The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Agenda 08-05-2015621 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 August 5, 2015 6:30 pm OPENING BUSINESS Call to Order/Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Meeting Minutes for April 15th, May 20th, and June 3rd Staff Updates Commissioner Announcements 6:45 pm CHAIR/VICE CHAIR NOMINATIONS Please be aware that this allotted time is for nominations only. An election is expected to be held at the following regularly held meeting. 7:00 pm DISCUSSION Topic Speaker Page(s) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Joint Land Use Study Joel Peterson, DCD Planner Page 8 New Schedule/Review Procedures Carl Smith, DCD Director See July materials Review Chapters 1 & 2 Carl Smith, DCD Director See Comp Plan 8:00 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 CLOSING BUSINESS Summary of today’s meeting Follow-up action items Agenda Items for Sept 2nd 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 MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April 15, 2015 Page 1 of 2 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: E-Absence Brotherton: Present Carl Smith, DCD Director Felder: Present Farmer: Late Giske: U-Absence Colleen Zmolek, DCD Associate Planner Koan: Present Sircely: Late Hull: Present Public in Attendance: 8 Approval of Agenda: Kevin Coker approved the agenda. Approval of Minutes: Kevin Coker moved to approve the 04/01/2015 meeting minutes. 6 approved with vote change. 0 opposed. 0 abstained. (A later review of the minutes revealed the vote was correct) STAFF UPDATES DCD New Hires Colleen Zmolek, planner: DCD has contracted Michelle Farfan to assist with land use permits for 5 months, 15 hrs/wk. DCD will soon hire for a part-time receptionist. Elizabeth Williams will assume Plan Clerk duties to help staff focus on permit review. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTSCynthia Koan: Attended a work group with commissioners. DISCUSSION Proposed Agricultural/Recreational Marijuana Regulations Staff presented proposed regulations for recreational marijuana as three different distinct uses: producing, processing, and retail. Patricia Farmer: Motion to adopt the optional increases. Motion failed. OBSERVER COMMENT Kyle Craig: Doesn’t production automatically allow for bagging and trimming? The LCB has a distinction between bagging, trimming, and drying. Colleen Zmolek, planner: We took into account the comments from applicants at the last meeting. In Agricultural production we wanted to clarify that bagging, trimming and drying would not be considered processing. Kyle Craig: We have roughly 30 businesses that want to create a legal industry. Instead we are treated as a nuisance. Tim Wilkins: Kitsap County increased the requirement for a building permit for a fence to 8 feet and issue their fence permits over the counter. Carl Smith, DCD director: We have adopted the IBC, which requires a permit for any fence taller than 7’. The engineering is required due to health and safety. Jean Ball: Doesn’t vesting for a fence permit take a month and a half? John Gunning: Representing Colinwood Farm. Urged the Planning Commissioners to consider marijuana grow operations be considered different from marijuana grow. The average farmer is making $5 to $8 an hour. Rick Doherty: Hopes commissioners read the Farm Survey and visit farms in the area. Would also prefer that marijuana be considered a different type of agriculture. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 1 of 35 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center April 15, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Kyle Craig: In Jefferson County, 8 foot fences are required to have engineering that meets wind load. After inquiring with fence companies for engineered stamped plans, fence companies claim that it is impossible for a chain link fence to withstand 110 mph wind. David Goldman: What’s driving the discussion? The building size limitations are small. Jean Ball: 110 mile gusts is a hurricane. When have we ever had a hurricane? DISCUSSION Proposed Agricultural/Recreational Marijuana Regulations PC members discussed whether “hoop” structures over plants would be considered a “temporary structure”. They chose not the address “hoop” structures within the regulations. Matt Sircely: Motion to remove temporary structures from proposed regulations. Motion failed. General consensus for staff to propose code limits for both permanent and temporary structures up to 10% of parcel size. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 05/06/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center. Adjourned at 9:06 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2015. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Kevin Coker, Chair Elizabeth Williams, PC Secretary/DCD Administrative Clerk Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 2 of 35 621 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 UPDATES Carl Smith: Announced the BOCC would be holding a special meeting 05/21 to discuss the outcome of tonight’s hearing. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS None 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 08/05/2015 Page 3 of 35 621 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: Disclosed his interest in a marijuana retail shop. Performance standards should be revised from “protective measures” to “restrictive measures” in general provisions and setbacks. Richard Hull, Cynthia Koan, Gary Felder, Patricia Farmer, Lorna Smith were in favor of retaining the above- referenced text. