 6-3-15.docx
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 43 of 45
1. In what area of the county do you live?
Port Hadlock Port Ludlow
Port Townsend (unincorporated) Chimacum
Shine Coyle
Quilcene Brinnon
Gardiner Marrowstone
West End
Other
2. What is your preferred method for receiving notices on future Planning Commission meetings?
Newspaper announcement E-mail
Flyer at community center Flyer at post office
Flyer at store Notice in local newsletter/e-mail group
Other
3. How familiar are you with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Know it exists Never heard of it
4. Please rank these goals in importance to you, on a scale of 1-6 (one being the most important).
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Maintain and encourage a small town rural
atmosphere
2. Promote, encourage, and reinforce a sense of
community identity
3. Maintain a balanced community that continues
to provide for and encourage a diversity of
activities, interests, and lifestyles
4. Protect and enhance the natural environment
5. Maintain and encourage economic growth and
stability
6. Ensure and protect property owners' rights
✔
✔
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 44 of 45
5. The Comprehensive Plan governs how land is used in the county; how many, what type, and where
we place business, homes, farms, etc. This affects privacy, noise, congestion, appearance, shopping opportunities, tourism, and your enjoyment of your home. Considering the six goals listed in question 4,
how satisfied are you with the current land use in your area?
Very Happy So-So Unhappy
6. What is the best thing about your area?
7.What is the first thing you would fix in your area?
8. What does your area need most right now? Please select the five most important to you.
Multi-Family housing Senior housing
Affordable housing More local businesses
Jobs Better public transportation
Environmental protection More aquaculture
More local farms More small residential sites
Open the hotel More business zoning
More public recreation spaces
Other
Comments
Please provide your information if you wish to be added to the Planning Commission e-mail distribution list.
Name:E-mail:Date:
Please return this survey by mail to:
Jefferson County DCD
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
or by e-mail:
PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us
or by fax:
360-379-4451
Peace and quiet
Invoke state environmental law to stop the constant flyovers the invade my airspace. Force the Navy to move its air
base from Whidbey to another state (or at least to east of the Cascades!)
✔✔
✔
✔
✔
* Scrap local bldg. codes - use international/national standards.
* Simplify the byzantine regulatory scheme that is preventing people from building and making a living.
* Stop interfering with legal businesses, especially the new cannabis industry.
Tom Thiersch thiersch-public@usregs.com 05/23/2015
Planning Commission Meeting 06/03/2015 Page 45 of 45