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Richard Hill read aloud the required findings and conclusions. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 4 of 35 621 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 Tom Brotherton suggested the 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. After unanimously voting to approve the findings and conclusions per JCC 18.45, 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 08/05/2015 Page 5 of 35 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 3, 2015 Page 1 of 2 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Brotherton: Present Carl Smith, DCD Director Felder: Present Sircely: Present Giske: Present Anna Bausher, DCD Assistant Planner Koan: Present [Vacant] Hull: Present Public in Attendance: 3 Approval of Agenda: Kevin Coker approved the agenda. Approval of Minutes: Hearing minutes for 05/20/2015 to be amended to include Findings and Conclusions. STAFF UPDATES Carl Smith: Patricia Farmer’s term has expired and the 05/20/2015 meeting was her last day serving as District 2 Representative for the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS None COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Food Resiliency: David Johnson is ill and unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Discussion included: Addressing enforcement mechanisms Potentially adding two additional chapters for Health and Food Sustainability to the Comprehensive Plan Persistent contaminants in composting Housing: The proposed changes to the Housing Element presented by Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner, included: Updating the 1990 census information by replacement with 2010 census data Definition of affordable housing added Jefferson County Housing Authority to be updated with Peninsula Housing Authority New paragraph on the Housing Action Plan Network and the Housing Action Plan added A new goal (5.0) and supporting policies were added to support the goals of the Housing Action Plan Suggestions from Planning Commission members included: Lowering the minimum lot size requirement per residence Conducting a workshop with a Health Dept. representative Discuss affordable housing obstacles, such as regulations regarding “tiny homes” and composting toilets Collaborate with other organizations such as, Collective Impacts and Jefferson Land Trust, to focus on strategies Critical Areas Ordinance: An update to the Critical Areas Ordinance is necessary in order to adhere to state law which requires us to address agriculture in Critical Areas. From 2007 until 2012, local jurisdictions by state law did not have the ability to apply critical area regulations to agriculture, which includes land zoned as agriculture or enrolled in the Open Space tax program. Suggestions from Planning Commission members included: Request the County Administrator to budget for consultant to conduct a study Lorna Smith moved that the Planning Commission endorse a letter to encourage the funding of an independent consultant to conduct a study of our critical areas. Cynthia Koan seconded. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 6 of 35 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center June 3, 2015 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENT Joel Peterson: Introduced himself as a Jefferson County DCD planner. Returned to DCD within the last two years from the Public Works Department, where he was working on the Port Hadlock Sewer project. Recent work has included the Joint Land Use Study and will be presenting at the following Planning Commission meeting. Attended tonight’s meeting to see how the meetings are conducted. Jean Ball: Birth control should be considered an option to deal with homelessness. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS Collective Impact information to be provided by Cynthia Koan. Housing Action subcommittee information to be provided to Anna Bausher from Kevin Coker. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 07/01/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 7:55 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2015. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Kevin Coker, Chair Elizabeth Williams, PC Secretary/DCD Planning Clerk Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 7 of 35 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: Joel Peterson, Associate Planner DATE: August 5, 2015 RE: Staff Update: Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Results and Workshop #3 Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ Review of JLUS Results: This update requires you to visit the project website at www.kiijlus.com and review the Draft Joint Land Use Study Report. Please review the report before the August 5 Planning Commission meeting with your focus on Chapter 5 - Strategy and Recommendations. Note the discussion on Implementation Phases and Tools Adoption, as depicted in Table 5.1. I included Chapter 5 Recommendations Matrix and some key figures as attachments to this document. We are in the initial Needs Assessment phase where the project identifies tools for land use compatibility. A Memorandum of Understanding or a Board Resolution is recommended as a discrete final action to the first phase of the study. The MOU would endorse the cooperation between Jefferson County and the Navy. The Study or MOU does not mandate anything or recommend a particular course of action. The implementation phase of the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) will use this Report to inform an implementation committee as specific land use tools are developed. There would be a more detailed operational MOU for the technical committee. An example of the more detailed operational MOU is attached. Also attached is sample Comprehensive Plan amendment language reflecting the 2015 Joint Land Use Study, and RCW 36.70A.530, which will be incorporated in the project notice procedures of Chapter 18.40 Jefferson County Code. Staff Presentation on August 5 will be a high-level briefing of the project; a presentation of the JLUS Report, Table 5.3. Strategies and Recommendations Matrix; and a short discussion on sample Comprehensive Plan language and proposed UDC Amendments. Items for Planning Commission action: 1)Please visit our project website: www.kiijlus.com2)Please review draft sample language attached to this update. 3)A 30-day comment period is open for the Draft Joint Land Use Study Report. Please provideany comments before the close of the comment period August 28, 2015. Future JLUS Work Plan Elements & Timeline: •Summarize public comments •Final Strategies and Recommendations (August, 2015) •Final JLUS Report (September, 2015) Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 8 of 35 Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 9 of 35 Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 10 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 11 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 12 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 13 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 14 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 15 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 16 of 35 Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Me e t i n g 08 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 17 of 35 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter __ Sample Comprehensive Plan Language As is discussed in JLUS Report Chapter 5, sample comprehensive plan language is being provided as a resource for the local governments that had plan amendments in process at the time the JLUS was completed. The language provided is a sample only and Jefferson County may elect to amend what is provided here to fit the plan’s format and to meet the objectives of Jefferson County. During Phase II, the JLUS Implementation Committee will recommend additional, more detailed plan amendments to reflect specific implementation tools developed during that phase. Each local government will determine the appropriate location within its comprehensive plan for these amendments. Military Planning Background. Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), located primarily in Kitsap County, has operational areas that extend into Puget Sound, Jefferson County, and Mason County, as well. One of the most complex installations in the country, NBK is comprised of several key properties and assets, including NBK-Bremerton, NBK-Bangor, NBK-Keyport, the Hood Canal, Dabob Bay Training Range Complex, Manchester Fuel Depot, and the Navy Railroad. The base’s primary missions include homeporting, maintenance, and repair of submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface ships. However, base operations also include weapons handling and Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E). Naval Magazine Indian Island (NAVMAGII) is located in eastern Jefferson County and provides responsive Operational Ordnance Logistics to the Pacific Command. NAVMAGII is an essential ordnance loading point for Pacific Fleet ships preparing for or returning from deployment as well as a strategic point for transshipment of joint service ordnance. 2015 Joint Land Use Study. In 2014 and 2015, Jefferson County participated in a Joint Land Use Study (the “2015 JLUS”), which evaluated the compatibility of lands in the vicinity of Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Magazine Indian Island. Five Tribal governments (Skokomish, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, Suquamish), three counties (Kitsap, Mason, and Jefferson), and four cities (Bremerton, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, and Port Townsend) participated in the development of the 2015 JLUS and its resulting recommendations. Historically, Jefferson County and the Navy have worked closely to avoid potential incompatible land uses in the vicinity of NBK and NAVMAGII. The 2015 JLUS described areas of potential conflict between military and civilian land uses and identified recommendations for avoiding land use conflicts in the future. 2015 JLUS Implementation. The JLUS recommended that a JLUS Implementation Committee be assembled to develop the tools recommended in the 2015 JLUS. Jefferson County would be represented on the JLUS Implementation Committee and would participate in the development of the JLUS implementation tools. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 18 of 35 Goal Ensure the ongoing compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of NBK and NAVMAGII in order to protect the Navy’s mission, the safety of military and civilian personnel and residents, and the quality of life of residents and visitors to Jefferson County. Policies Support the JLUS Implementation phase by identifying Jefferson County officials and staff to participate on steering committees and in the development of JLUS implementation tools. Upon the conclusion of the JLUS Implementation Phase, identify those tools recommended by the JLUS Implementation Committee, which are applicable and appropriate in Jefferson County, and undertake reasonable efforts to implement those tools in a timely manner. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 19 of 35 RCW 36.70A.530 Land use development incompatible with military installation not allowed — Revision of comprehensive plans and development regulations. (1) Military installations are of particular importance to the economic health of the state of Washington and it is a priority of the state to protect the land surrounding our military installations from incompatible development. (2) Comprehensive plans, amendments to comprehensive plans, development regulations, or amendments to development regulations adopted under this section shall be adopted or amended concurrent with the scheduled update provided in RCW 36.70A.130, except that counties and cities identified in RCW 36.70A.130(4)(a) shall comply with this section on or before December 1, 2005, and shall thereafter comply with this section on a schedule consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(4). (3) A comprehensive plan, amendment to a plan, a development regulation or amendment to a development regulation, should not allow development in the vicinity of a military installation that is incompatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. A city or county may find that an existing comprehensive plan or development regulations are compatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. (4) As part of the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(1) each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 that has a federal military installation, other than a reserve center, that employs one hundred or more personnel and is operated by the United States department of defense within or adjacent to its border, shall notify the commander of the military installation of the county's or city's intent to amend its comprehensive plan or development regulations to address lands adjacent to military installations to ensure those lands are protected from incompatible development. (5)(a) The notice provided under subsection (4) of this section shall request from the commander of the military installation a written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the use of land being considered in the adoption of a comprehensive plan or an amendment to a plan. The notice shall provide sixty days for a response from the commander. If the commander does not submit a response to such request within sixty days, the local government may presume that implementation of the proposed plan or amendment will not have any adverse effect on the operation of the installation. (b) When a county or city intends to amend its development regulations to be consistent with the comprehensive plan elements addressed in (a) of this subsection, notice shall be provided to the commander of the military installation consistent with subsection (4) of this section. The notice shall request from the commander of the military installation a written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the use of land being considered in the amendment to the development regulations. The notice shall provide sixty days for a response from the commander to the requesting government. If the commander does not submit a response to such request within sixty days, the local government may presume that implementation of the proposed development regulation or amendment will not have any adverse effect on the operation of the installation. [2004 c 28 § 2.] Notes: Finding -- 2004 c 28: "The United States military is a vital component of the Washington state economy. The protection of military installations from incompatible development of land is essential to the health of Washington's economy and quality of life. Incompatible development of land close to a military Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 22 of 28Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 20 of 35 installation reduces the ability of the military to complete its mission or to undertake new missions, and increases its cost of operating. The department of defense evaluates continued utilization of military installations based upon their operating costs, their ability to carry out missions, and their ability to undertake new missions." [2004 c 28 § 1.] Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 23 of 28Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 21 of 35 NAVAL BASE KITSAP/NAVAL MAGAZINE INDIAN ISLAND Memorandum of Understanding Annotated Outline Introduction The following is an outline of a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, the parties involved with the NBK/NAVMAGII Joint Land Use Study may use to implement the strategies described in Chapter 5. An MOU would formalize coordination protocol between the Navy and the community of stakeholders, making ongoing coordination consistent and predictable. MOUs are, by their nature, negotiated agreements; though they may be non-binding in the legal sense. Note as well that the parties to an MOU do not need to include all of the strategies recommended in Chapter 5; they may accept certain ones, or they may add provisions other than those included in the study. This will be up to the JLUS Implementation Committee during Phase II. This annotated outline provides a framework for that discussion consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Land Use Study between all or some of the parties included in the draft. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR NAVY COORDINATION This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into by and between the Navy, Counties, Cities, Tribes, and Other Stakeholders1 (collectively referred to as the “Parties”)2 for the purpose of encouraging compatible growth and Party coordination in the vicinity of the properties and training areas associated with Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) and Naval Magazine Indian Island (NAVMAGII). 1 Generalized terms for the parties are used for purposes of the outline only. When the MOU is developed during Phase II, JLUS Implementation,” individual bases, local governments, local tribes, and other stakeholders would be expressly indicated as parties to the MOU. Also, the committee or agency overseeing the MOU, such as the Military Planning Committee or other regional planning/coordinating agency, may have a representative on the MPC, and therefore be a party to the MOU. Alternatively, the MPC may be comprised of the Parties to the MOU. 2 Additional parties could join an MOU, of course. For example, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, or other agencies may have a role. The decision of one party not to participate in an MOU does not preclude remaining parties from entering and successfully effectuating an MOU. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 22 of 35 RECITALS3 Part I: DEFINITIONS For purposes of implementing the provisions of this MOU, the terms set forth below shall have the following meanings:4 Joint Land Use Study means the “Joint Land Use Study for Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Magazine Indian Island,” dated <insert date of final study>, 2015. Local Government Parties means Jefferson County, Mason County, Kitsap County, the City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard, City of Poulsbo, and the City of Port Townsend. Local Tribes means the Skokomish, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Suquamish Native American Tribes. Off-Base Operational Impacts <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee>5 Written Notice means an electronic or hardcopy communication by and between Points of Contact as provided in this MOU. Part II: POINTS OF CONTACT <Names of All Parties> <Official Title> <Address> <Phone Number> <Email Address> 3 Commonly referred to as the “whereas” clauses, recitals would set out the history of the JLUS process and resulting MOU and the bases for its provisions, including, for example, civilian quality of life, citizen and personnel safety, protection of the Navy’s mission, specifics of the NBK and NAVMAGII missions, and impacts on the use of affected property. 4 Any terms that are unfamiliar to the general public can be defined to facilitate consistent implementation of the MOU and to avoid confusion after execution. 5 Off-Base Operational Impacts likely would include transportation impacts, water-based training and missions, security, freight routes, among others discussed in the JLUS. However, impacts on and from the Navy’s properties and operations may change over time and will ultimately be defined based on the affected Parties joining an MOU. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 23 of 35 Part III: SHORT-TERM COMMITMENTS OF THE PARTIES (FIRST THREE YEARS)6 <This section may include the strategies in Chapter 5 and the JLUS Implementation Matrix, indicated by an “S” under the “Anticipated Timeframe” column to occur within the first 3 years following completion of the Joint Land Use Study.> Part IV: MEDIUM-TERM COMMITMENTS OF THE PARTIES (FOUR TO TEN YEARS)7 <This section may include the strategies in the JLUS Implementation Matrix indicated by an “M” under the “Anticipated Timeframe” column to occur between 4-10 years following completion of the Joint Land Use Study.> Part V: LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS OF THE PARTIES (ELEVEN TO TWENY YEARS)8 <This section may include the strategies in the JLUS Implementation Matrix indicated by an “L” under the “Anticipated Timeframe” column to occur between 11-20 years following completion of the Joint Land Use Study.> 6 The JLUS Implementation Committee and the parties to a proposed MOU may consider prioritizing the commitments within each Anticipated Timeframe according to the prioritization indicated in the JLUS Implementation Matrix in Chapter 5: Low, Medium, or High. 7 See footnote 6. 8 See footnote 6. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 24 of 35 Part VI: THE MILITARY PLANNING COMMITTEE9 A. MPC Mission and Purpose <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee> B. Nature and Organizational Structure <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > C. Membership <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > D. Terms and Voting <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > E. Officer & Committee Duties <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > F. Meetings <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > G. Dissolution <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > H. Rules <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee > Part VII: MISCELLANEOUS I. Nature of the MOU Though non-binding, legally speaking, the MOU reflects a commitment of the Parties to move forward in a formal manner. J. Review The Parties will review the MOU at least <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee> and make recommendations for any modifications. K. Modification Modifications to the MOU will be mutually agreed to in writing by the Parties. 9 As is discussed in Chapter 5, the Military Planning Committee’s organizational rules could be included in the MOU, as shown here, or in a separate set of bylaws. Inclusion of the rules in the MOU would be advisable in the event that all parties to the MOU are represented on the MPC. On the other hand, if some parties to the MOU would not be on the MPC, then a separate set of bylaws governing the MPC might be more appropriate. This is a decision that the JLUS Implementation Committee would take up during Phase II, “JLUS Implementation.” Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 25 of 35 L. Withdrawal Any Party may withdraw from participation in the MOU by giving Written Notice to all other Parties. Withdrawal of one Party does not terminate the MOU. M. Duration The term of the MOU is <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee> years and may be extended for additional <to be Determined by the JLUS Implementation Committee> year terms. N. No Agency between the Parties It is understood between the Parties to the MOU that no Party will represent to any other party the existence of any agency relationship. O. Effective Date This MOU is effective upon execution by all Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding on the dates below written. <INSERT ORGANIZATIONAL NAME OF PARTY> The _____ day of_______________, 20____ ____________________________________ <INSERT SIGNATORY’S NAME> Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 26 of 35 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: Comp Plan Update DATE: August 5, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Background Since the July meeting was cancelled, I request the Planning Commission cover the topics from the July agenda at the August meeting. Please review and bring those materials and come ready to discuss those items. For your convenience, following this memo, is the July agenda memo and a list of potential key issues or themes for the comp plan update and also some materials the City of Port Townsend has used to spur discussion or focus for their comp plan update I look forward to seeing you at the August meeting. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 27 of 35 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: Comp Plan Update DATE: July 1, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Background The following information is intended to give the Planning Commission greater background and context for the comp plan update process as follows: •Excerpts from the GMA on why we are doing the comp plan update. •Extension letters from Dept. of Commerce and from County to Commerce. •Flowchart of the County’s process steps for amending the comp plan. •Calendar of future Planning Commission meetings and general topics to cover. •Current staff workplan of mandatory and potential updates for comp plans, including development regulations. (note: this workplan is subject to regular updating and revision). Proposed timeline Staff proposes to take nearly the full two year extension. Under this extension, our updated comp plan will be due to Dept. of Commerce by June 30, 2018. However, due to the County’s amendment cycle, the comp plan would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption in December of 2017, and the adopted plan submitted to Dept. of Commerce in January of 2018. Proposed Process At each regular Planning Commission meeting, staff will present drafts of information that is ready for review. These will include mandatory updates and others for consideration. In addition, staff suggests the Planning Commission begin going through each Chapter to discuss and identify any desired updates. (note: please remember that DCD’s capacity to deliver any such updates will be limited). At the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2015, Commissioner comments included the idea of identifying “themes” that are overarching values or topics that are considered throughout the comp plan. For the purpose of discussion, staff suggests themes could include concepts such as: rural character, environment, economy, health, sustainability, local food, climate change. Public Outreach Staff is very interested to have the best possible public outreach and involvement opportunities. To date, we have the public survey, a proposed schedule of community outreach meetings planned for 2016, and a webpage dedicated to the comp plan update at: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CP%20PeriodicUpdate%202011.htm Other ideas are welcome on how we can inform and engage the public during this periodic update process. Staff looks forward to discussing these topics with the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 1. Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 28 of 35 Opportunitiesto Engage CouncilAdoptsPublicParticipationProgram City/CountyStaffAnalyzePopulationProjectionsSpring2014 - CallforApplications (Closed2/15/15) Winter2015 StaffReviewandAnalysisofGMARequirementsandCompliance JointCity / CountyPlanningCommissionGuestSpeakerSeries PlanningCommissionAssessmentofComprehensivePlan & Implementation InformationalWeb-page / Newsletter / LibraryResourceCenter StakeholderMeetingstoGatherData / AssessChangedCircumstances & EmergencyTrends Spring - OnlineSurveyisOpenfromJune1thruJune30 Summer2015 SpeakUpPortTownsendOnlineDiscussion TownMeeting JointPlanningCommission / CouncilWorkshop PlanningCommissionHearingRecommendationonDocket CouncilHearingSettingtheDocket / WorkProgram AnalysisandAlternativeDevelopmentFall2015 - PlanningCommissionWorkSessionsWinter2016EnvironmentalReview / SEPAAnalysis DraftPlanisReleasedforPublicReviewandCommentSpring - PlanningCommissionHoldsPublicHearing / MakesRecommendationsonDraftPlanSummerCityCouncilHoldsPublicHearingonDraftPlan2016CouncilAdoptsPlanbyJune30StateGMADeadline Itisanticipatedthatadjustmentsmaybenecessaryasthepublicparticipationprocessunfolds.) Questions? Comments? Getintouch. JointheDiscussiononthe DevelopmentServicesDept. Emailcomments toSpeakUPSite250MadisonStreet, Suite3 2016update@cityofpt.us PortTownsend, WA 98368WWW.Cityofpt.us/ Attn: JudySurber, Comp. Plan UpdateCompPlanUpdate.htm Questions? ContactJudySurber, SeniorPlanner, 379-5084orjsurber@cityofpt.us Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 29 of 35 CityofPortTownsendSnapshot Wemustplantoaccommodatethenext20yearsofprojectedpopulation&employmentgrowth. Populationgrowthisslowerthanpreviouslyprojected.InfactPort populationisexpectedtobelessthanwasanticipatedfor2024 Preliminarynumbersestimategrowthof3,052people(20162036) The/34.6%in1992;30.5%today) 15%).Recoveryhasbeenslow TheCityhaslimitedcapacityfornewcommercial(includingmanufacturing)development Zoningbyclassification:Residential:67%;Commercial9%;Public24%) Ourpopulationisshiftingtoanolderdemographic.MedianageintheCountyis17years higherthanthestate(54.6.vs.37.9) Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 30 of 35 Housing Housingaffordabilitycontinuestobeachallenge. Year19902013 MedianHomeprice(inthousands)$110$297 MedianIncome(inthousands)$25$41 Ratio1:4.31:7.25 Aratioof1:3isconsideredaffordable) ExistingHousingStock(2013) Singlefamily3,779(73.5%) Multifamily1,213(23.6%) MobileHomes149(2.9%) 5,141 Householdsizehasdecreased(numberofpeopleperhousehold) 1990:2.272010:1.98 Renterhouseholdshaveincreased 1990:33%2013:41% Nearlyhalfofallrenterspaymorethan30%oftheirincomeonhousing Multifamilyunitshaveincreased121%since1990 Secondhomesmaybeontherise;thepercentageofunoccupiedunitsincreased(7.7%in 1990vs.12%in2013) Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 31 of 35 Jobs/Economy Highpercentageoffamilieswithchildrenliveinpoverty(23.6%vs.State14.6%) Atjustover$41,000peryear,medianhouseholdincomeis30%belowthestatewidemedian 15%) 1UnemploymentishigherinJeffersonCounty(8.1%vs.6.1%statewide) Unemployment+overconcentrationoflowerpaidjobs=lowmedianwage MedianwageforCountyis$19.33/hr.vs.statewidemedianof$22.09/hour Highpercentageofselfemployed(2627%,morethandouble10%statewideaverage) earninganestimated30%lessthanwageandsalaryemployees Relativelylowpercentageofpersonsinlaborforce(56%vs.65%statewide) 1HoveereportDatafromNovember2014 Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 32 of 35 QualityofLifeforallages Openspaceandparkareas,wildlifeandtrees,solitaryandsociableactivitiesplayanintegral roleinlivingahealthylifestyle."(ParksPlan:2014) Acresofpark Cityowned117.35 CountyownedinCity36.7 Goalisforeveryonetolivewithin1/4mileofapocketparkandwithin1/2mileofa neighborhoodpark. TheNWquadrantofTownisinneedofparks. TheCitystrugglestomaintainparks Staffing/10,000populationNationalmedian5+FTEvs.City2FTE Mediannationalspendingonparks/residentismorethantwicetheCity's expenditure PTParksPlan:2014) Ourdemographicsareshiftingasweseeanincreaseinseniorsanddeclineinyouth Lackofdaycarefacilities Greaterthan50%ofPTsChildrenrelyonfreeandreducedlunch. Top5Activitiesinorderofpreference Walking,naturewatching,picnicking,bicycling,swimming(2010ParksSurvey) Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 33 of 35 TransportationOptions andneighborsgreetoneanotherastheywalkbyforwork,playor exercise."(CommunityDirectionStatement,1996ComprehensivePlan) AcomparativelyhighpercentageofJeffersonCountyworkersusealternatetransportation 65%vs.27%statewide). WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationprojectsvehiclemileswillcontinuetodecline untilatleast2043. Transportationisthegreatestshareofcountywideemissions(39%). ClimateActionPlan:2011) Nationally,bicyclecommutingjumped60%(20002010) TheCityhasaddedmilesofbicyclelanes,sidewalks,andpathwaysbutwestillhavealongway togo. Cityischallengedbytransportationneeds. Roadmaintenanceneed:$750,000/year2015budget:$15,000 Capitalimprovementneeds:$57million(20092019) TransportationPlan:2009) Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 34 of 35 AWorldinTransition Climatechange,energyandeconomicdescentposechallengesgloballyandlocally. Locally,wecanexpect: 2Avgannualtemperaturesin2050tobe4.5°Fto5.8°Fwarmer municipalwatersupplies,andstormwatersystems Increasingoceanacidificationimpactsecosystemsandfishingindustry. 2Relativeto1950-1999 Planning Commission Meeting 08/05/2015 Page 35 of 35